Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

Was the Universe Created or did it Come About by Natural Processes

Finished

The voting period has ended

After not so many votes, surprise surprise...
It's a tie!
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender / Con
Points: 0
Description
Pro forfeits first round and will allow Con to criticize Creation and give their best explanation through natural processes.
Round 1
Published:
Forfeit
Published:
Thank you GeneralGrant for creating this debate.

My opponent didn't define his terms so I will.

Creationism: is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.

Category
This is in science so just so we are clear:
Science: is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Meaning creationism for the sake of this debate will be about the observable evidence behind it.

What I am going to do
Now the question posed to me would be what evidence does creationism have and am I going to hit the ones my opponent agrees with? The first one if I am speaking about should be easy to meet. The other one well I am going to blame this on my opponent. There is no reason for him to forfeit the first round and by doing that he has put an unimaginable task on me. I have to basically be a mind reader to know exactly what point he agrees with and I reject that burden. I am not a mind reader and it is not a normal thing for people to be mind readers so expect me to counter the common sides of creationism. I think this is enough to say the fault lies on my opponent not me.

=============================================================================================================================

God

P1: Cause and effect has never been proven to not occur
P2: God rejects that
Conclusion: God can't be the case

Cause and effect is a principle that is pretty much required in anything. This in practice would be if I throw the pen the cause would be me throwing with my arm while the effect would be it is going to travel a distance until it reaches. God rejects that by simply not having a cause for its existence. It is basically like you see a pen thrown covering a large distance and then hitting a surface but not knowing what caused it. This is incomprehensible given this has never been demonstrated to occur. This is enough to explain both premises. 

P1: All-knowing and all-powerful are contradictory
P2: God has contradictory concepts
Conclusion: God can't be

All-knowing is knowing everything. All-powerful means you are more powerful than anything else. This can’t be the case together given that if God has the power to know how powerful it is then God is more all-knowing than it is all-powerful but since they both are the same in weight whenever God knows how powerful it is the power of itself would just increase to match the all-knowing nature of itself. If this carries on which I have no reason not to state then God would be in an infinite regress. Theoretically it wouldn’t work so I don’t see how it could work practically. 

More simpler explanation:

A and B attributes claim to be the greatest.
If the attributes are in tandem then it will create an infinite greatest battle
Given we have never experienced an infinite regress this can’t be the case.

All-knowing and All-powerful is incomprehensible for those reasons. This is enough to explain the premises.


Creationism vs Science

P1: Positing the world to be 6-10,000 years old years contradicts our best way to understand the world 
P2: Creationism says the world is 6-10,000 years old
Conclusion: Creationism is false

Chrisitians follow x. Science contradicts this. Science has a better understanding of the world given we can experience the results therefore creationism is false.

Young-Earth Creationism: a form of creationism which holds as a central tenet that the Earth and its lifeforms were created in their present forms by supernatural acts of a deity between approximately 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.

Trusted science source: the theories of natural selection and evolution remain the only valid explanations of how life on Earth developed.

If you would like an argument against Old-Earth creationism then please see my first argument against God. That is more than sufficient in fulfilling it.

=============================================================================================================================

“Natural” processes is more probable than God
Given you didn’t really define either word I have free reigns to define them how I would like. Natural processes for the purpose of this debate will be described as the universe being in an infinite loop, start off cold then eventually heating up and causing a big bang. The universe starts over rinse and repeat.

God will be described, as if it wasn’t clear what direction I was going in, to be attributed with being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

I will posit that my worldview is more probable given there is less or none contradictions. An all-knowing, all-powerful and all-present God must get its attributes from somewhere whereas with my worldview the universe can just be in an infinite loop. The universe is not a being more so a thing which facilitates matter. If it is in an infinite loop then it has no real start basically needing no explanation for its baggage. Where I can say the universe is infinite in its system of blowing up then starting all over again, you would have to explain the motives of God. A person who would wait 6 days to do everything, allows different sects of Christianity to wander around as all being the true version, point of giving people choice to choose Christianity or not for his amusement maybe, why is this God so fixated in humans even though given the right environment we might very well not the most important life on the planet and speaking of planets why are there so many?

I am more than happy to explain things if you want since there is a lot of rounds plus a lot of characters to facilitate that. 

