A Divine Being Created The Universe

Thanks Pro for taking the debate. I reject the resolution that a divine being created the universe, because I reject the idea that the universe was created at all. Being somewhat of a science guy, I wish to explain how our universe indeed has a natural origin, but that this origin does not require creation or a creator, divine or otherwise; the expression of our universe has a natural explanation. The way I like to explain this to inquisitors who may not have been aware of the scientific understanding of our universe's origins is in three parts. 1. Quantum Fluctuations are what "nothing" is. 2. The universe's total energy is zero. 3. The Big Bang is the expression, not creation, of our universe. * 1. Quantum fluctuations = nothing To understand "nothing," one needs to define "something." "Something" is a physical concept that is best explained by physical sciences, specifically particle physics. Physically speaking, to be something, at the most basic level, something must have particles/atoms/wavelengths/energy/matter/radiation. The absence of all of these basic characteristics of "something" leaves us with "nothing." The absence of all of these physical properties, nothing, is a concept of particle physics, because the presence of all of these physical properties, is also a concept of particle physics. Particle physics has been observing and testing nothing for a while. The very science used to explain what something is, has discovered that nothing, in a post big bang universe, is a vacuum of empty space with no matter, no energy, no radiation, no particles, and no atoms, BUT there is a detectable faint physical field; its existence is ubiquitous. You might be thinking...Hold on! A physical field would be something! A physical field can't be nothing... I know...I know it sounds contradictory, but this quantum physical field isn't a steady state of something at all. It's empty, it's void of matter or energy, it doesn't radiate, it has no atoms or full particles, it doesn't have any wavelengths of light...nothing. What's interesting, but demonstrably true, is that this faint physical field in nothing is simply sub-nuclear particles and their counter parts, antiparticles, popping into existence and just as quickly popping out of existence by annihilating each other constantly. This is called quantum fluctuation. Please see the above video from leading particle physicist, Lawrence Krauss; his explanation is great. I must stress here that quantum fluctuations are everywhere and are what nothing is. I'm serious here. Any idea you'v ever had of nothing is not the case, unless your idea is that nothing is simply quantum fluctuations. So, say all you wish that nothing can't have something in it...it doesn't matter (pun intended); nothing = quantum fluctuations. When you strip all of something down, you are left with quantum fluctuations...the absence of something is nothing. There is no "nothing" without these fluctuations, period. http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com... In this nothing state, quantum fluctuations, these sub-nuclear particles exist and don't exist at the same time (annihilation)...doesn't sound like something to me. Physicists are correct in calling this state nothing. This state of nothingness is actually unstable; it can't remain nothing, such that with the many sub-nuclear particles popping in and out of existence constantly, energy is inevitable from this instability. Energy is just the other side of the coin to matter, and this means that if sub-nuclear particles appearing from quantum fluctuations eventually lead to the expression of energy, then matter can come from this unstable nothingness. * 2. The total energy of the universe = 0. So all of the matter and energy in the universe is positive energy. You, me, the earth, the sun, the stars, the other planets, galaxies...are all positive energy. They have matter/energy. All of the gravity in the universe is negative energy. This negative energy acts on the positive energy by way of gravitational force. All of the positive energy (+matter) in the universe is cancelled out, by force, by all of the negative energy (-gravity) in the universe. http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org... The universe's total energy is zero. The universe's total energy can be represented as a set: [+matter, -gravity] As mentioned earlier, in quantum fluctuations, there is no (+) matter or (-) gravity...no positive energy, and no negative energy, which as a set looks like: [+0,-0] = 0 However, because [+0,-0] is unstable, which guarantees the expression of energy, a dense energy state the size of a sub-nuclear particle in quantum fluctuations (the big bang) would express positive energy and negative energy. So from nothing [+0,-0] = 0 comes something [+1,-1] = 0. The total energy is 0, but we have some matter (+1) and some gravity (-1); they cancel each other out to equal zero. Now, I mentioned that quantum fluctuations are in a vacuum of empty space, and this is why quantum fluctuations are also referred to as vacuum fluctuations. But pre big bang, there was no space, so there was no vacuum of empty space. Instead space and time fluctuated in and out of quantum fluctuations just like the sub-nuclear particles. So pre big bang, we have quantum fluctuations [+0,-0]. There is no matter/energy/atoms/particles/radiation/space/time...nothing. Again space and time are variables that fluctuate in and out with the quantum fluctuations before we have any matter or gravity to speak of. At pre big bang quantum fluctuations [+0,-0] = 0 Instability-->big bang [+1,-1] = 0 The universe expands [+10,-10] = 0 Inflation accelerates [+100000,-100000] = 0 Now there is lots of matter, and lots of gravity [+1000000000000,-1000000000000] = 0 Still total energy = 0, but we have (+matter) and (-gravity). * 3. The Big Bang expressed the universe. With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation. http://science.nasa.gov... All of this cosmic background microwave radiation, which is a "black body" as it absorbs all intercepted electromagnetic radiation, is nearly a uniform glow between stars across the universe, and is a proven indicator of an expandable hot dense state such as the big bang being the cosmos' origin. http://www.mpg.de... The small variations in the microwave's uniformity, show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot dense state that has expanded to the current size of the universe. These variations have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of sub-nuclear particles, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk... Yeah, that link is from Cambridge...I know, argument from authority...go to page 9 of the PDF which is page 2 of the preface. So, from quantum fluctuations [+0,-0], matter, energy, gravity, and space-time were expressed through the big bang [+1,-1]. This is not creation...it's expression. * The verb "create" is defined as "cause to happen." To happen, there needs to be time. Prior to the expression of (+) matter and (-) gravity [+0,-0], there was no space or time. So to claim that the universe was created, a temporal concept that requires time to happen, is nonsensical because there was no time to allow for creation. Therefore, the universe could not have been created before time, and the universe cannot have a creator. Quantum fluctuations are neither a creator nor divine. On to Pro's claims...Pro claims: "The universe is logically arranged into superclusters, clusters, and galaxies. In turn, galaxies are logically arranged into solar systems." My Response: Pro smuggles in a logical arranger (in this case the christian god) by using the phrase 'logically arranged." Without explaining the mechanism that the logical arranger used to logically arrange everything, we have no explanation that any of this "arranging" was done. Think of a snowflake. We know snowflakes are a result of the water cycle, "an unintelligent process" as Pro would call it. Snowflakes appear to be arranged symmetrically and logically, because they are six-fold radially symmetrical; this is a quite complex shape that appears to be arranged logically. However, it is well understood that the snowflake is a result of the water cycle, which is, as Pro would call it, an "unintelligent process." So simply because things may appear to be arranged, it doesn't mean that they are. So when Pro claims "order is the condition of logical arrangement," ask yourself: Is the symmetry of a snowflake ordered proportionally? Then ask yourself, was there some "logical arranger" of the snowflake? The fact that natural processes like the water cycle can result in the order seen in snowflakes illustrates the lack of a need for a "logical arranger" (god) when discussing order in the universe. Pro continues: "God predicted not only the destruction of what was at the time the most powerful city in the world, but also its eternal desolation and the name of the conqueror, Cyrus, 200 years before all this happened, before Cyrus was even born!" My Response: If god knows all, he knows the future. If god created all, he created the future and the things that interact thereof. So, it is not a prediction when the things you created did exactly as you planned them to; this is just saying what you created and planned to have happen. Pro's example is not a prediction; it's just an explanation of what god himself made happen. So, I ask Pro: Why should we consider anything the bible says to be true or valid?