The Instigator
Joel_Asher
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

parallel universes vs religion and other scientific theories and finds

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,250 times Debate No: 87
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (11)

 

Joel_Asher

Pro

I believe that when we speak of heaven and hell we are only speaking of two out of many parallel worlds in which cross ours like a cats cradle. I believe that it all is concieved in a mix of chaos and that the string theory is true for every strummed string emits a wave starting an effect in which changes the course of history. I am not just speaking of actual strings but of cause and effect and how every decision branches off a new world in which that decision was made differently or not made at all.This all has to do with quantum physics and quantum mechanics which covers how chaos is order and picks apart the paradoxes that perplex our lives in this world. So my question is what are the other opinions out there? who could counter act science and the proof that it has offered us? Also to be more specific I also believe God himself is the one scientist and that science and religion can coexist and cooperate together.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I'm afraid I'm entirely unaware of how quantum mechanics provides for a "parallel universe" or multitude thereof. Universe, in the Oxford English Dictionary means: "all existing matter and space considered as a whole." As such analytically speaking "alternate universe" is an absurdity. If x exists, x is necessarily a part of this universe, because "this universe" is simply whatever exists. Per basic logic, A is A and cannot be non-A.

Science, as an empirical discipline, could not offer "proof" of any unknown realm, except by observing it.

If you wanted to debate a religionist, I'm sorry to disappoint you, because all the words "hell" and "heaven" mean to me are, respectively, the state of slavery in which most humans in history have existed, and the state of absolute elimination of force and fraud that hypothetically occurs when enough people agree with me.

I also cannot see how causality "creates" a new universe, unless of course someone were to succeed in backwards time travel, which is unlikely and a recent experiment regarding beyond-lightspeed lasers seems to contradict in any case. A choice or a chance does not of any necessity determine that all options must be realized somewhere, it simply means that at the time the choice or chance was there, both outcomes had to be possible. Chance in nature outside of choice is of course notoriously difficult to pin down at the fundamental level in any case.

I think you'll have to bring more detail of these "proofs" of parallel universes before anything specific heats up here though.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
I travel through time, one second per second. Going to the future. I step into my time machine...wait 5 min., and come out. The clock is 5 minutes later! Impossible? Not with a proper time machine.
Posted by easy2know 9 years ago
easy2know
Ahhh...time travel...my kinda topic...and as no specifics (in the physical sense) were applied please step into my time machine...! My time machine is universal and available to all those with a vertebrate olfactory organ...lol...In my own travels I have gone as far back as 1955...(and as a former dairy farmer some smells were better off forgotten..lol)...others have been known to go where no ones gone before. Shouldn't word play just be applied in a more humorous way rather than in ways to confuse or to manipulate..? This subject "parallel universes vs religion and other scientific theories and finds" is self defeating. If the content was just over the controversies of religion and science the topic probably would have carried on, (and been good) but to apply parallel universes, quantum physics and quantum mechanics,etc. only caused a no learn scenario...and ended..just not reality as we know it...okay to end the seriousness... Picture this Sicily 1949...jk..If I told you touching my forefinger to my thumb..making a small circle I could "physically" push your "whole body" through this tiny hole without opening my fingers, would you believe me..? If you haven't heard this before most would say that's impossible..and I would further insist I could in fact push your "whole body" and "physically" push it right through the hole with no separation of the index finger and the thumb. You would argue I couldn't, and after taking your money..jk..I would take my other forefinger and stick it through the hole and push you with it. With all the young minds here wouldn't this new debate site be an excellent tool for learning, starting with honesty, truths, (no word plays in serious discussions) and actually believing in what your debating about..? Starting funny debates is fine..humor is great..of course all this is just my opinion..but I hope if I debate again the person believes in what they are saying..even if they are right or wrong..!
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
Joel_AsherRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
Joel_AsherRagnar_RahlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by lorca 8 years ago
lorca
Joel_AsherRagnar_RahlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 8 years ago
wooferalot101
Joel_AsherRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
Joel_AsherRagnar_RahlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Joel_AsherRagnar_RahlTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Aziar44 9 years ago
Aziar44
Joel_AsherRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Joel_AsherRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
Joel_AsherRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nahna 9 years ago
Nahna
Joel_AsherRagnar_RahlTied
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:30