God is the only answer to the beginning of life

He seems to agree with my observation that the debate is about the existence of the universe, not the origin of life. Onto the debate! ===== Big Bang ===== >>>God snapped his finger. BANG. Contention one affirmed. <<< This is true. However, if I can show a plausible scientific explanation for the Big Bang, then by virtue of Occam's Razor God should be abandoned. >>>Where did this "singularity" that my opponent talks about come from? How did it get there? There is no answer to this question. <<< Obviously science doesn't have an answer for this, though we are getting frightfully close to the answer. We can trace back to only a few seconds after the Big Bang, which is obviously very close. However, the thing is that once you get closer to the moment of the Big Bang, the physical laws start to break down and thus things get muckier. This is because at the singularity, Einstein's laws can't describe it and it's been readily accepted by physicists that all scientific laws break down at the point. In fact, there can be a totally new set of scientific laws (which brings into question cause-and-effect, etc. ). However, there are many plausible "pre-Big Bang" explanations and models. Also, there are several facts found in quantum mechanics that break away the assumption only God can be the "Un-Caused Cause": 1. Multiverse The Multiverse[1] is a hypothesis that reality contains an infinite amount of universe, and from one universe another can spring from it. There are various "sub-models" describing how this can happen, such as String theory. While the empirical evidence is lacking (until we get those results from the LHC[2]), it is mathematically plausible. This is why physicists are starting to love the multiverse theory - it, along with string theory, fit's the mathematical equations so eloquently and explains everything. It's the new proposed "Theory of Everything" that Einstein dreamed about. 2. Virtual particles, Hartle-Hawking State, etc. Virtual particles[3][4], are basically, particles that exist for a limited amount of time in space in a vacuum fluctuation. They are uncaused, and can't be observed (in fact, observing them will actually change the process). These particles do not have the required Einstein relationship between their energy, momentum and mass. They come into existence and blow annihilate themselves later. Hartle-Hawking cosmology[5][6] is a wave-function that explains the initial conditions of the Universe. Classical cosmology is different from quantum cosmology. Classical cosmology is things such as the Big Bang, which explains the formation and development of the universe. Quantum cosmology attempts to explain the initial conditions and development/creation of the universe. The Hartle-Hawking state has been shown to fulfill the Wheeler–deWitt equation, which is a very important functional differential equation in theoretical physics[7]. This basically means any equation in quantum gravity/cosmology must satisfy this equation as a preliminary. This is all I will give for now due to character limits. ===== Why the Christian God? ===== >>>Jesus is the only God who has revealed himself to our race. All other "gods" were made up by man. God showed himself to us through Jesus Christ. <<< Ipse dixit. This is simply an assertion, you have yet to given proof for Jesus "revealing himself" to us. >>>It is undisputed that Jesus really lived, and that he really died on the cross. This is not only written in the Bible, but throughout other documents of history. <<< It would've been nice if you actually listed out the sources and developed your argument, but whatever. While Jesus Christ probably did exist, he did so as a PERSON. There is not much strong "historical" proof for his divinity (as many fairy tales have been written down as truth). If you gave a compelling case for the Resurrection, then perhaps you have something. Otherwise this is yet again a unproven claim. >>>Jesus is the One, True God. He is the only way we could exist, much less the universe. Without God, there would be nothing. <<< This is circular reasoning if you're trying to use this as justification for why only the Christian god is viable for the universe's beginning. It can basically be reduced to "only God can create the universe, therefore only God can create the universe". My opponent probably quickly see's the problem with arguing that the Christian God is the only answer for the universe's beginning. In this debate, he has yet to even establish Christianity's validity or why the universe's creator NEEDS to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. Can't a being with NEAR omnipotent power create the universe? Or maybe HALF omnipotent power? Why must a being with all power be the only one who can create the universe? ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent's argument has been horribly ineffective. I have shown how something can be uncaused, and other plausible scientific explanations for the universe's beginning. There is no need to insert a God. Similarity so, his justification for why only the Christian God is the answer for the universe is presumptions. He has yet to prove the Christian God is true, and yet he takes it as a presumed truth. Even more shockingly, he even falls into a very obvious circular reasoning trap. With so much errors and fallacies in my opponent's argument, his third and final argument has better be one of a high caliber. Otherwise, the vote goes to CON. ---References--- 1. . http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www2.slac.stanford.edu... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. . http://www.123exp-science.com... 7. . http://www.123exp-science.com...