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

I did not support my initial argument with many facts or explanations, I merely laid the foundations of what my argument would be on. .. First, I would like to state that God has no time constraints, and it was a mistake on my part to discuss "time frames" (it appears to have confused me, my opponent, and most likely the readers) thus I concede that. But, at the same time I would like to mention that in that same paragraph I said "He would either be on a different dimension OR time frame than us" So, what I would like to say is that my original quote of 2 Peter 3 verse 8 is still valid due to the fact that God, if he were to live in a dimension that transcends time would still have a different "time frame" as relating to us. So, I update my original argument by saying that God lives in a different "dimension" as modern science would call it. On my opponent's Quantum Fluctuation argument as an explanation for the Big Bang: Now, if all events/objects must have an origin, than quantum fluctuations must have one, as well as the fact that sub-nuclear particles must have an origin. What is this origin of quantum fluctuations? Another question I have is if quantum fields generate sub-nuclear particles at random as Heisenburg"s uncertainty principle states it would, then 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? Another question that arises "what is the minimum energy needed to cause a "Big Bang"? " Would sub-nuclear particles such as quarks colliding which causes energy no greater than 3500GeV (proton collisions can reach up to 7000GeV) been able to cause the formation of the universe? The answer is most likely not On my opponent"s Quantum Fluctuation argument Cont. Another reason that Quantum Fluctuations do not disprove the idea of God using science to create the universe is because while quantum fluctuations may be nothing, the universe itself is something. There must be a universe within which these quantum fluctuations can occur, 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 On my opponent's statement of "The writers of the bible failed to include cosmic microwave background radiation, quantum fluctuations, or the concept that the universe is expanding, so the bible's account of our universe's origins is inaccurate and incomplete. The writers of the bible also failed to include the ideas of inorganic and organic compounds, metabolism and cell replication, or amino acids and genetics, so the bible's account of earthy life's origins lacks a substantial explanation. " My response: Yes, the Bible did fail to include several details, but remember, Moses the writer of Genesis would not have understood the majority those terms, and many of the people nowadays don't understand them. Another thing, according to the definitions of the topic I do not need to prove that every piece of scientific evidence is in the Bible this is seen in our definitions of "correctly - in a way that is true or factual" and "explained (changed in comments, so not a Google definition)- to tell or show the reason or cause of something" 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. This invalidates my opponents argument of lack of explanation and that the Bible "does not" fulfill the topic. On my opponents statement of "but it's commonly understood that science has animals' origin way after stars forming. .. there is no earth before stars either. Why does the bible have it backwards if the bible correctly explains the origin of life? " My response: This is true that stars formed well before animals, stars also formed well before the Earth, however I said this in my first section "While the Sun and other stars had already formed, many scientists theorize that our atmosphere would have been very thick and cloudy (due to volcanic activity)" making it appear that the stars just formed. .. Why would the atmosphere clear AFTER plants and not before? Look at Venus, no plants. .. no clear atmosphere. As well as the fact that chemosynthetic plants remove CO2 + 6H2O and creates sugar and oxygen, eventually clearing the atmosphere slowly, but surely. So, the Bible still correctly explains the origin of Earthly life in this example. On my opponents statement of "Why should we literally or metaphorically accept what ancient people wrote about a topic of which they were largely unaware" My response: Because it is correct, you don"t have to understand something for it to be correct" All throughout the history of science what you have is people who don"t understand something being correct about it. For example, Newton didn"t understand gravity when he first theorized about it. Another example is, Copernicus who was correct about heliocentrism when he really didn"t understand anything about it (he ended up only being half way correct" The sun is not the center of the universe, just the solar system). On my opponent"s argument: "Pro should also mechanistically explain, using the bible, HOW the particular Abrahamic god used science to complete tasks; Pro cannot just explain the science behind cosmological events, rather Pro needs to show how god caused them. I understand the big bang and inflation, but HOW did god execute these concepts? What in the bible indicates the mechanism god used? " My response: Again, I do not have to explain every detail" according to the definitions of the topic I do not need to prove that every piece of scientific evidence is in the Bible this is seen in our definitions of "correctly - in a way that is true or factual" and "explained (changed in comments, so not a Google definition)- to tell or show the reason or cause of something" 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 counter argument: "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. Me saying this is probably annoying by now, but that is the wonder of definitions in debate. For this piece and the next, I will further my original point by showing that the Bible truthfully shows the reason/cause of the creation of the universe and life on Earth. First, I would like to quote St. Thomas Aquinas on his 5 basic arguments for the existence of a God. ""1. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God. "2. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God. "3. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God. "4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God. "5. Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God. Next, I would like to show how a metaphorical interpretation can be correct" According to a study done by the University of Chicago Psychology department " [a] sentence may be literally true or false" as well as saying "interpreted metaphorically it [the same sentence] may also be true or false" But, how is the metaphorical interpretation of the Bible true? That is hard to prove, but what is much easier to do is prove that it is not false, which would make it true. How is the statement "God created the Universe" not false? Because, if we assume for a second that there is a God and since he is sovereign, then he must have created the universe" Even if we don"t assume that God exists, what can be seen is that quantum fluctuations (without God) do not accurately explain the creation of the universe (as seen earlier) nor does a random Big Bang event" So, the statement "God created the Universe" is not necessarily false, meaning that it must be true. Thus a metaphorical interpretation has the ability to be true in the context of the Bible. How did God create the universe? God created the universe through what we call the "Big Bang" event. Now there is no Biblical proof of this but there is also no Biblical proof against this idea. In Genesis all that it says is that "God created the universe". This idea of God creating a Big Bang, not only allows for a God to exist but also allows for a Big Bang to occur. Which is the most plausible explanation for the cause of the universe I will expand upon the other great performances of God in my next round. Now I pass the debate back to my opponent.