Over to you

Round 2
Published:
The Heavens Declare the Glory of God and Science Proves It
 
What the Bible says about the universe is true. The Bible, in Isaiah 40:22, mentions "the circle of the earth". This of course goes well with how the earth is seen in space as a circle. Job 26:10 says that God inscribed on the surface of the water a boundary of light and darkness. This is called a terminator, where light ends and darkness begins. This can only happen if the earth is a round circle.
Job 26:7, of course, tells us that the earth hangs on nothing.
 Isaiah 40:22 tells us that the universe is expanding, something not known until the 20th century.
The Bible also teaches the conservation of mass-energy in John 1:3 and Genesis 2:2.
It also teaches that nothing will cease to exist because God upholds it. ((Heb. 1:3) Also by Him all things consist (Col. 1:17).
 
Age of the Universe
 
Evolution
 
There is much circular reasoning involved with evolution. Most scientists say they believe in billions of years because other scientists say it is so. Long ages are based mainly on philosophical assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism.
 
Creationism
 
Evolutionists say that that creationism has a "distant starlight" problem. However, this is based on the fallacious assumption of naturalism and uniformitarianism. It assumes that the light got to earth by natural means traveling at a constant rate, at a constant distance and a constant time. However, since Light was created supernaturally God could use another mechanism to make the light reach earth instantly.
For evolutionists to use the "distant starlight" problem is self-refuting since the big bang also has a light travel problem of its own. This is because light is too far too travel the distance in even 14 billion years. This problem is called the "horizon problem". According to evolution, when the big bang happened, since it was still small, it developed different temperatures in different locations. However, the universe has a uniform temperature at great distances. A and B have almost the same temperature. How do these two points have the same temperature then? They could only have the same temperature if they exchange energy. Yet, there has not been enough time to get that light from point A to point B in 14 billion years because they are too far apart.

Since I am running out of time I will leave it at that for this round. I hope Con can get a feel for what I am trying to debate on.

Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Thanks for replying back GeneralGrant

The Heavens Declare the Glory of God and Science Proves It
This hinges on two parts. 
1) If science is align with the Bible
2) The Bible is a reliable source of information

Sure 1 can connect to 2 but since there is no argument independent of science claiming the validity of Bible I only need to argue against number 1. If my opponent wishes to make an argument independent of science then he can to meet number 2. The reason why I only need to argue against number 1 is because that is the proof being used and the number is only a claim no proof given irrespective of science.

"the circle of the earth".
Given my opponent gave no definition I will
Circle: A 2-dimensional shape made by drawing a curve that is always the same distance from a center.

If it wasn't clear the Earth is not a circle as in a 2d shape it is more closely aligned to a 3d shape called a sphere. A circle isn't even in the same dimension that is how wrong the claim is from the Bible. 

Quoting from this link that the Earth is spherical: "Today, scientists use geodesy, which is the science of measuring Earth's shape, gravity and rotation. Geodesy provides accurate measurements that show Earth is round."

The link also states: "Even though our planet is a sphere, it is not a perfect sphere. Because of the force caused when Earth rotates, the North and South Poles are slightly flat. Earth's rotation, wobbly motion and other forces are making the planet change shape very slowly, but it is still round."

From this we can gather the Earth is more spherical than a circle. Even though it is bumpy also stated by this link it is unfathomable to think that the Earth is literally a different dimension. Basically this is literally twisting the truth to fit his narrative. Not even attempting to understand what words mean instead find a way that the Earth is a circle but even if we look at pictures we see a 3d shape. You can clearly see this by how the clouds are more curved the further it is from the middle. 
God inscribed on the surface of the water a boundary of light and darkness. This is called a terminator, where light ends and darkness begins. This can only happen if the earth is a round circle.
This hinges on God existing and I haven't seen any proof for God yet. Notice also that he is using round circle literally sneaking in round as if that was what was said in the Bible.
Isaiah 40:22: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth
Note also that circle is different from round. Circle refers to a 2d shape. Round can refer to a 2d or 3d shape. No mention of round was used that word was put in by my opponent.
Isaiah 40:22 tells us that the universe is expanding, something not known until the 20th century.
Fact: something that is known to have happened or to existespecially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
If you are talking about this:
"He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

