The Universe began with a Big Bang. Prove me wrong. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The Universe began with a Big Bang. Prove me wrong.
in Science

I personally believe that the Universe began with a 'Big Bang' - a huge explosion of matter from nothing, caused by quantum fluctuations. Can you change my mind?
  1. Live Poll

    Do you believe that the Universe began with a Big Bang?

    14 votes
    1. Yes, I believe that the Universe began with a Big Bang.
      57.14%
    2. No, I believe that the Universe came into existence in some other way.
      42.86%
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2532 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    I do not "believe" in the Big Bang, but I see it as a very plausible model.

    Here is how we came to it in the first place. Almost a century ago Hubble analysed the data on the redshift of distant galaxies and noticed that the speed at which they are moving away from us is, on average, proportional to that distance. Now, one could assume that they are just moving away from us as a result of some regular physical processes, but the numbers just didn't add up on that hypothesis. As the more and more data was collected and the relation between distance and the speed was found to be universal, only one conclusion begged to be made: that the space itself in the Universe expands. And since there is no reason to believe that our location is special and a center of the Universe, the expansion has to be happening everywhere, in every single point in the Universe.

    Now, if that is the case, then what happens if we turn the clock back, to see what happened in the future? We will see the opposite: the Universe contracting, instead of expanding. As it contracts more and more, it becomes "smaller" and "smaller". And where does it end? In collapsing to one "point", one singularity, and that is it. After that, our physics breaks.

    Now, we do not know for sure that this is what would really happen; perhaps at some density scale the laws of physics become very different from what we are used to. It does not have to be the case that tracing the time back will necessarily lead us to all mass concentrated in one point.

    However, as scientists, what we can do is ask this: "If this is really what happened, if the Big Bang was indeed how our Universe was created, then what extra evidence of that could we have?" And here is where cosmic microwave background comes in: it is almost perfectly consistent with the Big Bang hypothesis, down to incredible precision in its energy density, and it is very hard to explain without it. Add to it the famous WMAP results, and many other seemingly unrelated results, and everything adds up really well.

    Does it mean that the Big Bang has been proven? No. But the model is plausible and matches a lot of evidence we have, with very few contradictions, if any. It definitely has done a better job at explaining evidence than any other hypothesis in existence. I am not aware of any theory that attempts to explain the cosmic microwave background without involving the idea that at some point in the past all matter was condensed in a very small volume.

    There are many things that we cannot explain just yet. The famous lithium problem, in which I in particular delved for a bit, still remains a mystery, although there are some plausible explanations existing and waiting for a more solid evidence. The inflation theory also has a lot of problems, suffering from strong dependency on fine parameters that are unlikely to be determined accurately any time soon.
    But we do explain much more by accepting the theory of the Big Bang, than we do by trying to employ other alternatives.
    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473qwerrty
  • AlofRIAlofRI 392 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    I, personally, think you ARE wrong! It had to be more of a HUGE BOOM! ;-)
    xlJ_dolphin_473RS_master
  • IamachristianIamachristian 18 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    A problem with the Big Bang Theory:"The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy, and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy. This means that heat energy cannot be created or destroyed."-Live science.
    It is said that the Big Bang created all the matter and energy in the universe. Posted an image referring to that on November 29 2019.
    The Big Bang violates that law.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • I recently read a new scientist paper which said something about quantum fluctuations preventing the big bang wrong. Another piece of evidence I found is Brazillian physicist Cesar Silva Neves argues that the original singularity never existed. He says their is proof of a rapid expansion but no proof of the original singularity. Some more arguments against the big bang are

    If their was an explosion it would have formed a small amount of lithium.

    When the Big bang happened cosmic background radiation would have been symmetrical when there are asymmetries in the cosmic background radiation.
  •  You stated, “a huge explosion of matter from nothing, caused by quantum fluctuations.” 
     This statement, in itself alone, is a contradiction. You believe that an explosion of matter, that came from nothing, created the existence of everything. Yet you then say, “the explosion of matter, was caused by quantum fluctuations.” Quantum fluctuations is not ‘nothing.’ It is something. 
     Also, the Big Bang theory is supposedly a theory of scientific nature. But the nature of science is the use of data to prove a theory. To say that nothing created something would be the opposite of the nature of science. For science says, “A theory can only be proven from physical data supporting the theory to be true.” Yet if you say, “nothing made everything.” Then that has no data to prove the theory to be true. So it is actually a faulty theory, with the foundation of nothing. No facts, just foolishness. 
    RS_masterxlJ_dolphin_473
  • DeeDee 1326 Pts
    edited September 2019
    @Rabbahrayah

