The Instigator
JimShady
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
cakerman
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

The quantum fluctuations arguement dissproves the existence of God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
cakerman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,570 times Debate No: 102704
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (50)
Votes (1)

 

JimShady

Con

Whenever a theist puts forth the question "how does something come from nothing?", atheists have a very scientific and seemingly full proof answer of quantum fluctuations.

Quantum fluctuations are "random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness." [1] This is a source used from the seemingly atheist person I am debating. The article says that because of these quantum fluctuations, the universe/big bang can produce itself without need of a God. The article states "The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there."

This argument used widely by atheists for the origin of the universe, however, is flawed, and I will be explaining why in Round 2.

Round 1: Acceptance, questions, definitions.
Round 2: Arguments by both sides, no rebuttals.
Round 3: Rebuttals from both sides, no new arguments.

If for some reason you run out of character room for sources are something, you can use the comments- within reason. (Note: this is not just a regular "does God exist" debate, it's just a debate on a specific argument used by atheists. Other arguments for why God doesn't or does exist are irrelevant to this debate. Only quantum fluctuations.)

Sources:

1.random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness.
cakerman

Pro

I accept this debate, it seems like an interesting concept. I don't really have many questions as i feel you've properly outlined the rules
Debate Round No. 1
JimShady

Con

Like I said in the comments, my source messed up when I copy/pasted it. Here's the real link:

http://www.space.com...

A guy or girl, whichever, and I were arguing (http://www.debate.org...) over the existence of God, and he/she posted the link from up above to show that God was not needed to create the universe. Quantum fluctuations could be the source of the universe's creation because the laws of physics provide the possibility.

However, I kept reading through the same article, and at the near end, it says something interesting and in the favor of a theist. He says: '"The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?'"' He responds, speaking as a believer, "'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'" Later he continues, explaining why that won't work out... "But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer."

God is the supreme being, he doesn't need a creator. He is the only exception to the cause/effect rule. And if he does need a creator, than he is not God. So, in order for quantum fluctuations to work, the laws of physics are needed, and for the laws of physics to work, a somewhere down the road a creator who needs no creation is needed.

Atheists will sometimes say: "Why does God have to be the only exception to the cause and effect rule? Why can't the Big Bang (produced by fluctuation) be the only exception to the cause and effect rule? What if, as you say God is, the laws of physics just always were and needed no creator?"

The laws of physics are not sentient and cannot think, they are mere things. God, on the other hand, is an actual being with intellect. Comparing the laws of physics and God in the creation of the universe is like comparing a potter and a mannequin in the creation of a pot. Something is thoughtless cannot create, and something with thought can. Of course things happen in the universe by force of nature, but their causes ultimately need the "ultimate causer."

For example, take a golf ball and hold it up, representing the Earth in space. You represent God, and in this case, gravity will represent lack of gravity. The goal is to keep Earth from falling out of space. Let go of the Earth, and it falls to the ground. The laws of physics do not know that they are supposed to hold the Earth in place. Now hold it stable. You, a person who can think, can hold the Earth in place. (You might be wandering about gravity in this case and how it's reversed. The principal still remains the same, however, as the lack of gravity or at least a severe depletion is a law as well.)

To close with, quantum fluctuations, the laws of physics, or anything you want to attribute to the creation of the universe ultimately will still need a cause. The exception to this, however, is God. Thanks to cakerman for accepting, it took a while but hey here we go.
cakerman

Pro

A question I will propose to you, the reader, is this:


Why is it that the big bang must have a cause, but God mustn't?


You could argue that god simply exists, or has always existed, but that argument is unfair, and flawed. If you were to simply state that God doesn't need a cause I could just as easily say that about The Big Bang Theory. Why? There is one fact that completely trumps this argument. Something had to have existed before God. Now, believers will commonly debate that God doesn't exist upon a timeline, or God isn't subjected to the rules of time and to that I ask, why not? The question of whether or not God would exist on a universe parallel to ours is much more complex than simply using mathematical equations to get a result, in order to answer that question we would need to prove the existence of a said God, but that is not what the purpose of this debate is for, nor has it ever been done.

In order for a God to exist there must be an event that created the space in which this God exists, right? It would be illogical to assume that this multi-dimensional plane of ethereal existence has existed indefinitely, because we can track down how old the universe itself is. This very fact eliminates the possibility of a God, because if God is supposed to be a being in which created the universe and all of the things in it, but he could not have created the space that existed before he did, then that logically would mean that the idea of God is, as I said, an idea.

