The Origin Of The Universe And Earthly Life Are Correctly Explained By The Bible

Thanks Pro for your response and your compliment. This debate's been intriguing in general. Pro improves his point: "So, I update my original argument by saying that God lives in a different "dimension" as modern science would call it." My response: There is no experimental evidence for higher dimensions; they just would solve a mathematical conundrum in string theory. String theory itself, I argue, is not a very well founded theory, and I reject it outright, because it fails to acknowledge that matter dictates the geometry of space. From super string theory's official site: "Spacetime can be neatly separated into space and time." http://www.superstringtheory.com... String theory asserts that there is a fixed space time, held together by unproven "strings" that are subject to "perturbations," which can cut the "strings" that hold space and time together; this is enough to reject it. Higher dimensions are just a byproduct of the math involved in demonstrating string theory. If there were 10 dimensions, then string theory's mathematical conundrums would be solved...whoopty doo. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that higher dimensions exist, or that the claims of string theory have been demonstrated. So if Pro claims that god is in some other dimension that is not constrained by time, I'll ask Pro: Can you demonstrate the existence of this higher dimension? If yes, you should let the string theorists know about it...and you should use it to meet your burden of proof that the bible explains this higher dimension, and that this particular explanation of reality is correct and necessary for the origins of the universe and the origins of earthly life. Also, Pro thinks it's a "childish idea that God is some magical creature." Pro, is it magical for a being to have no time constraints? Sounds magical to me. One can guess my view on magic from my name. On to quantum fluctuations... Pro posits: "What is this origin of quantum fluctuations?" My response: Quantum fluctuations don't have an origin, because when there is nothing, which is the absence of something, there are always quantum fluctuations. Nothing has properties to it, and I'm telling you right now, there is no nothing state without quantum fluctuations. Since quantum fluctuations are always there fluctuating, they've not originated; they've fluctuated always. If your version of nothing does not include quantum fluctuations, your version of nothing doesn't ever exist. Also, unlike higher dimensions, we have detected quantum fluctuations and have experimental evidence for them. http://physics.aps.org... Pro also posits: "Should we not be having Big Bangs frequently? Would we not have multiple "Big Bangs"? Would we not have random sub-nuclear particles frequently annihilating one another? My opponent did say "I must stress here that quantum fluctuations are everywhere" So, where are they?" My response: They are happening all around you, and the source I have provided demonstrates quantum fluctuations' effect on larger than atomic mechanical systems; their ubiquitous existence is demonstrable. http://physics.aps.org... Now Pro's question about multiple big bangs is actually relevant. But first, let me recap our universe's big bang. Remember, our universe is a zero energy universe because all of the (+) matter is exactly cancelled out by all of the (-) gravity. I use a set [+matter,-gravity] = 0 to represent the universe's total energy remaining zero. At no matter or gravity [+0,-0] quantum fluctuations, there is no matter/energy/gravity/time/space. Instead, as the sub nuclear particles fluctuate, so do space and time; there is no universe at [+0,-0], because there is no matter or space. This nothing state is unstable because there is no stative space time; space and time exist only as long as the fluctuating sub nuclear particles and forces. This instability at [+0,-0] expresses matter and gravity [+1,-1] and this is the big bang. Not until we have some matter and gravity [+1,-1] is there any stative space time. So why don't we see big bangs occurring all over? Because currently in our universe, we have space and matter, so space is no longer a fluctuating variable that leads to instability in quantum fluctuations. However, I must stress that quantum fluctuations remain. To respond to Pro's question "Would we not have multiple Big Bangs?" In our universe? No. However, because quantum fluctuations are always ubiquitous in nothing, if nothing exists outside of our universe, then, outside of our universe, multiple big bangs are plausible. I will admit though, that there is no experimental evidence for multiple universes, but the ubiquity of quantum fluctuations allows for such. Pro asserts: "There must also be a universe for sub-nuclear particles to exist. No universe, no quantum fluctuations. Thus, No sub-nuclear particles, no Big Bang." My response: Nope. Pro has it backwards. There must be sub nuclear particles for a universe to exist. No quantum fluctuations, no universe. I also want readers to understand that matter dictates space; space is only the position of matter or the distance between matter. No matter, no space. So, quantum fluctuations need no space to fluctuate, rather when there was no space, space fluctuated with the sub nuclear particles. Pro continues: "So all I must do is prove that the Bible factually/truthfully show the reason/cause of the creation of life on Earth and the creation of the universe. I DO NOT need to prove that the Bible contains every detail of our current scientific data." My response: Yeah, that's how I figured it would be, before the debate started, but... I'm not the one claiming that the biblical god manipulated science to create our universe and earthly life. If that is Pro's claim, then yes, Pro has to prove that the bible contains correct explanations which, to be correct, require great scientific detail. On the creation account, Pro had said: "God creates animals and places the stars in the sky." Pro then explained that this means: "our atmosphere would have been very thick and cloudy (due to volcanic activity)" making it appear that the stars just formed." My response: This is the problem with Pro's metaphorical interpretations. To me, "places the stars in the sky" is a specific action that indicates nothing about a thick atmosphere. Pro continues: "Why would the atmosphere clear AFTER plants and not before?" My response: If the thick atmosphere was carbon dioxide, like Venus's atmosphere, well, plants absorb carbon dioxide. So this shows how the atmosphere could clear after plants. If it is the case that the bible says god created animals and then put all the stars in the firmament, then this is incorrect. No stars, no earth, no animals. This indicates a bible that does not correctly explain the origins of life. I asked Pro why we should accept what ancient people wrote about the universe, a topic of which they were largely unaware. So Pro mentions: "You don"t have to understand something for it to be correct" My response: Yeah, but you do have to understand something for it to be EXPLAINED. If the bible correctly explains the origins of the universe and life, then the explanations--not the concepts themselves--need to be correct; there is no explanation without understanding. So Pro, does the bible explain how god created the universe? "God created the universe through what we call the "Big Bang" event. Now there is no Biblical proof of this."-Pro My response: I agree.