    How would you go about proving something cannot come from nothing? Also what exactly is nothing from a scientific viewpoint? 
  • We can't know for sure if the Big Bang Theory is valid or not. Whenever someone challenges how we know this, we simply say "I don't know" because we don't know if it's the concrete hardcore evidence. However, the years of research and studying on the topic leads people to believe in the Big Bang Theory. Take merely a few minutes to go into study articles and definitions to see all the studies that were made just to come up to this conclusion if you accept it or not, and it's fine if anyone doesn't. We may never truly know where everything in space and time was created. So yes, the "were you there" argument is flawed and is an argument from ignorance.
  • @RS_master
    Have you heard of inflation? Inflation was an extremely rapid period of expansion in the early seconds of the Universe. Any minute irregularities in the distribution of radiation before inflation would have been hugely amplified by the inflation. And that is why there are asymmetries in the CMB.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • The Big Bang Theory exists only if you accept that the scientific method isn't necessary for the adoption of a theory.  Science has rules that, when not followed, lead to corrupt or "Junk science".  This is how the Big Bang Theory came to be. 

    Much similarly to the adoption of human evolution due to the discovery of the Piltdown Man which turned out to be a hoax, the adoption of The Big Bang Theory is the result of Scientists allowing the scientific method to be simply ignored in favor of a better narrative.  Were the scientific method to be applied to the Big Bang Theory then it would collapse under the weight of scrutiny for failure to be observable, testable, verifiable or replicable.  This well known fact however, is overlooked by the masses simply because it's convenient.
    Plaffelvohfen
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • How do yo know this, because scientists and authority figures told you so and you are taking their word through a willingness to accept what they say through blind faith (kind of like religious people), or you really know without a shadow of a doubt that it is the case. Because, unless you are an actual scientist who has a special qualification to be talking on this subject, then I would put my money on the former. My issue with so many people is that they claim to be so enlightened and scientific, when in reality they are just doing the same thing religious people do, it's just that they have replaced god and religion with science and "scientific" authorities. 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
    "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking...is freedom."-Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "It is not strange...to mistake change for progress."-Millard Fillmore

    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-Ayn Rand

    "To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."-Barry Goldwater


  • @Rabbahrayah
    There is no such thing as nothing as a scientific concept. Quantum particles will always spontaneously appear and disappear, leaving only a trace of energy.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • xlJ_dolphin_473, first of all, how did all the energy of the Universe come together? That would require someone or something to do that. Second of all, the Big Bang theory explains that there was a big explosion, releasing energy(all explosions do). But how come, when something blows up(even a nuclear bomb)it doesn't make life? Instead of making life, it destroys it.That's common sense. Third of all, its still a theory, its still called the Big Bang theory. That means its not proven yet. Scientists were not there at the beginning when the beginning started. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Iamachristian

    Most arguments people make against the Big Bang are based on such intellectually lazy ideas, I rarely even bother to respond to them.

    1. Why would that "require someone or something to do that"? The Universe does not know what "energy" is; it is a human concept. The Universe came to be however it did, and it does not owe us any obvious explanation. And the explanation that matches our data does not have to be obvious at all.
    2. The Big Bang theory does NOT state that there was a big explosion; it is a common misconception, based perhaps on the poorly selected term for the theory. The Big Bang rather states that the Universe emerged in a very condense and hot state and gradually expanded. It is not an "explosion", as the term "explosion" assumes that there is some space for the matter to expand into, while in case of the Big Bang it is the space itself that expands.
    3. Explosions may or may not produce life; not all explosions are the same, and different materials, temperatures and environments can change their consequences.
    4. Claims based on "common sense" in science is one of the biggest mistakes people, even scientists, ever make. The Universe does not have to be described in a way that is understandable just based on our limited everyday experiences.
    5. Physics is not after "proving" theories; mathematics is. In physics we instead look for models best describing the observable evidence, and as of now the Big Bang Theory happens to be by far the best of all existing theories in this regard.
    6. Scientists do not have to have been there to know about the Big Bang, just like you do not have to have been in Hitler's Germany to know that it existed.

    People should do, at least, a minimal research via Internet before trying to debunk decades-old theories based on research from dozens thousands experienced scientists.
  • This is what I find in wikipedia when i do quick search "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the Universe. Under this theory, space and time emerged together 13.799±0.021 billion years ago and the energy and matter initially present have become less dense as the Universe expanded.
  • @Iamachristian

    Correct. Notice how there is no word "exploded" here, but, instead, there is the word "expanded". These are very different things: explosions involve expansion of the matter within space, and expansion of the Universe is the expansion of the space itself. This expansion continues to this day, and the expansion rate, as far as we know, is accelerating.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • RickeyDRickeyD 295 Pts
    edited November 2019
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 ; There was no Big Bang. The Universe finds its origin from the Spiritual World which is Eternal. The causation for our Universe finds its genesis in the Kingdom of God, the Spiritual World, before the creation of Time. A horrific cosmic struggle manifest as the result of an attempted coup de taut and before the initiator of the coup could bring continued injury to the Kingdom, he was extricated as were those who allied with him in the rebellion against our Creator.