I would say the Bible did not show anyway for people to know this was the case. It was simply words on the page and people chose to accept it without asking how to understand it. If belief was the standard used why don't you believe there is no God and let me cherry pick points about God's non-existence to support my case? This is what I won't do because that isn't my burden. I have yet to see an argument that doesn't rely on God existing and whenever science is involved he is almost always twisting the truth so that his ideology makes sense. To him spreading them out like a tent is proof of them expanding not realizing a tent is not spherical at all so that leads onto to being an issue with the circle claim which is also wrong. The inaccuracies were so unavoidable that my opponent didn't realize a tent is not a circle but still used those two verses. I am guessing he thought he would get away with it if he decided not quote directly from the verses hoping I didn't as well but I did.
The Bible also teaches the conservation of mass-energy
Teach: to give someone knowledge or to train someone; to instruct:
John 1:3: Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Genesis 2:2: By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

From these two I gather God did it and God was tired. Nothing specifically about energy conversion unless of course God did it is enough of an argument. If it wasn't clear no knew knowledge was gained to give anyone an understanding of energy conversion so guess the very thing he used as his argument doesn't support the point he made. It is almost as if he didn't even read the very thing he as a Christian holds dear. 
It also teaches that nothing will cease to exist because God upholds it. ((Heb. 1:3) Also by Him all things consist (Col. 1:17).
Heb 1:3: The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
Col. 1:17: He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Guess Jesus proves God's existence,God provided something to be sinless, has a wife/girlfriend/lover? and God did it. I seriously don't know what to say apart from the specific thing you said the Bible teaches doesn't.
Age of the Universe
 
Evolution
 
There is much circular reasoning involved with evolution. Most scientists say they believe in billions of years because other scientists say it is so. Long ages are based mainly on philosophical assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism.
I require examples not claims without stuff it hinges on. You have no excuse. 2 weeks and more than enough characters when there are 20,000 characters. I find this insufficient to the what I am guessing a split burden of proof. I require examples of circular reasoning, science says so and the philosophical assumptions.
Creationism
 
Evolutionists say that that creationism has a "distant starlight" problem. However, this is based on the fallacious assumption of naturalism and uniformitarianism. It assumes that the light got to earth by natural means traveling at a constant rate, at a constant distance and a constant time. However, since Light was created supernaturally God could use another mechanism to make the light reach earth instantly.
For evolutionists to use the "distant starlight" problem is self-refuting since the big bang also has a light travel problem of its own. This is because light is too far too travel the distance in even 14 billion years. This problem is called the "horizon problem". According to evolution, when the big bang happened, since it was still small, it developed different temperatures in different locations. However, the universe has a uniform temperature at great distances. A and B have almost the same temperature. How do these two points have the same temperature then? They could only have the same temperature if they exchange energy. Yet, there has not been enough time to get that light from point A to point B in 14 billion years because they are too far apart.
Remember instead of actually presenting an argument he is ridiculing the other side. This can't be enough to meet the split burden of proof unless he wants to say he gave no rebuttals for 2 rounds.

At this point I am willing not to challenge what he said here and give him more time and characters to explain his points with links and also please title what you are talking about correctly. This should be "Evolution is wrong".

Over to you GeneralGrant
Round 4
Published:
Circle of the Earth

Seen from space the earth actually does look like a circle. There is no way to see the earth, in its entirety as a sphere. No matter how you look at the earth, it has the appearance of a circle.
Also My comment on Job 26:10 stands because Con was not able to give an excuse for that. If the earth was flat a terminator for sunrise and sunset would be useless and the verse meaningless.

"It was simply words on the page and people chose to accept it without asking how to understand it." 

But then, why is it so accurate? Even if people accepted it without asking to understand it (which we cannot know if they did or not), doesn't take away the fact that it is in the Bible and a God, Who did know what He was talking about, shared it with man. Why does Con bring up the circle again? We are now talking about a universe in expansion. The Bible is saying in Isaiah 40:22 that the universe is expanding, using an as an example of when someone put up a middle eastern tent and it stretches out, it is expanded.

Conservation of mass-energy

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant and cannot be changed.1 Mass also has a conservation principle so it cannot be created or destroyed. John 1:3 and Gen. 2:2 are both proof that creation is done nothing more will come about. These verses put an end to any other matter being created. Also, according to the Bible, nothing will cease to exist because God holds everything together.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-can-neither-be-created-nor-destroyed/

Evidence For a Young Universe

  1. Recession of the Moon
The moon, due to tidal interaction with the Moon moves an inch and a half from the Earth every year. In 6,000 year the Moon has moved 800 ft. If the Moon is 4 billion years old, then we have a problem. 1.5 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth!

