The God Of The Bible Exists

Word.Thanks Pro for accepting the debate, though I must mention that Pro ultimately instigated this debate; I'm just the proximate instigator. Pro messaged me with the idea for this debate, so thank you Pro for that as well.I reject the resolution that the god of the bible exists, because the universe wasn't created, in any fashion, and the bible and its ultimate author are not repositories for morality or moral actions.For Pro to affirm that god exists, Pro has to show that god is 1) the creator of the universe, 2) the ruler of the universe, and 3) the source of ALL moral authority.Pro has to show all three properties of god, because the agreed definition of god in this debate has AND between each of those properties, not OR.1. *THE UNIVERSE*All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Our universe has matter and space.Matter distorts space and creates gravity.http://www.einstein-online.info...The way that particle physicists and cosmologists look at the total universe's energy is by the totality of visible matter (you, me, the planets and stars) and gravity (distortions of space). https://en.wikipedia.org...Matter, in this energy combination, acts as positive energy (+), because matter is doing the distorting.Gravity, in this energy combination, acts as negative energy (-), because it's a result of the distorting.So, what if we could see how curved space is throughout the entire observable universe given this (+)matter and (-)gravity interplay?Well we can, and we have, using the WMAP, which is an anisotropy probe attached to a space shuttle that measures variations in the otherwise uniform Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, and gives us a massively accurate picture of the scale, shape, and size of the observable universe.http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...We now know that our universe is flat, because the spacial curvature (the total effect of matter on space) of the universe is zero.http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org...Therefore, all of the positive energy (+matter) is exactly being cancelled out by all of the negative energy (-gravity) in our universe, so that the total energy [+matter,-gravity] of the universe is in fact zero.As a set, the universe's matter and gravity would look like [+matter, -gravity] = 0So, we could imagine what the set might look like currently, given our massive universe of +matter and -gravity...[+10000000000000,-10000000000000] = 0.But when there was no universe, matter and gravity were at [+0,-0] = 0At [+0,-0], there is no matter or gravity to speak of and of course the total energy is 0.In this zero energy state, there is/are no radiation/particles/wavelengths/matter/energy/space/time/gravity...nothing [+0,-0]= 0.So, for this debate, I will be referring to "before the universe" as [+0,-0], when there was no universe.2. *THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE*The Big Bang-With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation.http://science.nasa.gov...All of this CMB radiation, which is a "black body" as it absorbs all intercepted electromagnetic radiation, is nearly a uniform glow between stars across the universe, and is a proven indicator of an expandable hot dense state such as the Big Bang being the cosmos' origin.http://www.mpg.de...The small variations in the microwave's uniformity, show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot dense state that has expanded to the current size of the universe; this is called inflation.http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...Yeah, that link is from Cambridge...I know, argument from authority...go to page 9 of the PDF which is page 2 of the preface.These small variations have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of sub-nuclear particles, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today.Quantum Fluctuations (QF)-In our universe of space and matter, when you strip "something" of particles, radiation, and energy, you are left with nothing but empty space; this empty space is full of quantum fluctuations.Quantum fluctuations are sub nuclear particles (not actually full particles, which is why some physicists call them "virtual" particles) existing and being annihilated by antiparticles, and the forces between these sub nuclear particles fluctuate along with this existence and annihilation.I have to make this point perfectly clear.These sub nuclear particles fluctuating in and out of existence are what nothing is, and this is always the case.This is what nothing is.http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com...The article above refers to quantum fluctuations as vacuum fluctuations because, in our universe of space and matter, we've detected these fluctuations by using a vacuum that strips the basics of something from empty space.But the sub nuclear particles in QF are something, right?Nope.They never statively exist; they exist and don't exist at the same instant, and it is this fluctuation that makes up nothing.There is no "nothing" without these fluctuations, period.What is nothing?It is a state of fluctuating sub nuclear particles and their forces called quantum fluctuations.That video is short and explanatory of QF = nothing.Quantum fluctuations are as real as microorganisms, and we've demonstrated and measured their effect, in current space, in detail.http://physics.aps.org...However, at [+0,-0], unlike our current universe, there was no space, and instead, like the forces between the sub nuclear particles, space and time fluctuated along with the sub nuclear particles.Space is merely the position of matter or the distance between matter; matter dictates space.At [+0,-0], in a quantum fluctuation, a sub-nuclear particle exists and is simultaneously annihilated by its antiparticle, and this pseudo moment allows for the fluctuated existence/nonexistence of space and time and the forces between the sub-nuclear particles; this was the condition at [+0,-0], which is a constant fluctuation of time/space/matter/energy/gravity thanks to QF. These zero-energy quantum fluctuations, nothing, are such an unstable state that energy is guaranteed to be expressed from them; that expression is called the big bang and is the origin of our universe.From nothing [+0,-0] to something [+1,-1] = The Big Bang. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...3. *CREATION IS TEMPORAL*creation - the process of bringing something into existencehttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...In order for a process like "bringing something into existence" to occur, there needs to be stative time and the passage thereof to allow for a "bringer of something into existence" to exist, remain, and then bring that something into existence; creator-->created is contingent on stative time and the passage thereof.Unfortunately for this resolution, at [+0,-0], there was no stative time, because there was no stative space in QF.Space and time are part of a continuum, so we call it spacetime.http://www.einstein-online.info...I reject the claim that the universe has a creator, god, because creation is a temporal process, contingent on time, and at [+0,-0] there was no stative time or the passage thereof, because there was no stative space; temporal processes like creation are nonsensical without time.Therefore, god in this debate cannot be, because there is no creator of a universe that wasn't created.4. *MORALITY*From what I can gather, the god of the bible is the ultimate author of it, so what we find in the bible is morally approved by him.According to the god of the bible in Exodus 21:20 - 21:21:"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."http://biblehub.com...http://biblehub.com...Ugh. This is ugly, and what's being approved of is immoral.Objectively, slavery is immoral.Objectively, allowing the unpunished beating of someone is immoral.Objectively, owning another human as property is immoral.Apologists typically throw out that the idea "slave" is being used to mean "servant" or "butler."Ok, so god's cool with you beating a butler as long as you don't kill them BECAUSE they are your property?If we're to believe that the author of these ideas is the source of all moral authority, then is it moral to own other humans as property?Pro, do you believe that it is moral for humans to own other humans as property?God also adds in Deuteronomy 22:13 - 22:21:"If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity' [and]...the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing...by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."https://www.biblegateway.com...So, the alleged source of all moral authority, god, is not cool with women having sex before marriage, and commands all of the men of the town to stone her to death?I'm speechless. One would expect the source of all MORAL authority to be, I don't know...moral.Pro, is this idea moral?