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

# The Universe Was Created By God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
MagicAintReal
 Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point Started: 4/5/2016 Category: Religion Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 2,421 times Debate No: 89208
Debate Rounds (4)

56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Ok, then I will correct you.
At t = 0, I call it [+0,-0], it's a fluctuating state, such that time is a fluctuating variable along with the sub nuclear virtual particles.
The fact that these variables are fluctuating negates their stativeness; they don't remain...they are annihilated.
If you can imagine the virtual particles are popping in and out of existence, simply apply that same concept to time and space...you have to remember that at [+0,-0] there's no space, instead it too is fluctuating in and out of existence, and so is not stative.

As a virtual particle exists, so does time.
As a virtual particle is annihilated, so is time.

While I agree that less than planck time is not necessarily zero, at the point of no space, no energy, no matter, no time, no full particles, no radiation, t does in fact = 0, because neither time nor space is stative here, and this includes planck time.

The virtual particles pop into existence WITH time at t = 0, and thanks to this being the origin of time itself, the existence/annihilation of particles and time must be simultaneous...this fluctuating variable is the only time that exists and both the virtual particles and time are sharing this pseudo moment of existence/annihilation...it must be simultaneous it's the only time available.

If we're talking about quantum fluctuations in empty space, when time already exists, i.e. t =/= 0, then yeah, maybe it's not an instant of simultaneous causation, but when there was no time/space everything fluctuated, so all existence/annihilation at that point is part of the not stative, fluctuating time, t = 0.

Did that help?
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
@MagicAintReal

Correct me if I'm wrong, but quantum fluctuations *do* statively exist. They don't "exist and not exist at the same time," because quantum fluctuations don't come into existence at t = 0 -- they just come into existence at t = < Planck time. A value of t less than Planck time doesn't necessarily equal zero, and the annihilation of the "virtual particles" is actually not an instant of simultaneous causation, so it isn't really less than Planck time.
Posted by Heirio 2 years ago
Pro's arguments are actually funny.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Word.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
There were issues with my internet that led to the double post.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
"And in the last days it shall be, Flagoiganberry declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your men shall see visions and shall have dreams."
Posted by brontoraptor 2 years ago
You've provided no evidence of Flagoiganberry. Providesome, and I will believe it. If you provide evidence that it is teal and loves me, I will cherish it.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Was that 2nd non-removal accidental, or did the reporter of the vote report it twice?
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote is more than sufficient, analyzing multiple facets of the debate and specifically assessing points made by each side. The voter did not admit to being biased towards voting Con as the reporter believes, but rather that he was asked to vote by Con. That does not indicate bias, especially as it was stated as a disclaimer.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote is more than sufficient, analyzing multiple facets of the debate and specifically assessing points made by each side. The voter did not admit to being biased towards voting Con as the reporter believes, but rather that he was asked to vote by Con. That does not indicate bias, especially as it was stated as a disclaimer.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.