Unstable Creation of the Universe is as reasonable a theory as Theistic Creation

Ill do my best to address his points:I. Addressing the Above1) I do indeed agree with your suggestion.2) My mistake, I should have typed "All I have seen are NOT particularly understandable. " My apologies.3) All I am asking for in terms of "fitting" is that what a proposal says either A. Follows from what we would expect based on what we see in the rest of the world, or B. Gives an adequate reason why generally we would expect that and why in this case that doesn't apply.4)Ill allow this. If your model achieves more than mine without incurring more issues, its superior.5) What I am asking for is the ability to apply your model in such a way that you can make a prediction of how something would work. It doesn't have to be correct, just A prediction based off your theory. What a theistic argument offers is a what, not a how. It's like asking your friend what's wrong when your internet goes out, and he responds "Don't worry, I took care of it". The next time your internet breaks, we're still clueless what broke or how to fix it. God is your friend in that scenario. Something happened that explains everything, but we don't know what it was, only that he did it. But at the end of the day we still don't know a thing about wireless network connections.6) I admit to my model not being scientific, it is simply atheistic. As we agreed, this is purely speculative modelling, since that puts us on even ground. But I still hold that my myth makes more sense than yours because mine is thorough. It starts at a very small scale of two energy waves opposing each other and builds up from there what happens next. There's a clear step by step progression where you see what happens and what it leads to. Theistic explanations start the same but at some point have a jump where they say "God decided to make something" and jumps to "Then there was something". Theres a step in between on what happens to MAKE something thats left out. There's the lack of thoroughness.7) Ill agree that nothing I say can be proven to mathematically agree, but it DOES agree with their implications. The Big Bang Theory says that we should see a universe that eminates from a point. So does mine. Second Law of Thermodynamics says we should see a world where Matter/Energy is never created or destroyed. So does mine. When I say "agrees", I mean "doesn't contradict". A god who should have built the Earth as the center of the universe doesnt fit with the Big Bang and one who spontaneously generates massive amounts of energy without explanation doesnt fit with Thermodynamics.8) Thats true, you could say that. Im not barring you from it. But saying Barney's Belch caused all of creation doesn't make alot of sense does it? Because Barney didn't exist yet. And a belch is a force, which doesn't have a way of becoming matter. If you could answer those questions, then yeah, the Barney Belch model of the Universe is perfectly ok. Just make sure you are detailed enough to help someone understand it.9) This is a mistake. I don't support the Big Bang theory here. The Big Bang was proposed to explain why the known universe expands away from a given point. My explanation does the same; consider it a replacement. The place where I mention the Big Bang is where my myth starts explaining that phenomenon. Your story doesn't explain why Earth, which by most religions seems to be the most significant part of the universe, is off in some corner of space when you'd expect it to have a more relevant location. By point 4), I'd say that gives my model an extra point right there in terms of explaining more.10) My position is that there was no "cause" for initial energy, because energy cannot be created as far as we know, only changed. The energy was there because it was always there. I don't believe we are arguing "everything needs a cause" because your story also involves a being who existed before anything else could exist to cause it. Both our explanations REQUIRE that time regress infinitely. It is only the universe as we know it that we are trying to explain, which is what both our models do. If you want to change that, fine, but go ahead and say where the "One" came from first, and what caused his initial Desire.11)I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion here. You seem to be saying that a complex solution is worse than no solution at all. This is false. Its one thing to say we don't know something, its another to say we don't know, so lets forget about it. You may not agree with what Ive offered, and thats reasonable, but if you have nothing better to replace it with, then you still have less. II. Hindu CreationI wish that my opponent had given more interpretation of his story, because I'm having some trouble reading it. Ill answer to it based on my understanding, but unfortunately it may differ in some respects to what kbub takes it as. I won't have time to correct myself if im mistaken, as this is round 3 already. Lines 1-4 - Sounds good so far. A base state where there is no air, no water, no stars or sun. No matter. This agrees with my suggestion. Lines 5-8 - Here the "One", our diety, was initially all that was, and it seems its thoughts are the trigger to start creation. This brings up at least 1 issue which is not explained here: Why doesn't creation occur all the time? What we see in the world today reflects what we refer to as Conservation of Matter Energy etc, but if there is a being which triggers existence, why has nothing we know of spontaneously generated in modern history? Lines 9-11- This seems to refer to rishis, who have apparently been created in the last section. Also, light enters the darkness, presumably created by the rishis. Ill note here though, that while we now have electromagnetic energy and Spirit, this story hasn't explained where matter came from. It is clearly stated that there is no matter in the universe at this point, and as I see it, there continues not to be. Lines 12-14- Tricky here, but I think its a philosophical question of if the One was in control of this creation or if he was the source. I might be wrong. Lines 15-20- And THIS is the main problem that we must address. When we ask how thoughts somehow manifested into reality, or how compartmentalized parts of the One called Rishis invented light, or what mechanism decides which "desire" of the One becomes reality or how of these work at a individual scale, we are met with, to paraphrase, "God only knows". This is the preventative barrier that makes this an unreasonable model. It is contingent on taking as fact that we don't and can't know the answer to these questions. What is the point of an explanation where a major component of it is : "I couldn't tell you, sorry. "? I am not saying that this or any other model presented from a theistic viewpoint can't work or isnt as it is plausible. What I am saying is they are all incomplete. They all have a hole where no one seems to know anything further, and we are expected to accept that. All this model gives is something else to look up, passing the question on to someone else. It doesn't answer it. All I'm asking is that you skip to that part of the story. To conclude, I am not arguing from a scientific perspective. I am not saying that modern science invalidates God. I am saying the concept of a Diety offers us nothing so far as the creation of the universe. It is a middle man that supposedly brings us creation but does nothing to explain how creation works. My argument is simply that a theistic argument would make just as much sense if you remove god and put in anything else. The alternative he presented not only brings up at least 3 more issues than we started with, but still fails to answer the basic question: "How exactly did we go from not having "stuff" to having it? ". My only challenge is to come up with a better way than the one I gave.