The Laws of Physics, in particular is a subject of much speculation as to who created them in the first place, and many believers do like to say that God ultimately created the laws of physics, so by technicality he created the universe. When you look at the laws of physics from a logical standpoint, the so-called "laws" of physics are only a series of mathematical equations and "rules" that explain a natural phenomenon. When you look at certain things they don't even work on the conventional laws of physics, and therefore I propose to you this:

Maybe the Law of Physics are flawed. Maybe the event that caused The Big Bang to happen is similar to certain phenomenon in which it didn't respond to the normal Laws of Physics. Maybe science has not gone far enough as to explain the phenomenon that is The Big Bang, such as science hadn't advanced far enough to know the equation for calculating gravity 1000 years ago.

Not to be misunderstood, I am not saying that there are things that directly disobey the Laws of Physics, because the Laws of Physics are relative, I am saying that there are physical things in which science cannot logically explain using The Laws of Physics yet.

In conclusion, the denial of quantum fluctuation is simply a tactic that believers will use in order to make their argument more convenient for them. By saying that a God does not need a cause because he is an omniscient being with no rules or regulations you're accepting a case of quantum fluctuation in a sense, and you're also making your argument idiot proof. By saying that something doesn't need to be caused by something you essentially lift every shred of burden of proof that you would normally have, because your point of defense can always be "he has always been around, and doesn't need to be caused by something", but that logically is just wrong. Me, you, anyone on this planet was born as an effect of reproduction, but god, being a living entity, is somehow not subject to being created through sexual reproduction. You cannot say that god was created just as life on earth was created because then, by that logic there was still something that predates it.
Debate Round No. 2
JimShady

Con

Now for rebuttals to cakerman's claims in Round 2:

1. You ask the reader, which is everybody else and me, "Why is it that the big bang must have a cause, but God mustn't?" You answer it very well in your next sentence: God has always existed. Then you say that proclaiming this argument is unfair and flawed. First off, no, it is not unfair. We are talking about God here, and God's definition is the tri-Omni (infinite power, knowledge, and presence.) If he does not display these three attributes, then he is not God by definition. By accepting this debate, you should already have acknowledged that God is supposedly the Supreme Being with infinite power, knowledge, and presence. If you accept this debate and do not acknowledge that God is not the supreme being and etc., than we are no longer debating God, just a finite creature like you and me. If you do not accept the common definition of God, than we can go no further.

2. "Something had to have existed before God," as you claim. No, in fact, it is the opposite. Nothing can exist BEFORE God, and if something did, than "God" is not God.

3. "God isn't subjected to the rules of time and to that I ask, why not?" Because he is the supreme being and is all-powerful, so he can dodge subjection of time if he so pleases. I don't understand how either. There's a lot about God that we don't know, just the same that there is a lot about science that we don't know.

4. "nor has it ever been done [proving God]." True. That what faith is for. Science and you have come no closer to disproving God, or confirming that quantum fluctuations/Big Bang are the start of it all.

5. "In order for a God to exist there must be an event that created the space in which this God exists, right?" No, because God is outside of space and time. And if you ask why again, then I'll just say again that he's the Supreme Being. We are talking about GOD, after all, not just me or you. We may not understand how, because we are not omniscient. But God is.

6. " Maybe science has not gone far enough as to explain the phenomenon that is The Big Bang." Yes, it hasn't. People bash religion for acting on assumptions and faith, and yet science does the same thing. Religion has already reached a conclusion about the creation of the universe, science is still not sure completely.

7. "I am saying that there are physical things in which science cannot logically explain using The Laws of Physics yet." Have you ever thought that maybe the Laws of Physics have not explained God yet?

8. "By saying that a God does not need a cause because he is an omniscient being with no rules or regulations you're accepting a case of quantum fluctuation in a sense, and you're also making your argument idiot proof." First off, yes, I do accept a case of quantum fluctuation in a sense, I'm just saying that even if I do it does not disprove God. Second off, yes, this arguments is idiot proof, and honestly you should have taken that into account before accepting.

9. " 'he has always been around, and doesn't need to be caused by something', but that logically is just wrong." You have not clearly explained how it is wrong, and since we can not understand God, than we can not induce logic-yet.

10. "You cannot say that god [sic] was created just as life on earth was created because then, by that logic there was still something that predates it." God, again, was not created. If he is, than he is not God. Nothing can predate him, that is an impossible argument you can make against God. If you make that point, you are arguing not against God but just another ordinary, "un-supreme" being.

