All Big Issues
The Instigator
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

# The Universe Can Be Explained Naturally Without God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 11/11/2013 Category: Philosophy Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 3,344 times Debate No: 40358
Debate Rounds (4)

25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by uchitrakar 3 years ago
When scientists say that the universe can simply come out of nothing without any divine intervention, they think of the universe in terms of its energy content only. In the book "The Grand Design", page 281, scientist Stephen Hawking has written that bodies like stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing, but a whole universe can. The message is very clear from this: The total energy of a whole universe is zero and that is why it can come out of nothing; but stars or black holes will fail to do so, because their total energy is not zero. But universe means not only its energy; universe means its space-time as well. So if we now apply the same logic to space-time as well, then we can say that the total space-time of a whole universe must also always have to be zero, because in that case only a whole universe can appear out of nothing. Here my question is: How does the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remain zero?
As the universe appeared out of nothing, so initially there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. Scientists have successfully shown how the total matter-energy content of the universe has always remained zero. But we are not satisfied with that explanation, we want something more. We also want to know how the total space-time content of the universe has always remained zero. And it should always remain zero if the universe has actually appeared out of nothing. Otherwise scientists will have to explain as to whence appeared the extra residual space-time that was not already there at the beginning.
If stars or black holes cannot appear out of nothing simply because their total energy is not zero, then can a whole universe appear out of nothing if its total space-time is not zero?
The last question above will further boil down to this one: Do the physicists think that energy cannot just appear out of nothing, but space-time can, supposing that the total space-time of the present universe is not zero?
Or, do
Posted by king_arthur 5 years ago
deterministic nature of the universe is highly controversial, and is more of theological basis as it is a paradox between deterministic nature and free will. Based on present human knowledge if a person is to choose between the 2, it will have to be based on opinion rather than facts. therefore those such as you who accept the deterministic nature of the universe are able to justify the probability of the life from the big bang, but those of us who choose to believe in free will such as me will not be able to justify this .

also the deterministic nature of the universe can be argued as a point toward god if considered in a philosophical sense, order is the sign of life entity and as the whole universe has shows perfect order from inception, the universe as a whole can be considered as a life form (god).

you have failed to address the issue regarding dark energy , dark matter and space time which is the reason this is still just a "THEORY"

p.s. AT ONE TIME THE NOTION THAT THE SUN REVOLVED AROUND THE EARTH WAS ALSO AN "ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY"
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
"accounting for the statistical probobility of life (humans) arising from the big bang(I.e. The sequence of all events from start to today) is so small it can be considered mathematically impossible .. or you could simply say chance but that not provide a scientific backing"

This begs the question against determinism. If every state of the universe has to cause the next state following state specifically, then the chain is deterministic; everything had a 1/1 chance.
Posted by king_arthur 5 years ago
Though this argument had much potential the initial constraints seems to prevent a justified outcome. ..

Back to topic the issue of dark matter and energy which is simply a name given to everything we don't understand accounts for 90% of everything and plays a pivotal role but was not addressed by either ..

accounting for the statistical probobility of life (humans) arising from the big bang(I.e. The sequence of all events from start to today) is so small it can be considered mathematically impossible .. or you could simply say chance but that not provide a scientific backing. ..

Our current lack of understanding about the fabric of time as this is intertwined worn the universe. ...(Einsteins theories show time as dip or curvature in the fabric of the universe and States that current laws of physics arise do to this)
Finally you state that energy zero scenario which also implies a point at which time is no longer a factor.. And under a no time scenario all laws of physics change. Allowing the possibility of God but still allowing the possibility of the big bang
Posted by Jakeross6 5 years ago
None of those texts have it in there, my friend.
Posted by TG2333 5 years ago
i would just like to point out that the Catholic priest who made the theory, he found it in the torah,bible,quran
Posted by Jakeross6 5 years ago
To begin, I would like to say that I am largely disappointed in this debate. Pro (Rational_Thinker9119) clearly laid out the definition of the the universe as follows:
Universe
The entirety of energy, space, and time that leads back to roughly 13.7 billion years ago (when our universe began); excluding any previous (whether temporal or non-temoral) state "prior" to "The Big Bang"

For some reason, Con (Inspired) decided to ignore this definition and carried on as if he had never seen it and even accused the Pro of asserting something not laid out in the debate description. Pro lays this out in his Round 3 response. Next, Con lays out several unsubstantiated claims that did not have any context to the debate. I will chalk that up to the lack of attention given to the Pro's definition of the Universe that was really meant to ward off the Creationists and aim for a good, enlightening debate for either one or the other side. For all of these things, plus more if I am asked for an explanation, Con loses the conduct point.

Spelling and grammar was fine on both ends. Plus, I want to avoid giving a 7 point win as that would probably get me flagged for a vote bomb, which this is not. Plus, it also works as a penalty for the Pro/Con confusion, but I think such a penalty is unwarranted as this is an honest mistake.

Convincing arguments go to Pro (Rational_Thinker9119) due to his well founded, well presented, and unrefuted arguments. Even though Con produced some arguments in Round 2, he failed to refute any of Pro's points and continued to spout unfounded nonsense. Moreover, Pro was quite convincing in his explanation without a god. I enjoyed reading his Round 2 arguments. His Round 3 arguments were only made relevant because of the Con's off topic creationist ideas.

Finally, sources go to Pro because he used great sources such as NASA while Con decided to pull from discredited sites such as answers in genesis and Creation.com. Ridiculous.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Inspire is wrong. We have evidence for The Big Bang; no evidence for God.
Posted by Cristnogol 5 years ago
As Inspired said, there is no evidence for either side. It's you choice to believe what you want.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
There is a reason why The Big Bang is the most currently accepted model of the universe. All of its predictions have turned out to be true... If it was just pure speculation, then nobody would have bought into it! The common view of the universe before The Big Bang was that it was eternal and people were quite comfortable with that assumption. If there wasn't powerful evidence for The Big Bang nobody would have changed their minds. For example, Einstein HATED The Big Bang, and tried to get around it. He finally admitted he was wrong and recanted his position. Now, virtually every scientist accepts The Big Bang:

"We know that this explosion really happened" - Physicist Alexander Vilenkin
"The Big Bang Theory is a solid part of science as we understand it. Anybody who doesn't accept it is regarded by most of the [scientific] community as a crack pot." - Physicist Alan Guth

You have to deny evidence, logic, reason, and science to say The Big Bang didn't happen. Are you willing to do that?! Do you hate knowledge that much?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.