Deism

Opening Statements I accept your definitions, so long as what you mean by everything is everything observable. Since you will be arguing from the atheist perspective, I will focus on arguments that show that a creator of the universe existed. The burden of proof will be on me to show that a Deistic god likely exists. The burden of proof will be on Con to show that it is more reasonable to remain secular than to believe in a Deistic God. Arguments First Cause Today, there is evidence that this universe began about 13.8 billion years ago.(1) I expect that my opponent would agree on this. Since this universe began to exist, there was something that caused it to exist. This cause would be considered the creator of the universe, or the god of Deism. So is there any other way the universe could have started without the need of a creator? I will be talking about different ideas that people have asserted are alternatives to God. Eternal Universe If the universe always existed, then there would be no need for a creator. So, is there any evidence that points toward the universe always existing? The Big Crunch theory is one idea that would have allowed for this to happen. The Big Crunch theory states that gravity will cause the universe to reverse its direction and begin to collapse under its own weight.(2) If this were to be true, it would make sense that the universe has been in an eternal cycle of expansion and compression. However, there is evidence that shows this probably isn't the case. The problem with this idea is that we know that the universe is actually accelerating in its expansion. This means that instead of gravity slowing down the expansion, there is some form of energy, called dark energy, that is pushing the universe apart faster than gravity can pull it together.(3) Although we don't know for certain whether or not the universe will continue to accelerate apart, today it would be the most reasonable thing to believe in, given the evidence. So instead of having an eternal universe, it is probable that we have a universe that began to exist, and will end in a big freeze, where all matter and energy will eventually dissipate and everything ceases to exist.(4) Multiverse Another theory that may allow for there to be no god is the Multiverse theory. This is the idea that there are multiple or an infinite amount of universes, yet we are only able to observe our own.(5) In the event that this is true, then there wouldn't be a need for an intelligent designer. This would not disprove Deism though. Deism is actually compatible with the Multiverse theory. This is because the creator of the universe doesn't have to be a thinking entity. It only has to be an impersonal creator. So, if some type of physical force or reaction started this universe, and maybe even other universes, then that physical force/reaction would be the god of Deism. To be clear, Deism doesn't define god in detail, outside of being an impersonal creator of the universe. This is because we simply don't know enough about God to make other claims about its properties. Ex Nihilo Creation A universe that comes from nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is an old idea that has been under scientific research for decades. A common example that many people use in defense of a ex nihilo creation is virtual particles. Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing" (vacuum fields conceptually analogous to lines of force between magnetic poles) for extremely short periods of time and then disappear again. Such particles permeate space, mediate particle decay, and mediate the exchange of the fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong, and—in accord with quantum theory—gravititational forces).(6) Although it may seem like this helps show that the universe might have came out of nothing, there is a fundamental difference between virtual particles and the universe itself. In order for the virtual particles to be created out of "nothing", there must be universal laws that allow for these things to occur. We know that the deterministic laws that govern the universe break down as time gets closer to the Big Bang.(7) This means that virtual particles would not have been able to exist before the big bang, unless there were still laws or properties of existence that existed before the big bang. If there were laws or properties of existence before the big bang, then these may allow for a universe to come out of "nothing". But does this really mean nothing? Laws and properties can very well be considered things. These laws and properties would be the something that allowed the universe to exist. If a law/property allowed the universe to come out of "nothing", then this law/property is what Deists would consider the creator of the universe, or god. Without this transcendent law/property, the universe would have never of existed. Conclusion The ideas I have talked about - an impersonal creator, an eternal universe, a multiverse, and a universe from nothing, are all candidates in our search for the truth about where the universe came from. The eternal universe idea seems to have failed, as we found out that universe is accelerating apart. The multiverse is a possible idea that still demands a creator of this universe. A universe from nothing is actually not possible, depending on how you define nothing. It is evident that the universe came from something, and that something would be the impersonal god of Deism. Deism has given a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe. It would make more sense for a Deistic god to exist than for one not to exist. It is therefore a more reasonable belief than Atheism. I await Con's response. Sources 1. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... 2. http://www.windows2universe.org... 3. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... 4. http://www.universetoday.com... 5. http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu...'s%20mutliverse.html 6. http://science.jrank.org... 7. http://www.hawking.org.uk...