Creator or Big Bang?

Though many scientists have “proved to us” that the Big Bang is real, I strongly disagree. You see, say the Big Bang were true, then there would have had to be a cause to make the Big Bang, right? So how did everything go perfectly? I mean how are we just the right amount away from the sun, how are we not to hot, not to cold? And how did the forming of the planets go just right? With these facts I makes it harder for me to believe that there was a Big Bang.

1.) The Big Bang.

The Big Bang is not some conjecture or hypothesis; but instead a broadly accepted theory, supported by evidence and which explains a wide variety of evidence.

To start with, it has been widely observed since Edwin Hubble’s famous star survey that all the objects in the universe are moving away from each other.[1]

This leads to the common sense conclusion that the universe in the past was much closer together than it was today. Given the relationship of expansion (that the speed of recession is proportional to distance)[2], there is an indication that space itself is expanding, rather than everything moving away from us. This is observation is consistent with everything moving apart from everything else.

Given the demonstrable behaviour of gravity[3] and the fact that all objects in the universe must necessarily have been much closer together than they are today, the theory was put forward that the matter would have all been in one place in the form of a singularity (for which the maths is already well known)[4]

So, the Big Bang hypothesis - that all the matter in the universe was packed into a single place then the space and matter in the universe began rapidly expanding at the start of the universe was posited.

In this scenario, two main predictions were made: that if the universe began super hot and cooled as it expanded - there would be a point where the atomic plasma absorbed all the light - and the when cooled enough became opaque. This would look like a burst of radiation in the radio band, that matched the emission spectra of hydrogen, red shifted consistent with being further away than any visible galaxy.

This background radiation predicted was famously discovered and has been well studied [5].

The second lesser well known prediction is the relative abundance of primary atoms in the universe. When the universe was super dense and hot, the amount of initial fusion that would occur can be calculated, and matched against the measured proportion of atoms in the universe.  This too is a match. [6]

So, the Big Bang is measured against primary observable evidence, and has made and been validated by multiple predictions.

2.) A Creator.

On the one hand, we have physical and documentary evidence that leads us to conclude the Big Bang occurred, and measure the predictions of that theory.

We do not have any physical or documentary evidence of a creator, nor any validated predictions unique to a creator. 

We have no evidence of the creators properties, no explanation of its origins, or explanation of its abilities, no physical laws that govern what it can do, and why it can’t.

Worse, the very idea of a creator - with almost every critical facet of what the creator is being unevidenced, unjustified and mostly just asserted speculation - makes it seem like a grand cosmic carpet under which all the unanswerable and uncomfortable philosophical questions about the universe can be swept.

A creator solves no problems - it merely pretends that it can.

This clearly means that the Big Bang is a vastly more sensible conclusion.

3.) Questions

A “cause”, requires there to be a cause and effect relationship. This requires time to exist to establish a sequence of events.

There is no evidence to suggest time exists beyond the Big Bang horizon - time as a concept doesn’t exist in a singularity; as a result we can’t tell whether there is a “before” the Big Bang. Thus we can’t tell if there is a causal relationship to anything. [7]

This is not related to the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the origin of the universe, my opponent is talking about the formation of solar systems.

The answer is simple, if earth was too far away from the sun, or too large, or the earth didn’t have the right elemental content: it wouldn’t have developed life, and we wouldn’t be having this debate

It is not surprising that we find ourself living on a planet with conditions suitable for life.

There are estimated to be billions of other exoplanets, and many planets we have discovered that don’t have these conditions[8]; it’s not luck - simply observer bias and the law of large numbers:

A lottery winner may consider himself very lucky - but people regularly win the lottery. 

Is it a strange coincidence that all lottery winners are exceptionally lucky? 

[1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/hubble.html
[2] https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html
[3] https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_general.html
[4] http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/S/Singularity
[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
[6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
[7]http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
[8] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets

Though I do see my opponents point of view in this argument, He can not prove anything, Nor can I, but I will try to convince my opponent and voters that creator is a more reasonable choice. In a 2011 study, it was shown that they estimated population of Christians is around 2.19 Billion around 33 percent of the world. Only around 16 percent believe in the Big Bang. As you can see more people believe In Christianity than The Big Bang.

Another reason is that It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.

My second reason is that Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.

Facts from https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

Many thanks to my opponent for his timely response:

1.) Plagurism.

My opponent has not made an argument: he has mostly copy-pasted the HowStuffWorks article.

2.) Big Bang as an established occurrence.

Proof is not binary, it is a scale. In my opening round I established a high degree of confidence that the Big Bang occurred, together with evidence.

In this case, the proof of the Big Bang, based on its evidence; and two individual smoking gun predictions, renders the Big Bang true at least on the preponderance of evidence.

3.) Appeal to popularity.

I’m sure a study taken in AD 500 would have detailed that most people believed earth was at the centre of the universe. Most people can be wrong. Whether more people believe a fact doesn’t make it any more or less true than it is.[1] 

3.) Violation of thermodynamics 

My opponent answered his own question. The 1st law of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed: only converted from one form to another.

In the case of the Big Bang: As I explained in the opening round - if there is no actual creation - there can be no violation of the first law. 

Secondly, as long as the sum of energy remains 0 in the universe, there is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics[2] if the universe did come from nothing. The universe gives an indication that it indeed has a combined sum of 0 energy[3]

The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of disorder in a closed system tends to increase over time.

This would be true of the universe if the universe was truly homogenous and isotopic - identical in all directions. However it isn’t and wasn’t, even the cosmic microwave radiation showed that the universe isn’t exactly homogenous[4] - leading to the galaxies and stars you see today. While these appear more ordered the particles in the vacuum of space, and the distribution of radiated energy throughout space increases the disorder. As a result - there appears to be no violation of the second law.[5]

4.) Scientific objections

How have these been misinterpreted? why? What evidence is there?

If you cannot offer specifics on these claims, I don’t need to offer a rebuttal

5.) Inflation

My opponents article answers his own question. The speed of light cannot be broken in a local frame if reference: IE you can never outrun the light you emit. Various possible ways of violating the non-local speed of light, including the expansion of space are potentially possible and do not violate the speed of light.[6]

Sources:


[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
[3]https://www.total-energy-universe-zero.htmllivescience.com/33129-
[4] http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html
[5]Ask Ethan: What Was The Entropy Of The Universe At The Big Bang? - Mediumhttps://medium.com › starts-with-a-bang
[6]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Man your good, you win. Not like it matters though, i’m Only 11 👍

Thanks for the complement :) If it helps, nothing you said made me think you were so young!

As my opponent concede I will waive the rest of this round.