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

Thanks again! I will try, per your suggestion, to elaborate more on my story. Unfortunately I ran out of space, so I couldn't do so before. However, I will try as best I can to stick to my original arguments to make it fair, so judge, please do not vote me down on conduct because of this. My opponent concedes points 1, 2, and 4. Number 5: My opponent says that theistic models do not take care of the problem. They don't claim to all the way, but they at least address the problem. My opponent, in trying to keep with the laws of thermodynamics, does not offer any analysis on a "beginning." While he suggests that his model starts from "nothing," this is not true, since in his model energy existed, which apparently is also potential matter, so the problem of where that came from is in his argument too. Only his argument does not even address where is came from. I ask, is the electronic problem fixed? His model answers, "What problem? The Giants are on." Nevertheless, my opponent claims that it does address the problem of beginnings, which makes his model not only invalid but causing more confusing than the basic notion that "something happened," and thus spawns even less understanding than no model. 7-10) The models my opponent suggests "agree" to his theories are all based on evidence. How do we know that a Big Bang occurred? Mathematics. Why isn't Earth the center of the explosion? This argument could only be made through evidence. My opponent brings no evidence, so even in conceptual terms these scientific theories cannot be said to agree or disagree with his model. Barney could easily have caused it. Belches also contain energy. Barney could have been the first being, and put his image on TV because he thought it was funny. The point is that I could come up with any crazy justification for why Barney creation and these scientific models agree. 6, 11) My opponent does not seem to understand how Occham's Razor works. Here is a link: http://math.ucr.edu.... If two models explain the same evidence equally well, the one that is simpler is to be preferred. My model is simpler: The One was in balance, and then fell out of balance as thought began. This is super simple, agrees with all of the scientific theories as well as my opponent's argument, is less confusing, and (unlike my opponent) addresses being out of non-being instead of avoiding the issue by saying that energy was around. My model points out that the difference between existing and non-existing is one of balance vs. intention. Which holds true, the only things we comprehend are behaviors; we never see essences. Thus, my model demonstrates more, better, simpler, and in a less confusing way. Please also note that my opponent admits to his model being too complicated. I point out that within the rules of science and philosophy, complication that does not explain more is unnecessary and bad through Occham's Razor. Creation does occur all the time; we are recreating the world through our imbalances, which are our actions and desires. I am creating a new thoughts in the reader's head through this debate. The original cause however was when drive and intention began. If you look closely, intention is the creator as we think of it, by the way, and not the One. My model ultimately claims that it is extraordinarily difficult to conceive of a first cause, but that it is true. My opponent believed that it is not difficult at all, that his model can explain it. If you look closely, judge, please recognize that my opponent's model never explains even once being out of non-being. He only says that the energy doesn't look like it exists, but what does that matter since no one was alive to perceive it anyway? The energy obviously existed, so it is no creation. The "One" did not exist or not exist, since that distinction wasn't around. "Matter" is not something my model talks about specifically, but "change" which is even more basic and gets to the philosophical heart of the matter (since you conceded to giving up science, so to speak). My model is not talking about light or other specific matter, really. After an imbalance is made, there is a chain reaction, since that's what imbalances do--cause more change and imbalance. I will turn this point: this is another example of things that my model explains that my opponent's doesn't. My opponent is correct that one must answer, or at least allow one to better understand how we went from not having "stuff" to having it. If we replace "stuff" with energy (which is matter in another form, according to him), his model doesn't address it. My model claims that consciousness is the original creator, and this explains incredibly clearly and understandably and simply how imbalance came as a result. This makes sense to our internal notion of thought, especially concerning how it is connected to will (See Schopenhaur's _The World As Will And Representation_, any page). This is another way my model is clearer. It is also not self-contradictory, and even points out that the differences being and non-being are hard to understand, but may be considered in the abstract as a world without consciousness (no world at all). (I don't really even need to add this argument, but I will just to solidify that my model explains more. My model makes consciousness sacred and beautiful. This also allows us to realize we come from the same source, since we all share parts of consciousness. This is what I mean by giving an advantage in being able to explain ethics and aesthetics. It is BETTER to believe in my model, which gives an extra nudge for validity if you believe that we search for truth because it's good). I think I have pointed out some major flaws in my opponent's arguments that hold true at the end of the debate round, several of which make his entire case invalid and one that makes it worse than no case (which would make me win without having to provide a counter-model). But just in case you don't but that one, I have provided a counter-model which I have demonstrated is superior in its explaining ability, in its simplicity, in it relevance (my opponent doesn't even address the beginning, though he claims to), in its clarity, and even in its morality. Thanks to my opponent for a truly wonderful debate, and thank you to the voter for hanging in there. --Opp