The Universe Can Be Explained Naturally Without God

A Mistake On My BehalfI should have been Pro in this debate but I put Con accidentally. However, I clarified exactly what we would be debating individually in the introduction round. Thus, I don't think that this should be held against me. I will be referring to myself as Pro. The UniverseCon accepted this debate under the definitions I provided. Thus, he has to accept the Big Bang and that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old in context. Even if these are false presumptions; it doesn't matter. The very definition of universe Con accepted this debate under presupposes these two assertions. Either way, the most accurate age of the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old and we know this scientifically from observation[1]. The age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old[2]. Therefore, if The Bible says that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old; it is dead wrong. The Bible doesn't even claim that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old. As respected Christian philosopher William Lane Craig notes:"Over 50% of evangelical pastors think that the world is less than 10,000 years old...That is just hugely embarrassing...Scientifically, it's nonsense... It's really quite shocking when you think about it... There is no reason to think that The Bible, in Genesis or anywhere else, teaches that the world is only [roughly] 10,000 years old." - William Lane Craig[3]The Big BangCon simply bare-asserts that The Big Bang just exists to explain the universe without God. That is clearly nonsense. The Person who fathered and developed The Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest[4], why would he work so hard to develop a Theory that undermines God? Theists commonly reacted to The Big Bang theory as something which confirmed God's existence:"Science has provided proof of the beginning of time. . . . Hence, creation took place in time. Therefore there is a Creator; therefore, God exists." - Pope Pius XII (1951)[5]When a priest fathers the theory, and popes think that it demonstrates God's existence, it is hard to see how one can take seriously the idea that The Big Bang is somehow an Atheistic theory. He says that I failed to bring up evidence for The Big Bang but that is false. I provided a link to NASA's page in the first round with evidence. I don't even need to provide evidence, as Con accepted this debate under a definition of "universe" which presupposes The Big Bang, and an age of the universe that is billions of years old.Is The Big Bang Theory Illogical As A Scientific Explanation Of The Origin Of Life?Only the standard Big Bang model predicts a singularity, and most think that the prediction is wrong and that The Big Bang has to be modified to account for quantum gravity:"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein’s theory..." - John Barrow[6]Con also asks where the energy came from. However, I already explained a plausible scenario in my first round; the universe most likely has a total net energy of zero, and it could have came from a timeless, and spaceless zero energy state describable by the laws of nature (Alexander Vilenkin's quantum tunnelling model). My opponent then lists what the scientific method is. The Big Bang completely adheres to it. He says that The Big Bang Theory cannot be tested. This is embarrassing, as I provided a link to Big Bang tests in my last round. The Big Bang makes two major predictions:(i) The universe is expanding(ii) There exists an afterglow from the radiation produced by The Big BangScientific testing has confirmed these predictions. The Red-Shifting of the galaxies demonstrate that the universe is expanding[7], and the Cosmic Microwave Background is the afterglow of The Big Bang[8]. Additionally, The Big Bang says nothing about a "pre-universe", it only describes the universe after it exists. Why do scientists still regard The Big Bang as science? Because it is. It involves some of the best science we have today. Scientific Age Of The EarthIt seems as if I will expand on this issue furtherHow Do We Know How Old The Earth Is?"Geologists used these pristine objects, such as the Canyon Diablo meteorite (the fragments of the asteroid that impacted at Barringer Crater) as a way to get at the true age of the Solar System, and therefore the Earth. By using the radiometric dating system on these meteorites, geologists have been able to determine that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old within a margin of error of about 1%."[9]By use of geometric dating, we know that the age of the Earth is around 4.5 Billion years old. This is the scientific age of the Earth.Why My Opponent Is Misguided On The Age Of The Earth-- Receding MoonYes, the moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. The moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth though, so this is consistent with an Earth that is billions of years old. The rotation of the Earth as slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years as well[10], which further undermines Con's argument in this regard as this is inconsistent with a young Earth.-- Moon DustCon argues that there is too little dust on the moon to account for a Earth that is billions of years old. This is simply not true, and even known Creationists like Snelling and Rush disagree with my opponent here:"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale"[11]Con hasn't even really presented an argument for his position here. I don't feel the need to go into it anymore.-- Sun ShrinkingThe argument assumes the shrinking is constant. This assumption is without foundation.Now, Inspired said something very bizarre:"That isn't science because it cannot be proved." - ConMy opponent clearly does not understand science:"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science." - Satoshi Kanazawa[12]Nothing in science is 100% certain. However, we have overwhelming scientific evidence for The Big Bang (as I have already explained in this round). Therefore, to deny it would be irrational. The Concepts Of Time, Space, Order, And RealityIf reality needs a creator, then the creator couldn't be real. In any event, Con argues that space, time, and order need a designer because it is so complex. Why should anyone believe my opponent though? I already provided a modal (Alexander Vilenkin's) which describes a universe coming into being as a quantum tunnelling event from a zero energy state; no designer required. Also, science is not based on "faith" but evidence. It is much more reliable than some bronze age book written by the scientifically ignorant. ConclusionCon accepts The Big Bang and the true age of the universe just by accepted this debate with the definitions provided. I only combated my opponent's claims out of boredom. He did not even challenge the model I presented. God isn't needed to explain the universe; the resolution has been affirmed. Sources[1] http://science.nasa.gov...[2] http://www.universetoday.com...[3] Video Source[4] http://www.amnh.org...[5] http://www.colorado.edu...[6] John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986), page 290[7] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...[8] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...[9] http://www.universetoday.com...[10] Eicher, D. L., 1976. Geologic Time. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall[11] http://www.talkorigins.org...[12] http://www.psychologytoday.com...http://www.youtube.com...