god

Resolved: The universe requires a creatorI will attempt to negate this resolution. Here is my opening argument:"If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding Universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created, how did that happen? In many cultures, the customary answer is that a God or Gods created the Universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question, where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and conclude that the Universe always existed? There is no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, questions that were once treated only in religion and myth." - Carl SaganI will negate the resolution and debate that the universe does not require a creator.FrameworkLet's first look at the resolution of the debate. Does the universe require a creator? The first thing worth mentioning is that in this debate, neither of us are trying to affirm or negate the existence of a higher power. As Con, I am not attempting to argue that it is impossible for the universe to have been created by a higher power, I am only trying to argue that it is possible for the universe to have not been created by a person or being that brings something into existence.By stating that "The Universe requires a creator", my opponent is claiming that it is impossible for the universe to have come into existence by any other means except from creation by a higher power.If I can successfully prove that there is a single possible scenario of the creation of the universe that does not require some sort of creator (by the definition I have offered in round 1), regardless of the probability, then I will have won the debate.It is scientifically possible for the universe to have come from nothingIt is often best to start with what we already know about the universe. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe did an amazing job answering the many questions that cosmologists had about the universe. Among many others, one of the most important questions that were answered was: What is the universe's geometry? With only a 0.5% margin of error, WMAP confirmed that the universe follows a flat geometry [1]. The data recorded from the WMAP fits extremely well with the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker model, which is another very convincing indication that the universe is indeed flat [2].You may be wondering, "What's the significance of a flat universe?". A flat modeled universe is extremely significant to the questions being asked here because it provides a reasonable and natural explanation about how the universe could have come from nothing. This is because a flat model universe has zero total energy[3]. All of the positive energy that exists in the universe is balanced out by the negative energy we refer to as gravity. This results in a cumulative total of zero energy[4].The next question one might ask is "What's the significance of zero total energy?". A publication done by Filippenko and Pasachoff, whom are both professors of astronomy, do a better job of explaining this than I could by saying: "The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy."[5]Quantum theory provides an easy explanation of how the "tiny bit of energy" was able to form without the universe being present. Quantum fluctuations, or a temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space[6], can occur quite frequently without disrupting the law of conservation of energy due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle [7]. This provides one explanation of how a fluctuation of energy could have existed before the universe was created, and thus, could have easily been the "first cause" of the universe's existence as we know it.ConclusionWhat I have outlined thus far is a single possibility of the universe coming from nothing. I have cited evidence for each claim that I have made, most of which is coming from scientists, astrologists, and cosmologists who study these kinds of things every day. I am not trying to argue that this must have been the way the universe was formed, I am only trying to demonstrate that it is completely possible for the universe to not have a creator. Even if the probability of this occurring is next to zero, which I am sure my opponent will attempt to argue, it is still scientifically possible, meaning that there is at least one plausible scenario in which the universe does not require a creator.The resolution has been negated.Citations:1. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...2. http://books.google.com...3. http://arxiv.org...4. The YouTube video above5. http://www.astrosociety.org...6. http://en.wikipedia.org...7. http://www.halexandria.org...http://www.youtube.com...Please note that I have already done a debate with this resolution (http://www.debate.org...). I have copied and pasted my opening argument from that debate to this one. This isn't plagiarised (like my opponent's argument, but we'll get to that in the next round) because I am the original writer of this argument. I am allowed to use it in multiple debates if I choose.