    In order to deal with this rebellion/war apart from the Kingdom, our Creator, who is Spirit (John 4:24), took elements from the Spiritual World and formed them into matter that is visible and interactive with the senses that would be constrained by the physical laws of Time subsequent to the creation of life in human KIND. This is why mankind, who is cognitively constrained by Time and The Curse on Adam's genome, will NEVER define origin of matter or articulate the genesis of our Universe...the basic building blocks for our Universe are found only in a World that is far superior, infinitely more intricate, defined, than the temporary and dying Realm of Time i.e. the Spiritual World. If interested, I explain via the Holy Spirit causation for origin here: https://rickeyholtsclaw.com/2017/09/27/in-the-beginning-god-why/

    Jesus said...

    Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."  John 18:36 (NASB)



    No one knows how the Universe began (Harvard and NASA analysis): http://https//www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm


    "He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end."  Ecclesiastes 3:11 (NASB)







    PlaffelvohfenHappy_KillbotZeusAres42RS_master
  • Happy_Killbot
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Thanks for correcting me, but for your first explanation, you say "Why would that "require someone or something to do that"? The Universe does not know what "energy" is; it is a human concept. The Universe came to be however it did, and it does not owe us any obvious explanation. And the explanation that matches our data does not have to be obvious at all." I found 2 websites using the term "energy" when I searched up "Did the Big Bang use energy."
    Proof:
     https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/190389main_Cosmic_Elements_Poster_Back.pdf
    Why do they use the term "energy'?
  • @Plaffelvohfen ; Rebut as opposed to an infantile MEME? This is why the Universe was created, prove it wrong: https://rickeyholtsclaw.com/2017/09/27/in-the-beginning-god-why/

     



    Dr_MaybeZeusAres42
  • Prove yourself right. You don't understand the burden of proof.
    Happy_Killbot
  • @RickeyD

    Evidence for the Big Bang: thousands scientific papers, hundreds of pieces of predicted and testable evidence, the entire body of physics in development for centuries fully supporting the theory, hundreds large-scale numerical simulations ran on supercomputers that all support the hypothesis.

    Evidence for creationism: one ancient dusty tome with 0 testable predictions or evidence.

    I will go with science.
    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbot
  • @MayCaesar ; The Big Bang has been debunked...it never happened. The Holy Spirit, who was present at Creation has explained and articulated who, what, where, when, why and how concerning our origin. You're free to call the Holy Spirit a liar and trust in men who have not a clue...the "choice" is yours. BTW: Without Jesus Christ as your Lord for the mediation of your sin, you will die in sin and die in Hell without hope...this too is very relevant concerning that old Book.

    Marrying one’s theology to today’s science means that one is likely to be widowed tomorrow.

    In fact, the signs are strong that exactly that is happening, and that those who have ‘bought’ the big bang for its allegedly irrefutable science have been ‘sold a pup’. A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet (Cosmology statement) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article on www.rense.com titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004) says, ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’

    The open letter includes statements such as:

      The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.
    ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in  Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original].’‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

    The dissidents say that there are other explanations of cosmology that do make some successful predictions. These other models don’t have all the answers to objections, but, they say, ‘That is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined.’

    Those who urge Christians to accept the big bang as a ‘science fact’ point to its near-universal acceptance by the scientific community. However, the 33 dissidents describe a situation familiar to many creationist scientists: ‘An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences … doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.’

    Evolutionist and historian of science, Evelleen Richards, has noticed that it’s hard even for rival evolutionary theories to get a hearing when challenging the ruling paradigm.

    Evolutionist and historian of science, Evelleen Richards, has noticed that it’s hard even for rival evolutionary theories to get a hearing when challenging the ruling paradigm—see Science … a reality check. This should give some idea of the difficulties biblical creationists face.

    But don’t we read, even in the daily newspapers, about many ‘observations’ that only ever seem to support the big bang? In fact, these prominent secular scientists say:

    ‘Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.’

    Science is a wonderful human tool, but it needs to be understood, not worshipped. It is fallible, changing, and is severely limited as to what it can and cannot determine. As CMI has often pointed out, instead of a scientific concept, the big-bang idea is more a dogmatic religious one—based on the religion of humanism1. As these big-bang opposers point out:

    ‘Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method—the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible.’

