The Instigator
DoubtIsTheKey
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Was the universe created from nothing ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 557 times Debate No: 80683
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

DoubtIsTheKey

Pro

first of all,i want to say sorry about my English level.

When we talk about universe,we usually mean the observable universe,but the universe i want to talk about is the whole things,everything,including mass,energy,time and space.

in the ancient theory,people believe things won't just happened,everything are pushed by the previous,and trace to the very first beginning,is what they call "God"

In modern science,a common explanation for how universe began is Big Bang,although big bang might be the beginning of our universe,but it's still not the beginning of everything,. before the big bang,there's a singularity,where and how did the singularity come from? the theory i prefer is the Big Crush,it says the singularity which made our universe is the end of the last universe.

So the question go on,where does the first universe come from,and where does those energy and mass we seen today come from?
tejretics

Con

I accept, and thank Pro for their arguments. As a sidenote, the burden of proof rests on Pro for the entirety of the debate, to demonstrate that - inductively, deductively or abductively - the universe was most likely "created from nothing." Since Pro has argued in Round 1, I will argue as well.

The resolution is vague. All it holds is that the universe was "created from nothing," and I don't know what that means. For clarification of these ambiguous terms, I will use the Oxford Dictionary. As Pro notes, the universe is all of space, time, matter, and energy. The Oxford Dictionary says defines the universe as "all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos." [1] Nothingess and ex nihilo are concepts that are even more ambiguous. The Oxford Dictionary merely describes it as "not anything." [1] But human cognition cannot begin to conceive what "not anything" actually means, resulting in non-cognitivism.

Ex nihilo, as a concept, is beyond the basic skills of human conception. As far as our idea of cause and effect are concerned, there has to be a certain time t linking cause and effect. But sans the universe, there is no real "time" itself, entailing that the universe cannot have been "created."

Pro doesn't provide any actual evidence concerning the resolution. That the Big Crunch is the explanation isn't really justified. Further, I link turn the Big Crunch explanation - that would entail a non "ex nihilo" form of creation. In fact, the universe being "created" itself is an unjustified explanation, since it has to assume an A-Theory of time. Under a B-Theory of time, the universe never "began to exist" at a certain time, but merely existed as a four-dimensional, tenseless space-time block, therefore wasn't actually created. [2]

Pro asserts that there was a singularity "before the Big Bang," but that is false. The singularity existed at the Big Bang, and Pro's link between the Big Crunch and the singularity has no warrant. My postulates are the following:

(1) For the universe to have been created, an A-Theory of time is presumed as an unjustified assumption.
(2) There is no justification for a Big Crunch.
(3) Even under a Big Crunch, ex nihilo creation is not affirmed.

Thus, I negate.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

1. The New Oxford Dictionary of English. 2015.

2. http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
DoubtIsTheKey

Pro

Thank you for accepted this argument.

I accept the definition of Oxford Dictionary,I apologize for I didn't give a clear definition. I think human do have the ability to conceive "not anything" ever since the Babylonian created the number "zero" as a start of human to conceive "nothingness".

Our idea of cause and effect were what human concern in Classical mechanics. According to Einstein equations(not Einstein field equations) made by Stephen Hawking,time is meaningless without mass and energy. So I agree with you that there's no time before the universe,because there was no mass to make time meaningful. But what you said "there's no real time itself, entailing that the universe cannot have been created." is wrong. According to Quantum mechanics,mass can just "created" by no reason,no previous effect,that means time is not necessary for the creation of mass .

There is NO evidence for Big Crunch,it's just a hypothesis about how our universe may end,the same with Big Rip and Heat Death. I mention the Big Crunch was in order to claim that even if the universe is one big circle which has no start and no end,I still want to discuss about how the circle been exist at the very first beginning.

My postulates are the following:
(1)Nothingness is imaginable for human
(2)According to Quantum mechanics,mass and energy can be created by nothing,time isn't necessary for things to happen.
(3)Ex nihilo creation is possible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

1.Britannica Online Traditional Chinese Edition
2.Wikipedia.com
tejretics

Con

Finally, Pro has some topicality, but their assumptions are still false. Note that Pro has no evidence for any of their assertions, including quantum mechanics excluding time as a necessary precondition for causality, and for physics allowing ex nihilo creation of the universe. But all Pro has done is proven the possibility of the universe emerging ex nihilo - not the probability. Pro's postulates carry no offense with them; all of them are preemptions or non-offensive rebuttals.