Conclusion:
cakerman has fought as best as he could, but should of ultimately not even joined this debate. I will admit that the burden of proof is strongly on Pro, but hey, I didn't force anyone to accept this debate. cakerman claims that this debate is unfair because I just say God is tri-Omni, so my argument is foolproof. Yep, pretty much is foolproof... maybe you should've seen that before accepting. It is not "unfair," however. Let's say I had a debate that said "Spider-Man is a super-hero." You accept the debate arguing that he is not. I claim that, because he helps people and fight villains than he is. You claim that this is an unfair argument because it not only disproves your argument, but it is undeniably true. Spider-Man fight criminals, and God is tri-Omni, both are undisputable fact. To say that this fact is unfair to use in a debate is honestly a trash statement; if anything that's unfair to me.

Ultimately I have not proved nor do I really have anyway of proving that God exists. Just saying that quantum fluctuations does not disprove God does not necessarily prove him, as someone suggested that I was suggesting in the comments. As of right now, it is difficult to prove God exists, and impossible to prove that he doesn't. I just wanted to tackle quantum fluctuations, and we got off topic but oh well..

Other than that, good rap battle.
cakerman

Pro

To respond to all of the points my opponent has brought up I have something simple to say:

"5. "In order for a God to exist there must be an event that created the space in which this God exists, right?" No, because God is outside of space and time. And if you ask why again, then I'll just say again that he's the Supreme Being. We are talking about GOD, after all, not just me or you. We may not understand how, because we are not omniscient. But God is."

But why is that, and how does it make sense? You have not explained to me how that is logically possible, to assume that nothing existed before god did is simply asinine and shows 0 critical thinking on the side of Pro.

"7. "I am saying that there are physical things in which science cannot logically explain using The Laws of Physics yet." Have you ever thought that maybe the Laws of Physics have not explained God yet?"

We do not need the laws of physics to explain a living being such as a god, nor does the definition of god have any relevancy in this debate. No matter what this supposed god is there has to have been a quantum fluctuation that created his realm of existence. We cannot say that God does not have a realm of existence because then he would not exist to begin with, without a place for his mind to inhabit there is no God. This simple validates that the same quantum fluctuation that caused the big bang is the same quantum fluctuation that created god and the space he lives in.

"cakerman has fought as best as he could, but should of ultimately not even joined this debate. I will admit that the burden of proof is strongly on Pro, but hey, I didn't force anyone to accept this debate. cakerman claims that this debate is unfair because I just say God is tri-Omni, so my argument is foolproof. Yep, pretty much is foolproof... maybe you should've seen that before accepting."

Why exactly do you expect to win this debate then? If you consciously announce that you understand that your burden of proof was not fulfilled and that you have a point and click style argument every single time than why didn't you just concede after my last response? Why did you waste your time typing up this debate and arguing so passionately for something of which you're later going to admit that you never even fulfilled your burden of proof for? Shouldn't a conscious awareness of not fulfilling your duty to debate your side using logic, reasoning, critical thinking or evidence disqualify you as a whole?