    Furthermore, contrary to the naïve pronouncements of many who should know better, it is not in any sense a matter of ‘looking into a telescope and “seeing”? the big bang billions of years ago.’ As always, observations are interpreted and filtered through worldview lenses. Those who developed the big bang were guided by secular worldview filters just as much as those who are now crying that the emperor has no clothes. They wanted a universe that created itself; their opponents want an eternal, uncreated universe. From a Christian perspective, both are in open defiance of their Creator’s account of what really happened.

    With Darwinism on the run, the Enemy of souls is seeking to seduce believers into embracing a more subtle, yet far deadlier way of evading the authority of the Bible. With progressive creationism/big-bangery rampaging through the evangelical community, he must think he is on a winner.






    PlaffelvohfenHappy_KillbotxlJ_dolphin_473ZeusAres42
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2532 Pts
    edited November 2019
    Religious people claiming to be experts on all sciences is one of those mysteries of life I will never understand. I do not claim to be an expert on religion and will not argue over what Biblical passage means what, but point at any religious fundamentalist, and you immediately see an expert on all branches of physics, biology, anthropology, history, economics and mathematics.

    I have spent the last 12 years studying physics and mathematics 60-80 hours a week, and I still consider myself a rookie, barely capable to do the most basic independent research. But any Christian who has read a couple of websites seems to know more about multiple sciences, than hundreds thousands of professional scientists.

    It is puzzling how you folks still have not conquered the stars with such incredible abilities.
    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbot
  • @MayCaesar ; You are free to believe science which knows nothing to very little truth relevant to our origin or you can believe the Holy Spirit. Your eternal destiny is contingent upon what you "choose." Without Jesus Christ as your Lord, you've no hope!!!


    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • @RickeyD

    Sorry, I am still going through my list of 10,000+ deities without which, people have said, I have no hope. Jesus Christ is on my backlog and I will get to him eventually.

    The nice thing about science is that it does not require either belief or hope. It only requires the ability to think, one that seems to be a rare commodity.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @MayCaesar ; There is but ONE God to Whom you will give an account for your life in Eternity. If you reject the pardon from death in sin and Hell provided you by Jesus Christ as Lord, you will lose both body and soul in Hell.


  • @RickeyD

    Do not be so sure... Perhaps things are not how you think they are, and your Jesus Christ will get you in royal trouble one day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GScdUIYXglA
  • @MayCaesar ; My Lord desires that you not die in spiritual ignorance and has put you and me here together so that I can warn you that you're headed to a future of destruction in sin and Hell in your unbelief and unless you repent of your sin and believe in your heart, confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is God who died to pay your sin-debt and that He was resurrected for your justification, unless you believe and confess Jesus as your Lord, you will die in your sin and die in Hell in meaninglessness. You are on the broad road to destruction, my Lord wants you to know that Jesus is the ONLY Way to find the road leading to life in God's Kingdom.


  • @RickeyD

    Your lord seems to have experienced the Big Bang in his brain, if he cannot figure out that he can simply drive over to my parkway, knock in my door and tell me that in person.

    Your deity is boring. My deity is a beautiful and rich female with yellowish skin that shows up in my room after every successful business transaction and makes me hot tea. Tell your god to learn from his betters!
    Plaffelvohfen
  • RickeyDRickeyD 295 Pts
    edited November 2019
    @MayCaesar ; My Lord has told you and testified through what He has made and set before your eyes in Nature; He has entered Time and walked among mankind for 33.5-yrs defining God and His Plan for Time and Eternity; He has provided His written Covenant of Grace to you via the Scriptures; therefore, if you deny Him, you will be "without excuse" at your Judgment in Eternity. It's better you live and die with knowledge as opposed to spiritual ignorance.




  • @RickeyD

    And my Lady has told me that you are missing on a lot of great tea; come here some time, we will teach you how to brew a true heaven in a cup.

    From what you have told me so far, your god does not seem able to even give me a phone call. Why should I be afraid of his judgement? Cockroaches seem more able to do harm, than him.

    Also, what is with all the endless quotes? I am not impressed by your scriptures; please speak for your ideas with your own words.
  • @MayCaesar ; At least you won't die in complete ignorance...you have been told. Enjoy.
    Happy_KillbotZeusAres42
  • @RickeyD
    I think its kinda funny that you continuously loop all of your arguments back to threats of dying and not going to the afterlife, when you have absolutely No proof that an afterlife exists 
    Happy_Killbot
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • Plot twist: the god throws books that make no sense at humans to see who is gullible enough to believe simple hearsay. Those that believe it go to reeducation camps in hell for their inability to critically think, and to heaven once rehabilitated - and everyone else goes to heaven immediately as a free thinker.

