Round 1: Opening Statement--http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-wars-round-1.html
Round 2: Rebuttal--http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-wars-round-2-rebuttal.html
Round 3: Cross Examination--http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-wars-round-3-cross-examination.html
Let us recap what we have heard in this debate. In the first round, I gave three reasons to believe that an atheistic worldview is more capable of answering the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” than a theistic worldview:
- The something that exists was clearly not designed for humans.
- Our scientific narrative does not involve a god.
- We have no reason to believe a god would exist instead of nothing.
In the first round, Mr. Cook claimed that something, existing out of necessity, was necessary to create the universe. This something required a will because the universe began to exist at a certain point in time.
However, in the second round I demonstrated that the universe most definitely did not begin to exist at a certain point in time. The Big Bang created space and, therefore, time. If this seems confusing, just remember a little bit of physics from high school:
Time requires distance to exist. Distance requires space. No space means no time. Without the Big Bang, we do not have space—even empty space—and therefore we do not have time. The beginning of the universe was not an event in time; it was the beginning of time itself. Hence, no will is necessary and physical laws without a will are capable of bringing the universe into existence.
Mr. Cook also asserted that a god exists necessarily. He has provided no justification for this, other than to say that the presence of a god is necessary for the existence of the universe. This reason can be dismissed because that god would have to have existed prior to the universe and would need some other reason for its necessity, otherwise the existence of god would also be contingent upon existence of the universe.
That which can be asserted without justification can be dismissed without justification so I could dismiss Mr. Cook’s assertion of god’s necessity out of hand, but I have provided two good reasons for my dismissal:
- The omnipotent nature of a god would contradict the necessity of a god.
- The god of the bible has traits, like human emotion and thought, which are contingent.
It is up to you, the reader, to decide for yourself who has won this debate, but I think the answer is clear: An atheistic worldview can provide an answer to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” A theistic worldview cannot.
My opponent's closing argument can be found here: http://arguewithachristian.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html