Pro's assertions regarding quantum mechanics are unjustified. Within the universe, the causal principle is a necessary first principle, acting as the physical version of the principle of sufficient reason. While the universe might override this, that doesn't entail it was "created ex nihilo," since only emergence from an absolute vacuum would mean that. All vacuums within the universe are false vacuums. [1] Mass and energy can't literally be created from "nothing," since an ontological lack of space-time does not "exist" within the universe. In fact, the Third Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that it is impossible to know of creation ex nihilo is even possible.

Pro drops the B-Theory of time, which holds that the universe never had an absolute ontological beginning, merely existing as a static, four-dimensional tenseless space-time block till the initial hyperinflation that drove the universe to expand.

(1) Pro asserts that one can imagine nothing. Just because we create the concept of "nothingness" doesn't mean we can actually conceive of it, since an absolute ontological nothingness lacks a flow of time. Our power to conceive of things requires our powers of cognition - but cognition cannot exist sans time, so our own cognition is contingent on time. This means we cannot conceive of anything "timeless."

(2) The quantum mechanics argument is a bare assertion, and has absolutely no warrant. Only a Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics would allow that, and that interpretation is disputable, with other interpretations.

(3) The possibility of ex nihilo creation is contingent on an A-Theory ontology of time, which remains to be warranted.

All Pro has done is attempt to prove the possibility of ex nihilo creation, without providing evidence that it actually happened. Thus, the resolution is negated.

-----

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
DoubtIsTheKey

Pro

DoubtIsTheKey forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

I extend all my arguments. In conclusion, all Pro has done -- through this debate -- is attempt to show that it's possible that the universe was created from nothing. Pro doesn't coherently define what "created from nothing" is, and fails to explain the jump from possibility to probability. I demonstrated that, via the B-Theory of time, it isn't even possible for the universe to have been created from nothing. This argument was entirely dropped.

For these reasons, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Diqiucun

It's not merely unclear. "The universe created from nothing" has two possible interpretations - A) emerged ex nihilo, with a beginning in time, and B) caused *itself* via simultaneous causality.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
FYI, the terms are merely vague, not ambiguous. ;) Ambiguity arises when a phrase/sentence/whatever has two or more discrete possible interpretations, like scope ambiguity (Everyone loves someone), syntactic ambiguity (As a linguist, I like ambiguity more than most people) or lexical ambiguity (Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana). When the meaning of a word is simply unclear, it's vagueness.
Posted by Blade0886 1 year ago
Blade0886
"Quantum mechanics say that mass and energy can be created from nothing" I don't know where you got that from, but it's most likely false. I think what you meant to say is that matter and energy can be created from the energy of the void of space, which ironically, isn't empty.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@GoOrDin

Matter is compressed energy, and most physicists agree that photons emerged prior to matter and antimatter, which likely emerged via a two-photon "creation." The Big Bang model is the only model with strong explanatory power which explains (1) the accelerating expansion of the universe, (2) dark energy, (3) the homogeneity of the universe, and (4) the cosmic microwave background radiation, and you have no grounds to reject it. Creationism has no evidence demonstrating its truth.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
first Opening this Book is suggesting that all modern scientists and people who acknowledge the Big Bang theory are complete idiots if you provide A NEW theory or simply argue the existing one.

I as a Creationists Obviously do not believe it came from nothing.

At the beginning of the chronology of the "Creation of Life" matter pre-existed Light.
And as it's origin is redundant information, was not provided,
because the proceeding Theorem proves accurate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by CorieMike 1 year ago
CorieMike
DoubtIsTheKeytejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were more convincing, despite Pro's forfeiture. Pro's ssertions remained unjustified and Con well defended his contentions were Pro was unable to uphold his burden of Proof.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
DoubtIsTheKeytejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The Instigator, Pro, has the obligation to write a clear resolution. Resolutions should be statements affirmed by Pro and negated by Con. However, Pro said that he preferred the Big Crunch concept, which negates the claim the universe was created from nothing. So either Pro did not write a clear resolution, or Pro conceded in the first round. Either way, Pro loses arguments. The Big Bang theory does not say anything about what occurred before the Big Bang. What happened before is not part of the theory. Causality is not a fundamental principle of quantum theory. In fact, the theory is that what happens is probabilistic. Quantum fluctuation is uncaused. Whether humans can imagine something is irrelevant. A math description can be proved without humans imagining what happens. Pro loses conduct for the forfeit,
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
DoubtIsTheKeytejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
DoubtIsTheKeytejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.