The Universe Can Be Explained Naturally Without God

ClarificationsFor the sake of debate, we will assume that God could hypothetically be used an explanation for the beginning of the universe. I will only be arguing that there is anothe explanation that does not reference God, and doesn't seem to require him to exist (I don't have to argue that this explanation is the true explanation). Thus, I would be showing that it is not really required to posit God as the explanation of the universe (even though it is prima facie conceivable that he may be). Con has to give us good reasons to doubt my claim that we can explain the beginning of the universe without God. Con claims that a point he will be making is:"The Big Bang Theory is illogical as a scientific explanation of the origin of life."- ProThe above is problematic as The Big Bang theory is the scientific explanation that describes the evolution of the universe, it is not a scientific explanation of life; the best candidate for that is Abiogenesis[1]. As a theory that describes the evolution of the universe, The Big Bang Theory is a very well established scientific theory, which has made predictions which have been confirmed by testing[2].Either way, Con has to accept that the Big Bang happened in the context of this debate. The very definition of "universe" in this debate includes the notion that The Big Bang was a reality. If Con, for some reason, doesn't like that then he should not have accepted this debate.Explanation Of The Beginning Of The Universe Without Reference To GodOne way the beginning of the universe could have happened was proposed by well respected physicist Alexander Vilenkin. He posits that through a spontaneous quantum tunnelling process; space, time, and energy could have emerged from a timeless and spaceless background describable by the laws of nature[3]. He describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without an initial cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0)[4]. The universe could have emerged in a symmetric vacuum state which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era was finished, the universe would evolve according to the standard Big Bang Theory. Space-time and energy would emerge out of a void with no space or time. This means that there is no infinite regress of "time befores" implied by the model, and no initial cause is needed: "As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere ("nucleates") and immediately starts to inflate...What could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required." - Professor of Physics, Alexander Vilenkin[5] By "cause" Vilenkin simply means a sufficient cause. The timeless and spaceless background would of course serve as an unstable necessary condition for the spontaneous nucleation event. If one simply views a necessary condition (without a sufficient condition) as a "cause", then the universe would still be caused under this scenario. So, there is a scientific model entailing quantum tunnelling which explains the beginning of the universe. Possible Objection 1One might claim that a state of affairs describable by the laws of nature implies the universe. That would mean that it would be illogical to suppose that the contingent universe could be explained naturally (that would suppose a state of affairs describable by the laws of nature without the universe, which is absurd, right?). However, this type of thinking is a grave mistake, and scientists believe that the laws of nature are not dependent on space, time, or energy at all. “The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.” – Alexander Vilenkin[6] “Once you apply the laws of quantum mechanics to gravity itself, then space itself becomes a quantum mechanical variable.” –Laurence Krauss[7]New Quantum Eraser experiments (as recent as 2013) show that certain quantum events don’t depend on space-time at all[8]“In a certain sense, quantum events are independent from space and time.”- Anton Zeilinger [9] Additionally, there are physics papers which model quantum mechanics without a background space-time, such as this one by T. P. Singh: “Quantum mechanics without spacetime IV : a noncommutative Hamilton-Jacobi equation” [10] The idea that the tunnelling event needs a background space-time is simply unconvincing, and I’m not aware of any physicist that holds that position. Space-time and all the energy in the universe could have arisen from this timeless and spaceless state of affairs that is describable by the quantum laws which allow for a universe to come into being in such a fashion. Possible Objection 2Wouldn't the transition from a zero energy state, to a state with energy violate the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy is conserved[11]? The problem with this objection is that the universe probably has a zero total sum energy. energy can be both positive and negative. This means, that as much new energy can be created without violation of any physical laws as long as there is enough negative energy to balance it out. A flat universe has zero total energy:" [T]he flat universe has a zero energy"[12]Even in a closed universe, the universe plausibly has a total energy sum of zero[13]. This is because if you added up all the positive energy (motion, matter ect.) and the negative energy of gravitational attraction (and just simply stored in space), they would cancel each other out. Negative energy has even been experimentally verified between two Casimir plates[14]. Possible Objection 3One could just ask where this timeless, spaceless, zero energy state describable by the laws of nature "came from", or ask how it "got there". Of course, there is no reason to think that this state "came from" or "got there" as it is completely timeless. Only things with a finite temporal duration come into being. Either way, one could pose the same type of question against God, so it would be be futile for the theist to object in this manor.ConclusionI gave a sketch of Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins, which explains the beginning of the universe naturally without reference to God. This means, that the universe can be explained naturally without God in context. Thus, the resolution has been affirmed. Sources[1] Juli Pereto (March 2005). "Controversies on the origin of life". International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology 8 (1): 23–31[2] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...[3] http://mukto-mona.net...[4] http://www.infidels.org...[5][6]Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181)[7] Video Source (0.18:30)[8][9] http://phys.org...[10] http://arxiv.org...[11] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[12] http://news.softpedia.com...[13] http://arxiv.org...[14] http://en.wikipedia.org...[15] The Divine AttributesBy Joshua Hoffman, Gary S. Rosenkrantz (P.98)http://www.youtube.com...