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

Thanks for the response Bannanawamajama. I will respond to your arguments down the flow, and then offer my own contentions. Please note that, while I respect your model and your smart arguments, like you pointed out I am obligated to draw attention to the problems I notice. 1) Because you have not responded to my suggestion in the first round, I assume that you are conceding the one's position ought to provide the best "model" and not necessarily "theory." 2) "Now, the main contention I have against theistic creation is that while most theories are potentially valid, most if not all I have seen are particularly understandable." --I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Are you attacking theistic creation or defending it? 3) It is true that validity can be measured by one's "fitting" into our "current understanding;" however, you cannot assume that scientific theories match one's "current understanding," especially from the "standpoint of intuitive understanding." It would be highly abusive to assume that the Big Bang and Evolution and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle can be taken for granted in our "current understanding," especially when we are comparing this model to theistic creation, which traditionally does not appeal to science for its validity. Although you do give some analysis and cite some websites, none of these citations offer any actual data for these other scientific theories. This is fine if these other theories are interesting asides, but you have used them as the core of your evidence for the validity of your position, so you must give me reason to believe these theories. You so far have not done so, so they cannot be used as positive evidence. 4) You have also neglected the possibility of one model explaining more than another model. My counter-model will be successful in this regard. 5) To "hazard a guess" for "hypothetical situation[s] at the fundamental level" does not an understanding make. I could hazard a guess at what would happen if the world were ruled by three-legged zombies, but that does not mean that I understand such a situation. "To understand" means "to have a thorough conceptualization of a concept." 6) You criticize theistic creation stories as using too much "handwaving," and having not enough analysis on the methods involved in creation. This criticism however, bites your argument. You have pointed out that you "have no empirical evidence to back [your argument] up." The thing is, SCIENCE WITHOUT EMPIRICISM IS NOT SCIENCE. Despite the fact that you appeal to scientific theories, YOUR ARGUMENT IS A CREATION MYTH. Science is based on empirical patterns, but your "theory" does not even pretend to use evidence. Thus, my opponent's criticism applies directly to his/her argument, rendering either the alternative criticism or the argument invalid. I will also outline later how my opponent's alternative especially applies to this "theory," since the "theory" is very vague. 7) Because my opponent have abandoned empiricism, (s)he cannot say that her/his model "agrees" or "disagrees" with the Big Bang Theory, the Laws of Thermodynamics, or wave theory. These theories are based on mathematics and evidence, while my opponent's model is the product of her/his ingenuity, a kind of science fiction if you will. There is absolutely no way to know if my opponent's model actually "agrees" or "disagrees" with the Big Bang Theory since there is no evidence available to measure their compatibility. 8) In terms of its conceptually agreeing with other scientific theories, s(he) only need use her/his imagination to come up with some sort of way to explain the Big Bang. I'm sure my opponent's imagination is adequate, but I could with just as much scientific validity suggest that Barney the Dinosaur's belch caused the Big Bang and Global Climate Change. Judge, please do not allow my opponent to trick you into thinking that (s)he can use scientific theories to validate his/her imaginary model. 9) My opponent's model does not actually provide "a conceptual understanding of how the universe began," and in fact muddles at times what a beginning actually is. My opponent called the Big Bang the universe's "starting point," but then talks about what comes before this event. My opponent's case is contradictory in terms of what the "beginning" actually is, but nevertheless pretends to give evidence for the "start" of the universe. Because my opponent has not established what the "start" actually is, (s)he must be stricken down since (s)he does not actually provide any conceptualization for how the universe began, and fails to even have consistency in terms of what a beginning actually entails. 10) Additionally, even though my opponent claims to provide an explanation of the "beginning" so as to be compatible with the laws of thermodynamics, (s)he actually dodges the true beginning of the universe. My opponent says that there was seemingly "nothing" due to the fact that potential energy was in balance, which changed as it shifted out of balance. However, my opponent still does not explain the origins of energy. Therefore, my opponent has failed to explain how the universe has begun or how energy came to be, and fails 1. A theistic explanation provides answers to these, or are at least honest about the mysteries involved in creation, but my opponent only pretends to explain the universe's origin and dodges its first step. 11) Even if you buy her/his model, all it says is that a potential (energy) changed into an actual (energy). Of course the beginning occurred as an potential moving into an actual. This statement simply notes the necessity of an effect having a cause. All of the other "analysis" that (s)he provides are unfounded and simply detract one from the underlying simple model. These complexities only serve to distract and confuse. Therefore, far from providing a "conceptualization" of the beginning of the universe, my opponent's model has done the opposite and made it more confusing "from the standpoint of intuitive understanding." Therefore, EVEN IF I PROVIDE NO COUNTER-MODEL WHATSOEVER, my opponent's model still fails not only because it is uninformative and confusing, but because it pretends to be informative. Counter model: I will provide a theistic creation story that explains more phenomenon, more simply, and with less internal contradictions, distractions, and confusion. According to Occham's Razor (http://math.ucr.edu...), even if our models are exactly the same in all other respects, the fact that mine is simpler automatically makes it preferable. As evidence for its ability to explain the universe in terms of "intuitive understanding," my creation story has been retold for thousands of years by captive audiences, and is a sacred text for Hinduism, unlike my opponent's model that has not been able to give anyone a conceptual model for creation yet. My model 1) makes the universe seem more beautiful, 2) admits that creation is paradoxical, 3) gives the same model of balance, 3) Allows Big Bang 4) Considers existence Non-being then existed not nor being: There was no air, nor sky that is beyond it. What was concealed? Wherein? In whose protection? And was there deep unfathomable water? Death then existed not nor life immortal.... By its inherent force the One breathed windless: No other thing than that beyond existed.... Desire entered the One in the beginning: It was the earliest seed, of thought the product. The sages searching in their hearts with wisdom, Found out the bond of being in non-being. Their ray extended light across the darkness: But was the One above or was it under? Creative force was there, and fertile power: Below was energy, above was impulse. Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it?... None knoweth whence creation has arisen; And whether he has or has not produced it: He who surveys it in the highest heaven, He only knows, or haply he may know not