    I almost said that god sends believers to hell permanently, but then I realised that this version of god would not be as cruel as the Biblical one and, probably, would genuinely love humans and refrain from hurting them.
    Happy_Killbot
  • @AmericanFurryBoy ; The Holy Spirit has explained throughout the Scriptures relevant to our eternal spirit as having been created in the likeness of the eternal Spirit of our Creator, Jesus Christ-Yeshua. Life does not actually begin until subsequent the death of this body constrained by Time. In fact, this entire existence in Time is a form of spiritual boot-camp in preparation for Eternity. You're free to disagree with Holy Spirit but that's not wise. I share the following in an article I submitted responding to an atheist concerning our eternal spirit...

    What happens when I die?

    In The Beginning, on the 6th-Day of Creation, our Creator, Jesus Christ-Yeshua, created mankind in His spiritual image (Genesis 1:26) and endowed mankind with certain attributes possessed by God Himself. One of those attributes is an eternal spirit that will live and thrive abundantly beyond the death of the body constrained by Time and debilitating SIN.


    Our Creator has infused Eternity into our heart (Ecclesiastes 3:11) and every man, woman and child is aware of a realm, aware of a life that extends beyond the brevity of this temporary life in Time (Hebrews 13:14) which the Holy Spirit refers to as a “vapor” that fades away like the morning mist (James 4:14). Only the man or woman, having given their hope and their Eternity into the hands of Satan through unbelief, have become numb to the glory that awaits the faithful in our Everlasting God, Jesus Christ-Yeshua (2 Corinthians 4:4).


    A Christian’s hope in everlasting life as promised by Messiah-Yeshua/Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is not the resultant of fear concerning death of the body for we know that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) but we who love and honor Jesus Christ know that the human eye has not seen, ear has not heard of the unfathomable goodness that awaits those who dwell in the presence of our God who suffered and died so that we could live with Him forever (1 Corinthians 2:9).


    It is written…


    “But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 15:54-57 (NASB)

    _____________________

    What happens when I die?

    1) Death of the unfaithful/unbelieving.

    2) Death of the faithful in Jesus Christ.

    3) Death of babies, children, the mentally handicapped.


    1) Death of the unrepentant/those who die having rejected Jesus Christ-Yeshua as Lord and Mediator for sin…


    Every man and woman having attained an age of reason/accountability *(Numbers 14:28-30) possessing sufficient cognitive acuity to discern right from wrong, moral from immoral, to discern the righteous decrees (Natural Law) of our Creator as written upon our heart at conception…if this unfaithful man or woman dies in their body of flesh having rejected the pardon from death in sin and Hell freely offered by Jesus Christ-Yeshua earned for them at the Crucifixion, at the point of death of body, the unredeemed/unfaithful in their disembodied spiritual form will be instantaneously translated into the region Messiah-Jesus identifies as Hades-Sheol/Torments (Luke 16).


    The disembodied spirit of the unfaithful at the last exhalation of the Earthly body in Time, will enter Hades-Torments fully cognizant, fully aware, fully interactive in the Spiritual World, more so than when constrained in the body of flesh that inhibited full cognition and reality due to the inherent limitations of sin/the fallen-nature/the curse inherited from our father, Adam (Ephesians 2:1-3).


    The unfaithful that have been confined in Hades-Sheol/Torments from The Genesis of Time are currently awaiting the Judgment of the Condemned/The Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) that will manifest subsequent to the Millennial Reign of Messiah-Yeshua that will manifest immediately subsequent to the coming Tribulation Period/the Apocalypse/a nuclear war that will be initiated by Islam-Allah/Satan v. Israel-Yeshua and consume the Nations of the Earth in the coming days.


    Prior to the Judgment of the Condemned, the unfaithful detained in Hades-Sheol/Torments will receive a resurrected body of corruption (John 5:28-29) in order that they can stand in the Judgment before Jesus Christ-Yeshua (Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10-11; Ecclesiastes 12:14). During adjudication, the condemned will be evaluated for the things done in the body while constrained by Time upon the Earth. No one will be found righteous for their works done in the body because God the Father has established an immutable Covenant between Himself and mankind that only by His grace (unmerited favor) through faith (trusting-believing) in His Son, Jesus Christ, and the innocent blood that Jesus shed at the Crucifixion can forgive, redeem, sinful mankind (John 3:16: Acts 4:12); therefore, the unrighteous man and woman at the Judgment of the Condemned, having rejected Jesus Christ as Lord, will be adjudicated “guilty” for sin, their name will NOT be found written in the Book of Life (Revelation 20:15) and they will be forced into the Lake of Fire/Hell/Gehenna and they will suffer for a period of time commensurate with the evil and rebellion performed in the body while constrained by Time upon the Earth; subsequent to this period of suffering, the unrighteous will die a “second death” and cease to exist forever (Revelation 20:14; Matthew 10:28). The “second death” is necessary because God the Father, in His purity-holiness-righteousness, will NOT permit the destructiveness of sin to enter the Eternal Kingdom of God (Revelation 21:27).