A real argument for saying that god doesn't need to be created would be to show me a real instance of a living being of which has simply existed since the beginning of time, an observable creature that isn't god. I don't feel I need a conclusion or a final coup de grace, it's as simple as you admitting you lost the debate, and you admitting you didnt play your part in structuring a fair, and reasonable argument.
Debate Round No. 3
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
OK, but can you vote
Posted by ninjakitty97 1 year ago
ninjakitty97
My apologies; I don't know why that posted four times.
Posted by ninjakitty97 1 year ago
ninjakitty97
Both arguments had deficiencies, as well as strong points. First of all, Con asserts that science seems to provide no explanation for the laws of physics, a point for which Pro did not provide a satisfactory counter-example or rebuttal. Second, Pro's assumption of God's existence as a part of the universe, rather than outside it, was a glaring error, and hurt his argument severely, running contrary to almost every commonly accepted definition of God. Con"s argument from the definition of God is a good rebuttal. Still, Con would have done well to take this further. Con had the right idea, but didn't go much further than asserting his definition. If he had provided evidence for either the logical validity or the probability of the existence of a Tri-omni God (preferably both), Con would have been difficult to beat. As it was, he made assertions with no evidence, which were vulnerable to criticism. Furthermore, Pro was less scattered and stayed on focus better, and his grammar was superior. For a better debate, I would suggest defining God from the get-go so things don"t get derailed. Quantum fluctuations were hardly addressed. In addition, conduct could have been better. Good debate, though; I enjoyed reading it.
Posted by ninjakitty97 1 year ago
ninjakitty97
Both arguments had deficiencies, as well as strong points. First of all, Con asserts that science seems to provide no explanation for the laws of physics, a point for which Pro did not provide a satisfactory counter-example or rebuttal. Second, Pro's assumption of God's existence as a part of the universe, rather than outside it, was a glaring error, and hurt his argument severely, running contrary to almost every commonly accepted definition of God. Con"s argument from the definition of God is a good rebuttal. Still, Con would have done well to take this further. Con had the right idea, but didn't go much further than asserting his definition. If he had provided evidence for either the logical validity or the probability of the existence of a Tri-omni God (preferably both), Con would have been difficult to beat. As it was, he made assertions with no evidence, which were vulnerable to criticism. Furthermore, Pro was less scattered and stayed on focus better, and his grammar was superior. For a better debate, I would suggest defining God from the get-go so things don"t get derailed. Quantum fluctuations were hardly addressed. In addition, conduct could have been better. Good debate, though; I enjoyed reading it.
Posted by ninjakitty97 1 year ago
ninjakitty97
Both arguments had deficiencies, as well as strong points. First of all, Con asserts that science seems to provide no explanation for the laws of physics, a point for which Pro did not provide a satisfactory counter-example or rebuttal. Second, Pro's assumption of God's existence as a part of the universe, rather than outside it, was a glaring error, and hurt his argument severely, running contrary to almost every commonly accepted definition of God. Con"s argument from the definition of God is a good rebuttal. Still, Con would have done well to take this further. Con had the right idea, but didn't go much further than asserting his definition. If he had provided evidence for either the logical validity or the probability of the existence of a Tri-omni God (preferably both), Con would have been difficult to beat. As it was, he made assertions with no evidence, which were vulnerable to criticism. Furthermore, Pro was less scattered and stayed on focus better, and his grammar was superior. For a better debate, I would suggest defining God from the get-go so things don"t get derailed. Quantum fluctuations were hardly addressed. In addition, conduct could have been better. Good debate, though; I enjoyed reading it.
Posted by ninjakitty97 1 year ago
ninjakitty97
Both arguments had deficiencies, as well as strong points. First of all, Con asserts that science seems to provide no explanation for the laws of physics, a point for which Pro did not provide a satisfactory counter-example or rebuttal. Second, Pro's assumption of God's existence as a part of the universe, rather than outside it, was a glaring error, and hurt his argument severely, running contrary to almost every commonly accepted definition of God. Con"s argument from the definition of God is a good rebuttal. Still, Con would have done well to take this further. Con had the right idea, but didn't go much further than asserting his definition. If he had provided evidence for either the logical validity or the probability of the existence of a Tri-omni God (preferably both), Con would have been difficult to beat. As it was, he made assertions with no evidence, which were vulnerable to criticism. Furthermore, Pro was less scattered and stayed on focus better, and his grammar was superior. For a better debate, I would suggest defining God from the get-go so things don"t get derailed. Quantum fluctuations were hardly addressed. In addition, conduct could have been better. Good debate, though; I enjoyed reading it.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
So God is just there? It's hard to imagine God existing inside of nothingness. There must at least be a void or something. But nothing could come before God if he is God. Just saying "God's just there" or anything along those lines doesn't address this point that God needs to be somewhere, and "somewhere" must come before God, or at least exist alongside God.
Posted by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
Never did I concede this debate as pro suggests. He also points out that I did not fulfill my burden of proof. That's because in this debate I did not have the burden of proof. I'd also like to point out your side was not proved either. And to Pikachu: I did address the argument made by him: God exists out of space and time. You have not read correctly. Like I said, pro is participating in a debate where "God" is not God, and although he may not think it's fair, it is.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
RFD:

Con opens with another debate, and seems to refute another debater's points. Anyways, he says God doesn't need a creator and "in order for quantum fluctuations to work, the laws of physics are needed, and for the laws of physics to work, a somewhere down the road a creator who needs no creation is needed".

He then presents a counter-point to the "why does it have to be God and not the Big Bang" question by saying the creator needs to think to create the world, ergo it must've been God.

Pro brings up the suggestion that an indefinitely existing God isn't possible, since something must've created the space around God. He also says he can suggest the Big Bang could have no cause as well.

Con seems to ignore this argument that the space must exist before God so he's able to be somewhere. But he does say something interesting; "Nothing can exist BEFORE God, and if something did, than "God" is not God." Pro showed that something logically must come before God: space for him to be.

Seeing as Con never directly countered the idea that space came before God (other than "He's God. He always existed", which ignores the question), I have to believe that Pro's right in saying that God can't have always existed before everything, since he needs to be somewhere so he exists. Space existed before God, so I'm awarding Argument points to Pro.

While Con had 2 links, they were a definition and a debate, which I don't count as evidence. Pro also used no sources, so it's tied.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
It does seem to be illogical to believe God was always there. He just... exists? This would raise a few questions. I might vote on this later.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
JimShadycakermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for my analysis. Pro points out that God needed space to exist in, which Con never properly addresses. Con concedes that if something came before God, he isn't God. Space did come before God, therefore God is disproved.