  1. Magnetic Field
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying. It decays 5% percent every century. 6,000 years ago the magnetic field would have been stronger, but able to support life on Earth. However, if the Earth were millions of years old the magnetic field would have been too strong to support life.

  1. Magnetic Fields of Planets
Magnetic fields of planets are very strong today, but if the planets were billions of years old their magnetic fields would have disappeared

  1. Spiral Galaxies
If these galaxies were billions of years old they would not have spiral arms anymore.

  1. Comets
There would be no comets in our solar system if it was billions of years old. Because all the comets still have "tails" to them means our solar system is young.

Published:
Comments
I don't think Pro made a good attempt at rebutting my arguments. He could do so in the last round but that means I have no time to rebut my arguments that I gave in round 1. 

Circle of the Earth

Seen from space the earth actually does look like a circle. There is no way to see the earth, in its entirety as a sphere. No matter how you look at the earth, it has the appearance of a circle.
I have already rebutted this and he didn't attempt to rebut what I said earlier here therefore I will simply copy what I said earlier as the response in the hopes he does actually respond to it:
"Given my opponent gave no definition I will
Circle: A 2-dimensional shape made by drawing a curve that is always the same distance from a center.

If it wasn't clear the Earth is not a circle as in a 2d shape it is more closely aligned to a 3d shape called a sphere. A circle isn't even in the same dimension that is how wrong the claim is from the Bible. 

Quoting from this link that the Earth is spherical: "Today, scientists use geodesy, which is the science of measuring Earth's shape, gravity and rotation. Geodesy provides accurate measurements that show Earth is round."

The link also states: "Even though our planet is a sphere, it is not a perfect sphere. Because of the force caused when Earth rotates, the North and South Poles are slightly flat. Earth's rotation, wobbly motion and other forces are making the planet change shape very slowly, but it is still round."

From this we can gather the Earth is more spherical than a circle. Even though it is bumpy also stated by this link it is unfathomable to think that the Earth is literally a different dimension. Basically this is literally twisting the truth to fit his narrative. Not even attempting to understand what words mean instead find a way that the Earth is a circle but even if we look at pictures we see a 3d shape. You can clearly see this by how the clouds are more curved the further it is from the middle."
Also My comment on Job 26:10 stands because Con was not able to give an excuse for that. If the earth was flat a terminator for sunrise and sunset would be useless and the verse meaningless. 
I didn't give an excuse, I gave an explanation. I don't know why you are literally use the flat Earth as an example when your opponent doesn't agree with that theory. Having a verse being meaningless has no impact on my argument because as far as I know I haven't accepted the Bible to be a reliable source of information.

"It was simply words on the page and people chose to accept it without asking how to understand it." 

But then, why is it so accurate? Even if people accepted it without asking to understand it (which we cannot know if they did or not), doesn't take away the fact that it is in the Bible and a God, Who did know what He was talking about, shared it with man.
Your feeling for it being accurate doesn't translate to a logical argument instead shows your biases. My opponent makes the claim that the claim I made says nothing about the Bible and God being incorrect. To that I say I made a better argument later on which he neglected to quote which is this "If belief was the standard used why don't you believe there is no God and let me cherry pick points about God's non-existence to support my case?". Note this addresses the Bible and God being incorrect because it would be on him to show it isn't a belief but he chose not to rebut this instead rebut a claim not the explanation.
Why does Con bring up the circle again? We are now talking about a universe in expansion. The Bible is saying in Isaiah 40:22 that the universe is expanding, using an as an example of when someone put up a middle eastern tent and it stretches out, it is expanded.
Because I was pointing out the verse was calling the Earth a circle not a sphere. That is questioning the validity of the Bible. The verse is not about expansion it is literally about God sitting somewhere above Earth. Please quote the Bible and understand this instead of me needing to quote it for you twice "Isaiah 40:22: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth".