    2) Death of the body relevant to the faithful in Jesus Christ…


    Every man and woman having placed their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and having received forgiveness of sin and having received the indwelling Holy Spirit as the Seal/Guarantor relevant to the Covenant of Grace established by God the Father through the Son, Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:13), these faithful men and women having trusted in Jesus Christ as Lord, at the point of death of the body in Time, they are instantaneously translated into the presence of God the Father in the Kingdom in their disembodied state that is fully cognitively acute/aware (2 Corinthians 5:8). Those who die with Jesus Christ as their Lord, will serve God in the Kingdom in a variety of occupations and positions as they were prepared for same during the process of Sanctification while in the body upon the Earth (1 Corinthians 6:3; Revelation 1:6 & 5:10).


    At the resurrection, the faithful in Jesus Christ will receive a resurrected body fashioned like the resurrected body of Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:21) that is impervious to death, disease, pain, suffering (Revelation 21:4). Forever, the faithful in Jesus Christ will serve Him in the Kingdom and beyond if He so chooses and in the presence of our God there is joy and peace and assurance that is everlasting and beyond human comprehension (1 Corinthians 2:9).


    3) What about babes (unborn/born), children, the mentally handicapped, who die in the Realm of Time?


    The Holy Spirit has articulated within God’s Covenant (the Scriptures) that where there is no Law there is no sin (Romans 4:14; 5:13); therefore, babies, children having not attained an age of reason *(Numbers 14:28-30), the mentally handicapped, these lacking the ability to fully understand God’s righteous decrees via the Divine-Natural Law are NOT culpable for sin; therefore, upon the death of the body, these innocent before the Lord are escorted into His presence and they are restored to full acuity and spiritual life in order to enjoy the fullness of joy and peace that is found only in the presence of our loving God.


    But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Matthew 19:14 (NASB)


    Speaking of the Eternal Realm, Jesus said…


    Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”  John 18:36 (NASB)


    *Note concerning the Age of Accountability/Reason as per Numbers 14:28-30 being 20-years-of-age. This is an assumption on my part relevant to what the Holy Spirit has said in a particular/specific dispensation. I do not know for certain what age my Lord considers a man or woman or child culpable for sin; I believe that this age varies with each person’s moral maturity and only our God knows that particular age (Psalm 139:2-3).




  • RS_master said:
    I recently read a new scientist paper which said something about quantum fluctuations preventing the big bang wrong. Another piece of evidence I found is Brazillian physicist Cesar Silva Neves argues that the original singularity never existed. He says their is proof of a rapid expansion but no proof of the original singularity. Some more arguments against the big bang are

    If their was an explosion it would have formed a small amount of lithium.

    When the Big bang happened cosmic background radiation would have been symmetrical when there are asymmetries in the cosmic background radiation.
    You read a paper? You think their was an explosion? Their was no explosion so where did the lithium come from? If you read a paper you didn't understand it. You make so many mistakes that you would have been better off to say nothing because nothing you say is correct.

  • @RickeyD

    That is all good and well, but you are still typing it on an electronic computer, that was built based on the same scientific theories as the Big Bang Theory has been derived from. You do not seem to be typing on the Lord's typing box from Heaven.

    You could switch to the technology derived from Christian ideas... Unfortunately, there is no such thing, so, I guess your Lord is not big on science, which is understandable: science is hard and requires a lot of intelligence and critical thinking, which, based on the Bible, I assume the god does not possess.
  • @Iamachristian
    You said: Instead of making life, it destroys it.That's common sense. 
    This is incorrect. The Sun effectively is constantly exploding through nuclear fusion. Without the Sun, there would be no life on Earth.

  • RickeyD said:
    @MayCaesar ; The Big Bang has been debunked...it never happened. The Holy Spirit, who was present at Creation has explained and articulated who, what, where, when, why and how concerning our origin. You're free to call the Holy Spirit a liar and trust in men who have not a clue...the "choice" is yours. BTW: Without Jesus Christ as your Lord for the mediation of your sin, you will die in sin and die in Hell without hope...this too is very relevant concerning that old Book.

    Marrying one’s theology to today’s science means that one is likely to be widowed tomorrow.

    In fact, the signs are strong that exactly that is happening, and that those who have ‘bought’ the big bang for its allegedly irrefutable science have been ‘sold a pup’. A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet (Cosmology statement) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article on www.rense.com titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004) says, ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’

    The open letter includes statements such as:

      The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.
    ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in  Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original].’‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

    The dissidents say that there are other explanations of cosmology that do make some successful predictions. These other models don’t have all the answers to objections, but, they say, ‘That is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined.’

