God does exist
Debate Rounds (3)
Keep in mind that there are many variations of the Big Bang theory. I assuming you are aiming to address the Ball-of-Light Theory. I would advise specifying on which end you are aiming to debate over (as well as which creator, if you had a specific one in mind), but since the question is not the theory itself, but a creator (assuming the Christian God) we can leave it there. If you do, however, have a specific god in mind (you did not specify in your first argument), then I will need to know in order to refute its existence. Please and thank you.
I reject the claim that a god is necessary in order for the universe to come into existence, but rather through naturalism. By this, I am meaning the Big Bang [inflationary theory], which expanded and formed the universe through the means of quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are the state of nothing (the lowest point it can go). Because of quantum fluctuations, there is a constant, and temporary, appearance of sub-nuclear particles and anti-particles that annihilate each other in the same instance. It allows for the fluctuations to exist, and then not exist spontaneously. Through this, an inflation could have started that gave way to the universe we know now. (Note: these fluctuations do not violate the conservation of energy and have been proven to exist in quantum vacuums.) 
In this blackness that you describe, there were quantum fluctuations. As I had stated before, quantum fluctuations are the state of nothing. Meaning, there will never be an empty space, like you imagine, without these fluctuations. And through the law of quantum mechanics, there is a something that would eventually form from instability [the state of quantum fluctuations]. And that something happened to be the formation of our universe. I wouldn't actually say "pop," but rather inflated like a balloon.
The Big Bang then allows for the universe to form naturally, without a need for a god. The "creator" in this sense are the fluctuations, not a supernatural being. In other words: naturally, as it requires no assistance of a deity. Therefore, naturalism is a logical answer.
("That the heavens and earth were all together at one point and they split and started expanding which is referring to the Big Bang.") This is false given that the universe is older than the Earth. It took time for the Earth itself to even form. The universe is estimated to be around 13.7 billion years.  The age of the Earth is around 4.5 billion years.  There's a difference, as you can see, between the ages. The Earth did not expand across a distance, but instead formed from chunks of planetesimals from the Sun, equipped with its own gravitational field and found itself in its own orbit around the sun.  The passage that you have offered and the facts do not align.
("1400 years ago people thought the moon had its own light. Well we discovered this no more than a few hundred years ago.") The moon does not have its own light. It reflects light from the sun. 
("We created man out of an extract of clay...") Humans are not made out of clay.
("Then we made him as a drop in a place of settlement, fixedly firmed. Then we made the drop into alaqah. Now we know the human embryo is a blood clot and from the tube attached to it, it would be a suspended thing. Now about the leech. It basically means that we looked like a leech when we were an embryo.") Embryology doesn't prove a creator. Information of this sort could be from other writings. Fetal development is able to be observed through means like miscarriages. If that is all of the passage regarding the embryonic stage, then I conclude. Even if it's not the entirety, my point still remains. Information like this is not evidence of a creator.
None of the "scientific miracles" that you have provided have been evidence for a creator. Some of the information is also wrong. Since the next round is the final, you can make one last argument for me to rebuttal. I advise using a supreme finisher.
("... Quran talks about our solar system and in which it says the sun is the center of the solar system.") I would need the exact verse for me to rebuttal, not just claims.
("... boys will act like girls and vice versa.") Transgender and cross-dressing isn't a new thing. It's been around for a very long time and has now only started to become more widely accepted (at least here in the United States.) This verse could be based on personal experiences of Mohammed and noted in the Quran for that reason.
("... that the moon used to be split in half and when Apollo 10 landed on the moon they found a huge crack which is photographed. Trust me it wasn't an ordinary crack it was large, really large and when they did some research it indicated that the moon might have split.") Where is your source of information? I was curious of this bit of information, so I decided to search myself. I found that NASA did not agree with your claims. 
You have failed to prove the existence of a creator by using the Quran.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Both participants displayed good conduct. Pro committed some S/G errors, but nothing significant enough to impair readability. Pro put forth many claims which were either barely supported or not at all [i.e. Big-bang reference, shown to be erroneous by Con], some of which were of a spurious nature [i.e. embryotic development>created man out of an extract of clay, argument based on similarity of appearance]. Each of these claims were soundly and directly refuted by Con's rebuttals, to which Pro provided no defense. The resolution is was not affirmed; arguments to Con. Con supplied a multitude of sources [like nasa] to back the refutations [while Pro had none].
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.