Conservation of mass-energy

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant and cannot be changed.1 Mass also has a conservation principle so it cannot be created or destroyed. John 1:3 and Gen. 2:2 are both proof that creation is done nothing more will come about. These verses put an end to any other matter being created. Also, according to the Bible, nothing will cease to exist because God holds everything together.
I have already rebutted this by my opponent refuses to answer those rebuttals. I can only repeat what I said earlier here:
"Teach: to give someone knowledge or to train someone; to instruct:
John 1:3: Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Genesis 2:2: By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

From these two I gather God did it and God was tired. Nothing specifically about energy conversion unless of course God did it is enough of an argument. If it wasn't clear no knew knowledge was gained to give anyone an understanding of energy conversion so guess the very thing he used as his argument doesn't support the point he made. It is almost as if he didn't even read the very thing he as a Christian holds dear. "

Evidence For a Young Universe

Recession of the Moon
The moon, due to tidal interaction with the Moon moves an inch and a half from the Earth every year. In 6,000 year the Moon has moved 800 ft. If the Moon is 4 billion years old, then we have a problem. 1.5 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth!

  1. Magnetic Field
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying. It decays 5% percent every century. 6,000 years ago the magnetic field would have been stronger, but able to support life on Earth. However, if the Earth were millions of years old the magnetic field would have been too strong to support life.

  1. Magnetic Fields of Planets
Magnetic fields of planets are very strong today, but if the planets were billions of years old their magnetic fields would have disappeared

  1. Spiral Galaxies
If these galaxies were billions of years old they would not have spiral arms anymore.

  1. Comets
There would be no comets in our solar system if it was billions of years old. Because all the comets still have "tails" to them means our solar system is young.
I am not going to be rebutting claims that lack Bible sources and scientific sources. 

Conclusion

I think I did well but that doesn't matter :(
Round 5
Published:
Circle of the Earth

I will only add to this argument that the term sphere was not in use until the 13th century (https://www.etymonline.com/word/sphere). Isaiah 40:22 was written centuries before then so obviously he could not say sphere because the word did not exist. Also the word circle in that verse gives the idea of a vault. Last time I checked there are no two-dimensional vaults. This verse then gives a three dimensional shape of the earth. I also stick by the description of a terminator in Job. You cannot have a sunrise and sunset with a Flat Circled Earth it must be a sphere to have these happenings.

The verse is not about expansion it is literally about God sitting somewhere above Earth

Hmmm. Yes it is. The second part of the verse talks about how God "stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." So maybe you could actually read the verse when you want to debate.

Your feeling for it being accurate

It is not a feeling. It is right there in the Bible in black and white. I can't help you if you choose not to see it.

Conservation of mass-energy

Genesis 2:2 isn't saying that God was tired. The Hebrew word for this is shabath which means to cease, desist and rest. Gen. 2:2 and John 1 are saying that God stopped creating therefore no new material will come into existence. Also neither matter nor energy will cease to exist because God is upholding all things as Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:17 point out.

Evidence For a Young Universe (Taking Back Astronomy, Jason Lisle Chapter 3 pgs. 54-70)

  1. Recession of the Moon
The moon, due to tidal interaction with the Moon moves an inch and a half from the Earth every year. In 6,000 year the Moon has moved 800 ft. If the Moon is 4 billion years old, then we have a problem. 1.5 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth!
Dickey, J.O. et al. Lunar laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo Program. Science 265: 482-490, July 22, 1994.

  1. Magnetic Field
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying. It decays 5% percent every century. 6,000 years ago the magnetic field would have been stronger, but able to support life on Earth. However, if the Earth were millions of years old the magnetic field would have been too strong to support life.

  1. Magnetic Fields of Planets
Magnetic fields of planets are very strong today, but if the planets were billions of years old their magnetic fields would have disappeared

  1. Spiral Galaxies
If these galaxies were billions of years old they would not have spiral arms anymore.

  1. Comets
There would be no comets in our solar system if it was billions of years old. Because all the comets still have "tails" to them means our solar system is young.



Published:
Forfeit

Added:
[Bump to encourage voting.]
#6
Added:
--> @OoDart
That is correct.
Instigator
#5
Added:
woo
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
Pro = Creation
Con = Natural Processes
Is that correct?
#3
Added:
--> @crossed
Yeah, I had school starting so I was busy, but I am now on a routine that gives me some more time.
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
Welcome back
#1
No votes yet