    Those who urge Christians to accept the big bang as a ‘science fact’ point to its near-universal acceptance by the scientific community. However, the 33 dissidents describe a situation familiar to many creationist scientists: ‘An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences … doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.’

    Evolutionist and historian of science, Evelleen Richards, has noticed that it’s hard even for rival evolutionary theories to get a hearing when challenging the ruling paradigm.

    Evolutionist and historian of science, Evelleen Richards, has noticed that it’s hard even for rival evolutionary theories to get a hearing when challenging the ruling paradigm—see Science … a reality check. This should give some idea of the difficulties biblical creationists face.

    But don’t we read, even in the daily newspapers, about many ‘observations’ that only ever seem to support the big bang? In fact, these prominent secular scientists say:

    ‘Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.’

    Science is a wonderful human tool, but it needs to be understood, not worshipped. It is fallible, changing, and is severely limited as to what it can and cannot determine. As CMI has often pointed out, instead of a scientific concept, the big-bang idea is more a dogmatic religious one—based on the religion of humanism1. As these big-bang opposers point out:

    ‘Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method—the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible.’

    Furthermore, contrary to the naïve pronouncements of many who should know better, it is not in any sense a matter of ‘looking into a telescope and “seeing”? the big bang billions of years ago.’ As always, observations are interpreted and filtered through worldview lenses. Those who developed the big bang were guided by secular worldview filters just as much as those who are now crying that the emperor has no clothes. They wanted a universe that created itself; their opponents want an eternal, uncreated universe. From a Christian perspective, both are in open defiance of their Creator’s account of what really happened.

    With Darwinism on the run, the Enemy of souls is seeking to seduce believers into embracing a more subtle, yet far deadlier way of evading the authority of the Bible. With progressive creationism/big-bangery rampaging through the evangelical community, he must think he is on a winner.







    @RickeyD ;
    You say that the Big Bang has been debunked. I think this is the argument from ignorance here. I have scoured the internet and I cannot find a single non-religious, unbiased evidence. Let's debunk YOUR evidence. I think that's the best place for me to start.
    You said that the Big Bang relies on hypothetical entities that have never been observed, and whose existence has never been proved. The reason we believe them, though, is because they fit into a wider mathematical theory. Other parts of this theory have been proved. So there is no contradiction at all.  It would be foolish to believe that just because you can't see something, it doesn't exist. We have never seen dark matter, but we know it exists because we have run computer simulations that show that the universe would have pulled itself closed without it being there.
    Also, there is no reason why physicists and astronomers should have all the answers right away. The fact that we know very little about dark matter does not disprove its existence. Over time, we will gather more evidence and understand how it works. Maybe this evidence will never come. But that does not mean it doesn't exist.
    Quote:  Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.’ That is correct, and for a good reason. If you doubt the Standard Model of Particle Physics, the General Theory of Relativity or, in this case, the Big Bang, you deny something that explains the world around us but offer no good alternative explanation. It is fine to question, but fair that you will lose your funding if it is based on crazy ideas and infirm evidence.
    I hope I have shown you the evidence for my view. If not, I have one point of rebuttal that I hope will.
    You said:
    "As always, observations are interpreted and filtered through worldview lenses. Those who developed the big bang were guided by secular worldview filters just as much as those who are now crying that the emperor has no clothes."
    Perhaps, but surely no more than religious people see the world through a tinted worldview lens. Deniers of the Big Bang were guided to take that belief through religious filters. 
    Finally, you suggest no alternative way for the Universe to have come into existence. This is not a loaded question: how do you think the universe came to be? 


  • How do yo know this, because scientists and authority figures told you so and you are taking their word through a willingness to accept what they say through blind faith (kind of like religious people), or you really know without a shadow of a doubt that it is the case. Because, unless you are an actual scientist who has a special qualification to be talking on this subject, then I would put my money on the former. My issue with so many people is that they claim to be so enlightened and scientific, when in reality they are just doing the same thing religious people do, it's just that they have replaced god and religion with science and "scientific" authorities. 

    Yeah, that's right. All those successful brain surgery operations were all based on blind faith. I guess decades of practical application and studies rested on tons of empirical and objective evidence accounted for nothing when all the Brain surgeons needed was just a little faith. Satire! And I guess all of the millions of brain surgery patients over decades just accepted that the Brain Surgeons were Gods that they just needed to have faith in and ignored and failed to recognize anything about their medical training and their previous surgeries; , more satire!

