Instigator / Con
25
1542
rating
6
debates
83.33%
won
Topic

There Is evidence that a Theistic God created the Universe.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
12
0
Sources points
8
8
Spelling and grammar points
4
4
Conduct points
1
4

With 4 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...

Sum1hugme
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
12,000
Contender / Pro
16
1373
rating
12
debates
4.17%
won
Description
~ 501 / 5,000

I offer this debate as a digression from our first debate. And it's a discussion I really enjoy.

Terms:

Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Fact - A point of data that is objectively verifiable
Universe - Spacetime and their contents

- Please no solipsism.
- These terms are not to be redefined at any point in the Debate.
- BoP is on Pro to provide facts that support the resolve.
- Let's be respectful and have fun.

Round 1
Con
  Thank you Upholdingthefaith for accepting this debate, I'm looking forward to a fruitful discussion. This round will be pretty short on my end since BoP is on Pro

Smaller and Hotter

   The current Model of the universe's history states that the universe was once smaller and hotter. Then, for reasons we do not currently understand, it began expanding, and the intense heat began to diffuse as the universe expanded [1][2]. I look forward to seeing what evidence will be brought forward to indicate that a theistic god set this expansion into motion. 
 

Pro
If fair ill approach this way. The expansion and smaller and hotter universe described above best fit with a combination of current, incredibly likely laws of physics and a Big Bang. Once the Universe goes bang, the laws of nature get us there quite fine. 

My thought here is that when you look at the current theories of the quantum realm, what's underlying "empty" space. What's meant by the Big Bang, and the Law of conservation of energy and matter (cannot be created or destroyed), the best explanation for that is a personal, creative force, being, entity (word play can be problematic here, we can go in depth to agree on a term) who exists outside of the confines of the spacetime which was created in the Big Bang. 

There's a long series of other arguments and deductions based on the natural world and laws that support this being the Christian God. I dont take the stance if Big Bang happened because of a creator, automatically it must be the Christian God. But nonsensical to investiagte any religion which purports to have a supernatural God as the foundation if theres nothing to point to the existence of said being outside our space time. 
Round 2
Con
  Thank you for your response. 

BoP

  My opponent has failed to meet the burden of proof. Instead asserting:

My thought here is that when you look at the current theories of the quantum realm, what's underlying "empty" space. What's meant by the Big Bang, and the Law of conservation of energy and matter (cannot be created or destroyed), the best explanation for that is a personal, creative force, being, entity (word play can be problematic here, we can go in depth to agree on a term) who exists outside of the confines of the spacetime which was created in the Big Bang. 
  There is given absolutely no justification as to why my opponent believes that any aspect of these theories are explained by "a personal, creative force, being, entity who exists outside of the confines of the spacetime." Hopefully my opponent will elaborate on the perceived connection here in their response, which I eagerly await.

Over to Pro!
Pro
The current theories of physics say the Universe had a beginning, the Big Bang. This event marked the transition from nothing. No universe. No matter. No quantum foam. No time. No space to contain any of that in. Nothing. To existence. To matter/energy, to space, to time. With a new law that no additional matter could be created or destroyed. 

This fits with the Biblical worldview as well. 

I realize I'm putting the burden of confidence in our current knowledge to call this highly likely over infinite universe. But with that assumption there's only 2 options I can currently see.

Something exists outside of our Universe which created the 3 dimensions of space, one of time, and filled it with matter/energy and the law of conservation. Or. Something happened to form from nothing and then the same laws took over to drive universe evolution from the post Bing Bang era through the condensing of baryons, to the development of galaxies, finally to the development of our solar system. 

If there's a third option besides the Big Bang theory is wrong (which changes our discussion and im happy to do that) I just don't see it. 

Apologies as I feel I might be wasting a round or two learning the ins and outs to these styles of discussions. 



Round 3
Con
  Thank you for your response. I'm going to jump straight into my rebuttals.

----------

REBUTTALS

----------

  • R1

"The current theories of physics say the Universe had a beginning, the Big Bang. This event marked the transition from nothing. No universe. No matter. No quantum foam. No time. No space to contain any of that in. Nothing. To existence. To matter/energy, to space, to time. "
  This argument conflates the philosophical and colloquial definition of the word nothing[1], the absolute non existence of anything, with the cosmological definition of nothing, which is actually something. This is something my opponent alluded to possessing knowledge when mentioning "what's underlying 'empty' space". In fact at the smallest scales, "empty" space is full of virtual particles popping in and out of existence all the time, on incredibly short time scales [3]. Which segways perfectly into my opponents next sentence:

"With a new law that no additional matter could be created or destroyed"
  Which is not a law that applies on the quantum scales, where matter is being created and destroyed all the time. Therefore in a singularity, or a point of infinite curvature and incredible energy in the universe's case, would be at quantum scales, where laws of classical macro-mechanics don't always apply in the same ways.

-----------

  • R2
"This fits with the Biblical worldview as well"
  Incorrect, the Biblical worldview, as my opponent has described, claims Creatio Ex Nihilo [3], whereas in the Big Bang Model, the energy is already existent within the confines of the singularity prior to cosmic inflation.

----------

  • R3
"Something exists outside of our Universe which created the 3 dimensions of space, one of time, and filled it with matter/energy and the law of conservation. Or. Something happened to form from nothing and then the same laws took over..."
  This is a false dichotomy as the option of the Energy existing within the singularity is completely ignored, despite being the only option that is evidenced[4][5].


----------

BoP

  My opponent has again failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between the universe's initial expansion and a god, let alone a theistic god. I look forward to his reply, and perhaps enlightening connections.


[1]  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/nothing - 1Not anything; no single thing.
Pro
Awesome. I'm enjoying this a lot!



  This argument conflates the philosophical and colloquial definition of the word nothing[1], the absolute non existence of anything, with the cosmological definition of nothing, which is actually something. This is something my opponent alluded to possessing knowledge when mentioning "what's underlying 'empty' space". In fact at the smallest scales, "empty" space is full of virtual particles popping in and out of existence all the time, on incredibly short time scales [3].
--i think this point ties in with the Big Bang theory definition and conservation of energy points ill go into below. If I miss something, let me know.
Just in case verbiage gets weird. Can we agree to use matter and energy as synonymous? From the basis of e=mc2? Different forms of the same thing. And can I define a term?
Universe energy total (UET) as the total energy if all matter was converted to energy and you added it all up. That should be a real, finite value (assuming finite universe) which would remain unchanged when viewing the system (universe) from the outside (of time and space). Fair? It'll be easier for me later I think. The law conservation of mass and energy law basically says the UET remains unchanged no matter what happens inside the system. 



Which segways perfectly into my opponents next sentence:

"With a new law that no additional matter could be created or destroyed"
  Which is not a law that applies on the quantum scales, where matter is being created and destroyed all the time.

--Rebuttal 1: I claim this, call it, popping in and out of existence satisfies conservation of the UET. That what is happening is the spontaneous conversion of energy into matter and back again. The UET remains unchanged. For support, I hope this will suffice. If not don't waste your turn and add a comment. Ill add more. Two things. I asked this exact question in my 400 level Quantum Mechanics class at Penn State. Don't these particles popping into existence violate the conservation of energy and matter? My professor explained why there was an error in my thinking. That was 10 years ago and a year before I switched to applied math, graduated, and started a career in fraud mitigation for some big e-commerce companies. As I dont remember the deeper details I found a good thread on it. Theres some back and forth but the general idea is pretty clear. I can get more formal collegiate sources if you wish. 




Therefore in a singularity, or a point of infinite curvature and incredible energy in the universe's case, would be at quantum scales, where laws of classical macro-mechanics don't always apply in the same ways.


-- So there's a point i need to acknowledge to be fair. Im assuming a particular version of the big bang theory. There are a couple of seriously considered ones. The one I take to  argue against is the no space, no energy, no time. Then space, energy, time.

The similar one usually presented is that all of matter and energy were condensed in a gravitational singularity, similar to that theorized to be at the heart of a black hole. 

However, to say that's what always was there before the Big Bang happened and "the universe was born" has some issues i think. At least some questions. 

However small, matter/energy needs some finite volume of space however small. Time is also interwoven in space. I dont see how this wouldn't resolve to actually an infinite universe theory. Same with the repeated bounce theory as well actually. 

If not. Where did this sudden existence of space come from? And I'm not talking space containing fluctuations etc. Like any of the three dimensions of space that exist.

Granted, we're working on solved problems, but in higher level physics, when our introduction and manipulation of theorems, formulas, etc resulted in the ensuing math to have an integral go to infinity. We did something wrong. Always. It's a long discussion but that either means somewhere in that actual beginning, physics part, there's a flaw in there. Or. There was an error in the mathematics that came next. Some transformation or definition that was misused or incorrect. Infinities are not allowable in nature. Unless the universe is infinite, but we can have that debate separately. So these idea of infinitely massive, infinitely dense or spaceless matter/energy cannot exist in nature. Listen, quantum mechanics is admittedly weird AF. It's so wild what turns out to be true. A particle can tunnel through a wall!?  Awesome. But a lot of the conclusions are based on literal mathematics conclusions. When a physicist says goes to infinity, there's an underlying assumption that the theory is flawed somewhere. That it can't actually exist in nature. But we need to have some way to conceptualize and discuss these in non mathematical terms. There still needs to be an origin if this matter and energy went from not existing to existing. Saying it was all bundled up forever then blew up one day is problematic for a few reasons. And as I said, more an argument for infinite universe. The Christian has got to take the stance of finite. Period. Theres no argument for an infinite universe. Although I'd argue neither are ever truly provable. 


-----------

  • R2
"This fits with the Biblical worldview as well"
  Incorrect, the Biblical worldview, as my opponent has described, claims Creatio Ex Nihilo [3], whereas in the Big Bang Model, the energy is already existent within the confines of the singularity prior to cosmic inflation.
-- So maybe the conclusion i got to above as well. In far less words and more well written haha.  This is 100% on me for definition of terms. Im learning and nuanceing my arguments. I appreciate any patience. 
Let's say if you take an infinite universe stance, we'll need a separate debate. If not, we have a basis to discuss this initial starting point then. Fair I hope?
----------

  • R3
"Something exists outside of our Universe which created the 3 dimensions of space, one of time, and filled it with matter/energy and the law of conservation. Or. Something happened to form from nothing and then the same laws took over..."
  This is a false dichotomy as the option of the Energy existing within the singularity is completely ignored, despite being the only option that is evidenced[4][5].

-- Per what i just stated above, assuming that side, I'd ask where this energy came from? If it's always existed, would this not be a more specific version of the infinite universe?





Round 4
Con
  Interesting response. This will be a short response as here is the crux of my contentions:

  • At no point has a causal relationship been established between the origin of the universe and the creation of it by a theistic god.
  Regardless of misconceptions I may have about quantum mechanics and conservation of energy, the burden of proof has not been met at any point in the debate. The Big Bang Theory states that if we extrapolate back the expansion of the universe we reach a point where everything is condensed into a singularity with extremely high energy. 

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

COUNTER-REBUTTALS

----------

  • CR1
"There still needs to be an origin if this matter and energy went from not existing to existing."
"...I'd ask where this energy came from?"
  There is no reason to assume that whatever caused the big bang was a theistic god. This would be a god of the gaps fallacy.

----------

  • CR2
"However small, matter/energy needs some finite volume of space however small"
  Matter needs space to exist in because it has mass. But in theory, any amount of energy can be crammed into any amount of space. The singularity of course is where the equations begin to break down because the theory is incomplete. But it is my understanding that the concept of a singularity in the case of a big bang is derived from the geometry of spacetime itself. Since at the tip of a cone, is a singularity, a point of infinite curvature, which is geometrically comparable to the shape of the universe, extrapolated back until Time=0.

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

CONCLUSION

  In conclusion, there has been presented no evidence that a theistic god created the universe besides conjecture. Thank you Upholdingthefaith for doing this debate.


Vote Con!
Pro
Thank you. This has been awesome. I realize in your concise final argument, this next point is correct in regards to at no point has PRO shown a causal relationship...

  • At no point has a causal relationship been established between the origin of the universe and the creation of it by a theistic god.
 
I got too hyper focused in one area. Man this would be a VERY long discussion but (forgive the need for broadness and im sure wording and statements rife with the appearance of flat out opinion. Instead, may I at least offer, that I think when fully worked out, these areas would fall from opinion to understood deduction. To clarify, not agreed with deduction. But I feel every worldview is going to have these areas. Another BIG discussion. 

For me, if I can try to put a causal or deductive flow, it is as follows. The body of evidence which can be argued as random chance or intelligent design is overwhelmingly in favor of intelligent design. Actually. Side note. I think I may be better served for awhile hanging out in the camp of is intelligent design correct. Rather than trying to do both that and the specific theistic God described in the Bible. But anyway, if I've concluded intelligent design, then you seek an answer of who. This body includes theories of the creation of the universe and arguments from a standard of true humanity outside of humans. Again a huge separate argument. 
Each theistic religion which says the universe is finite and has an intelligent designer makes truth claims. Upon the completion of years of investigation and discussion, 2 years ago, I came to the conclusion that given the body of evidence (reliability of the New testament, study of contradictions between truth claims, etc) Christianity not only is the best fit but I would argue a perfect fit. What I'll say. No I'm not sure but im confident. Confident enough that I'm willing to devote my life to following Christ. Not say I believe, say a prayer, and "try to be a good person ". That's not at all what Christ preached nor what being a Christian is. 



