Return to CreateDebate.comacrd • Join this debate community

A Civil Religious Debate

Welcome to A Civil Religious Debate!

A Civil Religious Debate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS Vaan

Reward Points:167
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

6 most recent arguments.
Vaan(167) Clarified
1 point

I doubt it would be audibly, no need to speak when you can send messages straight to them. They are one and the same. If you want a christian theology lesson though its best to ask a pastor.

1 point

God didnt show himself (or not often) and when he "spoke" it was not audibly. We usually are spoken to by the holy spirit (in christian theology)

1 point

You were refering to the big bounce theory. As for time it has been very difficult thus far to prove that there was time before the big bang.

The link helps evidence that time did start at the big bang. Thus all points reset and my argument stands.

Why God? Because it makes the most sense as my argument shows.

Supporting Evidence: Stephen Hawkings on the origin of time (
1 point

Serious arguments only and most theists will say that he does speak to them.

1 point

This is a copy and paste argument I wrote quitesome time ago, it represents a creator God but not neccesarily an involved one.

(This is a response to an argument made by someone that God is not the creator of the universe, due to the Omniverse theory)

This particular topic was one which I had a really hard time with when I was not a believer as I could not find any other logical solution to this very issue, and as such I shall now expand upon that initial thought process which is more or less a more wordy form of the Cosmological argument.

Now to begin with we must first look at the issue of a single universe (ours). Now the idea is that there was no such thing as time before the big bang which of course makes sense, just as one could say that there are no timings before a race because the stopwatch has not been started yet. Now the issue I have with this is the fact that matter is a physical element and is thus subject to time and it would also need some method of creation, namely forces. So what we get is a situation where time is dependant on the matter to begin and vice versa. Then we also have the forces which are dependant themselves on matter to exist and the matter would need the extreme forces to exist (assuming that is how they are created according to the theory). So if we look at the analogy of the race we have a three way paradox in that the stopwatch cannot begin until all of the swimmers are at the blocks and the swimmers cannot get to the blocks because (in this case) there is no existence before the stopwatch begins. On top of this the starter’s gun cannot fire until all of the swimmers are at the blocks and at the ready and likewise the swimmers cannot start the race until the starters gun has fired. So what this means is that the swimmers would all have to be put into their positions all at the exact same time that the starter’s gun and the stopwatch go off. These both in terms of the analogy and reality are completely impossible.

There is however a theory known as the “pop” theory which more or less means that matter can pop into being from nothing aka has no cause. This is impossible on both logical and rational levels because matter, as a physical element, must have a cause. It would be like saying a table has no cause which is clearly nonsensical as it must be made before it can be a table. However on top of this there is no evidence to show that matter just appears out of nowhere. Also if matter just pops into existence without a cause then in reality there should be nothing that governs how or in what quantity it comes into being. Assuming this, then the moment the universe began it should have instantly filled up with new matter and thus the universe should be one infinite block of compact matter with no room for anti-matter etc. Now as a final point if pop theory is indeed true then if a physical element can pop into existence without cause then it would be likewise possible for a non-physical being to be uncaused.

Now what we call the universe is merely the perimeter with which matter is pushing it out, just as a balloon grows as the air molecules push against the sides of the balloon. We must assume that as matter does not exist outside of these universal “bubbles” that space is indeed a necessary property with which to create matter. In terms of our analogy space would be the pool. This adds another element to the issue in that the swimmers would need to be in the water already, but the pool needs to be filled with water by the swimmers. However the swimmers cannot fill the pool as time does not exist. So in other words they would need to fill the pool, be at the blocks and start the race all at the exact same time as the stopwatch is started and the starter’s gun goes off. If this point is argued against by saying that space is not dependant upon matter’s existence then the concept of an “Expanding universe” is illogical as the universe would already be infinite. As well as this the idea of an omniverse would also be impossible as it would all be one universe, just spaced apart like our galaxies are.

Now to deal with the Omniverse theory itself. The basic idea is that the Omniverse is an infinite expanse of universes that can give birth to new universes. This is based on the idea of two universes “touching” each other, the force of which would initiate a big bang. Now the issue with this is that a universe cannot touch another universe if that other universe does not exist. As mentioned earlier the universe is dependant on the matter to exist and so on so forth. This means that a separate universe could not start another universe as there is no other universe to be started. In terms of the analogy think of the separate universe as being a helper who pushes you off of the blocks as you start to give you extra force, however they cannot push you off until the pool is filled.

The only possibility then is if the other universe starts off another universe by fulfilling all of these factors meaning that it would have to split off from the main universe much like bacteria. The issue with this is that this is not a violent process and would not initiate a big bang as the matter is already within the space that has separated. But assuming that it did create a big bang then that particular universe would have to be immensely huge to be able to start a new universe with as much matter as ours. Another issue with this however is the problem that if it can split off then so should ours, and we should be creating more and more universes just as it would, meaning that eventually our universe would have petered out into nothing and we would essentially have in the end an omniverse full of single atoms.

However the only way the Omniverse theory could be feasible as a creator is if it is infinite. Now this is impossible as matter can degenerate which means that on an infinite scale the omniverse should have either expanded out and eventually dissipated into nothingness or fallen back in upon itself due to gravitational pull and been destroyed (assuming there is gravitational pull between them which there shouldn’t be because the forces would be limited to the matter which are limited to the universe, just as a starter’s gun cannot be used to start a race the next town over).

So as a result of the above statements we must conclude that there was indeed time before the big bang, just in another universe or dimension. Now these times themselves are dependant on the times of their creator universe, resulting in an infinite regression. However the Omniverse cannot be infinite due to the aforementioned points so eventually there must be a point of origin. This point of origin is in the exact same position as our universe, just several steps back and with nothing to appeal to.

This leaves us with only one rational option. That is that there is another separate universe/dimension that is not physical in nature (heaven) which was created by an uncaused entity that is also not physical in nature (God). This uncaused entity would have to be immensely powerful (Omnipotent) and not subject to physical laws such as time (Omnipresent). This being would thus be able to create space and matter at exactly the same time using its immense power (forces) and Omnipresence which in turn would start the universe.

1 point

It works against personal God outlook (to a degree) but not towards God as a concept.

Winning Position: Arguments for

About Me

"Hello, my name is Steven and I am a 17 year old australian. I am currently a corporal in the AAC with intentions of becoming an officer in the Australian Army. My favourite topics include Philosophy, History (both modern and ancient, and especially military history), Myers-briggs typology (I am an INFJ), Philosophy, Religion, Science (especially astrophysics, chemistry and biology) and of course debating. I dislike people who make claims about another person based on thier beliefs that are negative or plainly for the sake of putting them down."

Biographical Information
Name: Steven 
Gender: Male
Age: 26
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: Australia
Religion: Protestant
Education: High School

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here