    I guess this song helped them in the surgery room too:

    FYI, you clearly have no idea how the authority fallacy works. You would do well to look into that in more detail.












  • RickeyD said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 ; There was no Big Bang. The Universe finds its origin from the Spiritual World which is Eternal. The causation for our Universe finds its genesis in the Kingdom of God, the Spiritual World, before the creation of Time. A horrific cosmic struggle manifest as the result of an attempted coup de taut and before the initiator of the coup could bring continued injury to the Kingdom, he was extricated as were those who allied with him in the rebellion against our Creator.

    In order to deal with this rebellion/war apart from the Kingdom, our Creator, who is Spirit (John 4:24), took elements from the Spiritual World and formed them into matter that is visible and interactive with the senses that would be constrained by the physical laws of Time subsequent to the creation of life in human KIND. This is why mankind, who is cognitively constrained by Time and The Curse on Adam's genome, will NEVER define origin of matter or articulate the genesis of our Universe...the basic building blocks for our Universe are found only in a World that is far superior, infinitely more intricate, defined, than the temporary and dying Realm of Time i.e. the Spiritual World. If interested, I explain via the Holy Spirit causation for origin here: https://rickeyholtsclaw.com/2017/09/27/in-the-beginning-god-why/

    Jesus said...

    Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."  John 18:36 (NASB)



    No one knows how the Universe began (Harvard and NASA analysis): http://https//www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm


    "He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end."  Ecclesiastes 3:11 (NASB)







    Yet again you are using evidence from "gods" disciples`s book. They will OBVIOUSLY state that god exists and god created the universe. In this debate we are using scientific evidence.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473, first of all, how did all the energy of the Universe come together? That would require someone or something to do that. Second of all, the Big Bang theory explains that there was a big explosion, releasing energy(all explosions do). But how come, when something blows up(even a nuclear bomb)it doesn't make life? Instead of making life, it destroys it.That's common sense. Third of all, its still a theory, its still called the Big Bang theory. That means its not proven yet. Scientists were not there at the beginning when the beginning started. 
    @Iamachristian st I will answer those questions myself. The energy has not converted or gathered. The universe is still expanding from the energy at the beginning. Why is the expansion rate slower? Some of the energy converted into matter hence there is less energy in the expansion thus it is slower.
    2. The energy caused from the explosion converted into matter and some molecules turned out to be DNA cells which eventually evolved and got more complicated. An explosion does not destroy it just that the molecules convert to energy or get rearranged by the force of the explosion.
    3. It has not been proven yet but observations by the Hubble Space Telescope prove it right.
  • xLJ_Dolphin_473 said:You said: Instead of making life, it destroys it.That's common sense. 
    This is incorrect. The Sun effectively is constantly exploding through nuclear fusion. Without the Sun, there would be no life on Earth.

    Explosions are making the sun very hot. That's true.
    But that is what happens when there is countless explosions happening far away.
    The Sun is at the right position.
    Scientists call it the "Goldilocks zone"
    If the Sun were to go closer, we would burn up.
    If the Sun were to go farther, we would freeze to death.
    Without the Sun, there would be no life on Earth.
    But If the Sun would go closer or farther away, there would be no life on Earth.
    The example I was using was the explosions itself.

  • 3. It has not been proven yet but observations by the Hubble Space Telescope prove it right.

    Prove that all of the events of the Big Bang happened?
    That the hydrogen started to form stars and galaxies?
    That It was the exact date when everything happened during the Big Bang?
    That most of the hydrogen and helium in the Universe were created in the moments after the Big Bang?
    You know the Idea.

     The universe is still expanding from the energy at the beginning. Why is the expansion rate slower? Some of the energy converted into matter hence there is less energy in the expansion thus it is slower.
    It isn't proven yet. 
    physicists believe the Big Bang created and stretched space itself, expanding the universe.- Exploratorium.
                    (Not proven.)





  • Job 38:4-6“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
    Tell Me, if you have understanding.
     Who determined its measurements?
    Surely you know!
    Or who stretched the line upon it?
    To what were its foundations fastened?"

  • First of all I would like to explain about the energy creation at the Big Bang.
    If the Big Bang created an equal amount of positive and negative energy, so it all adds up to zero, it would not violate the Laws of Physics for the Universe to have come from nothing.
    Before we bring dark matter/energy into the debate, I would like to remind you all that Einstein proved in his famous equation that matter and energy are the same thing. Thus it would be more accurate to say that the universe has equal amounts of positive mass-energy and negative mass-energy.
    We know that on the subatomic level, particles can spontaneously come into existence.
    And we also know that the Universe was once very small, perhaps smaller than a subatomic particle.
    So, it would not violate the Laws of Physics for the Universe to have simply popped into existence.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch