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
----------
"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.
----------
"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.
My experience is showing. Let me rephrase just so I'm not trying to sound debatey and say something else. Lol
The PM sounds great, I didn't want to impose. I think that makes a ton of sense given the first debate hahaha. No offense taken. If you're willing to be patient with me and help me learn, I'd be foolish not to put my ego aside and admit I have much to learn. I try not to be foolish.
I'll send you that and please feel free to restate, but I'll try to get it to a PRO: Truth claim, CON: Conflicting Truth Claim to PRO.
Something to reference back to (and for me in a big way) to keep on topic. I look forward to it. And then once we agree I'll create the debate and take the PRO side.
Thanks again.
If you want, you could also send me a resolve since it would be better if you argued first as pro anyway
or*
If you pm me, (the little green message button), we can talk about a specific resolve. Like maybe deistic instead of theistic?
I think i have a more targeted argument to offer up on this same topic. If you're interested in trying again some time, just let me know. Either tag me in a new one or I can do the same. If not, no worries. I enjoyed our conversation and after a few debates have thought through my arguments with more rigor and flow.
As to not set something up for no reason. I realize id have to specify intelligent designer. I think that designer to God is a whole different debate. I'd be very interested though if you wanted to engage in that debate. My personal view is that it's a too complicated deductive argument to go from evidence the universe was created to Jesus is God. This is admittedly my stance and view. My thought for what it's worth. No need to discuss "which designer if any of the religions are right " if we fundamentally disagree that the evidence suggests designer or not. I hope you see my point. I'm not trying to force a view or force you into a conversation you don't want to have.
Either way this was awesome, thank you! And again your patience with my newness here is super appreciated. You're under no obligation and you still hung in there. Ive learned because of it and can now do better. That's awesome.
Awe shucks, you flatter me
I'll route for him. Such a pleasurable and engaging conversation. I feel i better understand where he's coming from and have personal follow-ups to investigate. Sounds like a successful exchanging of views and ideas.
I am pretty sure Sum1hugme will be in the top ten after a few months.
Nope. One such would be the law of conservation of matter/energy. It cannot be created or destroyed.
did you mean to say "unlikely laws of physics"?
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.
Agreed.
Fact - A point of data that is objectively verifiable
Agreed.
Universe - Spacetime and their contents
Agreed.
- Please no solipsism.
Just looked that up. I'm good with that but hold to the idea some very big, large scale Universe questions are unprovable. I hope there's a distinction there. I think we know light exists and is packaged in photons for example. I think H20 to be 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atom even if the inner building blocks are still being sorted out. Etc.
- These terms are not to be redefined at any point in the Debate.
Agreed!
- BoP is on Pro to provide facts that support the resolve.
May i propose we take one thing at a time. I'm happy to continue on via another debate if necessary. But I dont think this will be productive if I drop 5, 10 facts etc and we try to handle all
- Let's be respectful and have fun.
Please. My faith calls for me to share the reason for the hope I have in a way that is gentle and respectful. I seek to do that in all interactions. Not the judgmental and haughty interactions I see "Christians" offer up or more likely force down people's throats. It drives me nuts.
Final thought. I more so think the areas I can voice are a counter conclusion to that of secular science based upon the same evidence presented on the current theory.