Regardless of misconceptions I may have about quantum mechanics and conservation of energy, the burden of proof has not been met at any point in the debate. The Big Bang Theory states that if we extrapolate back the expansion of the universe we reach a point where everything is condensed into a singularity with extremely high energy. 
-- my issue though. We're putting these on the same stage of "potential theories for a finite universe's beginning ". How does it 'start' from nothing if there's already something there. You can't just say i don't know but the rest is correct for a creation of the universe theory. Again, if this ball of energy (something) existed before the big bang. Then the big bang wasn't the creation of the universe, matter, energy, space. At the very least we can agree perhaps that these are not two different theories explaining the same thing. Christianity says that there was absolutely nothing. No space. No energy. No singularity. Then God created it. A competing theory would have to likewise assume nothing then something. Then explain it. Perhaps then we just disagree on the earliest state of things and can leave it lie? At least thats a different debate. Was there ever nothing. Or something haha. 
--------------------

COUNTER-REBUTTALS

----------

  • CR1
"There still needs to be an origin if this matter and energy went from not existing to existing."
"...I'd ask where this energy came from?"
  There is no reason to assume that whatever caused the big bang was a theistic god. This would be a god of the gaps fallacy.
-- One of the only times I ever agree. But im saying there's a different view not accounted for or applicable. I think we can say there's evidence to assume whatever caused the big bang was an intelligent, personal being. Then another argument can be made for a deduction from a different body of evidence as to the identity. But you're right. From this type of evidence you're not going to draw a causal line. Ironically, as one of the most common used versions of god of the gaps, it's built in to the Christian faith as an unprovable. Otherwise how could there be a free choice to believe God exists? Assuming the Christian God, there's an argument that if possible, God could have designed a Universe where there is undoubtable proof of his existence. Ive heard silly things like write made by Yahweh on every atom. But that to me would do it if you could also prove a race of beings never existed who created advanced enough technology to fool us. But I hope you see where im going. 
----------

  • CR2
"However small, matter/energy needs some finite volume of space however small"
  Matter needs space to exist in because it has mass. But in theory, any amount of energy can be crammed into any amount of space.
-- Please cite this somewhere. I dont think this is accurate but I don't want to be that guy. It's been 10 years and I feel nitpicky. I'm the furthest thing from a trusted source on quantum mechanics. Although... to be fair:

" I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (R. Feynman)

"If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it" (John Wheeler) 

Lol. It's rather silly sometimes to get too in the weeds of how quantum theory has altered theories for the creation of the universe. 




The singularity of course is where the equations begin to break down because the theory is incomplete.
--science documentary speak for, "the mathematics ceased to have any real world applicability. But this stuff is so cool and we can talk about it still. ". Just as example. One of these infinites is mass. For example. A show or book might pose what happens if you were to accelerate to the speed of light. Then go on to say something like Einsteins theory of relativity says your mass would go to infinity. Not possible if the universe has finite mass. A finite universe does. This means the theory breaks down to describe reality. But aspects of it are super reliable for us. Hence why we didn't scrap it. Otherwise. No GPS haha. 


But it is my understanding that the concept of a singularity in the case of a big bang is derived from the geometry of spacetime itself. Since at the tip of a cone, is a singularity, a point of infinite curvature, which is geometrically comparable to the shape of the universe, extrapolated back until Time=0.

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

CONCLUSION

  In conclusion, there has been presented no evidence that a theistic god created the universe besides conjecture. Thank you Upholdingthefaith for doing this debate.


Vote Con!
-- I think my opponent is correct. I rabbit trailed a bit and admittedly missed laying out an argument to satisfy the premise. Finally, please don't take my personal view on evidence and deductions as an attempt at this. I only wanted to break down the walls of the debate for a second and talk with the fellow human on the other side. Just saying hey, here's generally where I get my confidence from. No following therefore you should or I expects. Just in case you were interested from the point of view of I wonder why he thinks its true? Hence the 30000 ft view.