The Instigator
tennis47
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
phantom
Pro (for)
Winning
62 Points

God or Big Bang?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,366 times Debate No: 28953
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (10)

 

tennis47

Con

I believe in God.
Debate Round No. 1
tennis47

Con

Do you REALLY believe that there was some big explosion the created Earth? Then how were we created?
phantom

Pro

I've only got 5,000 characters so I cannot cover as much as I'd like.

As the Big Bang and God aren't really mutually exclusive, it's a little hard to make out the exact burden of proofs here. From what I can tell, it is my opponents burden of proof to make an argument for God and my burden to make a case for the Big Bang. As said, they're not really exclusive but if that's what pro wants to debate...

First we need to establish what the Big Bang is. Going mainly off standard theory, the Big Bang is a theory that explains the beginning of the universe which happened around 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang theory does not attempt to explain what caused the beginning of the universe, just how it began. The Big Bang arose from a singularity (infinite density). It initially expanded and cooled and went from extremely small and hot to the current size and temperature of the universe and continues to expand. [1]

I will start off by proving that the universe did have a beginning as that is one of the main assumptions of the Big Bang. As Stephen Hawking states, "The General Theory of Relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe shattered the old picture of an ever existing and ever lasting universe. "[2] The universe is expanding in all directions at the same and constant velocity. As time progresses the universe is getting larger and thus 1 million years ago the universe was smaller than it was now. One million years before that it was even smaller and if we go back in time, smaller and smaller until it was at a point of density. That point was the big-bang in which the universe began. [4]

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the universe is running out of usable energy which leads us to the fact that it is not eternal. The amount of energy is always decreasing as we do work. When work is done that work results in heat but not all is turned into energy. If the universe were eternal we would have run out if energy by now. If usable energy is always decreasing than we can affirm that there is a supply of it and that that supply is limited. It is obvious that any limited supply would run out in an infinite amount of time. Supply would be finite and time infinite. It necessarily follows that supply would be used up, and thus the universe began to exist some billions of years ago.[3]


Hubble's Law can be used as evidence for the Big Bang. Edwin Hubble found that almost all galaxies were moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. Using the equation, H = v/d, where h is the current value of the Hubble constant, v is the outward radial velocity of the galaxy and d is distance from earth, it implies that the universe expanded from a once compacted state as with the Big Bang theory. [5]

Cosmic background radiation is also evidence of the Big Bang. The radiation, which fills the universe, is radiation left over from the initial development of the universe. The universe was very small and hot and made up of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, the radiation started to cool. Eventually stable atoms were able to form which could not absorb the thermal radiation and the universe became transparent. The radiation fits in unison with the Big Bang theory which predicts that the radiation fills all of known space and that most radiation is cosmic microwave background radiation. [6]

The Big Bang model also provides a good explanation for array of the elements. According to the theory, 2-3 minutes after the Big Bang, the universe cooled to below around 10 to the 9th K which allowed protons and neutrons to fuse to make stable deuterium nuclei that would not get torn apart by energetic photons. The fusion chain reactions can only take place when the universe is cool enough dependent on the density of the protons and neutrons. Around 15 minutes after the Big Bang, the universe had expanded and cooled so much that fusion became impossible. At that time, the universe was made up of 10% helium and 90% hydrogen. The deuterium nuclei that undergo fusion reaction to make Helium-3 nuclei depends on the temperature and density of the protons and neutrons. The amount of remaining deuterium observed currently can be used as a probe of the early density. Comparing the abundance of primordial material with what the Big Bang theory predicts gives crucial evidence for the theory. Astronomers have found that primordial material in unprocessed gas in sections of the universe match the abundances predicted by the Big Bang very well.[7]

I offer con to present a better model for the universe.

[1] http://www.big-bang-theory.com...
[2] http://www.hawking.org.uk...
[3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[4] http://www.infidels.org...
[5] http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
[6] http://www.universetoday.com...
[7] http://www.astronomynotes.com...

Debate Round No. 2
tennis47

Con

You didn't answer my question: How were we created?

My theory:
Before God created Earth, it was just this place full of water. It took Him 6 days to create, and then he rested on the 7th day, which we call the Sabbath. I don't know what he created on each day (I wasn't there), but I do know that at first He created Adam, and then He created all the animals and their mates. God told Adam to choose names for all the animals.
After awhile, Adam got very lonely, so God made him a mate, Eve. They lived happily in the Garden of Eden for quite a while. There was only 1 rule in it: do not eat the fruit from the tree of God. One day, Eve disobeyed that law, and then she convinced Adam to do so as well. When God heard about this, He was very angry, so He banished them from the Garden of Eden. Then they began to die. Then they had children, and they basically started humanity.

Bring it, dude.
phantom

Pro

Not sure how I didn't answer my opponents question, but speaking about not answering, con has almost completely neglected to respond to the evidence I presented.

Con has not provided any evidence for her theory whatsoever. She has not shown how God created the world in 6 days, that there were two people named Adam and Eve, that Adam gave all the animals names, that there was a place called the Garden of Eden or any of her other assertions really. He burden is to provide evidence for the existence of God as well as to negate my case. She has neglected from doing either.

So the Big Bang stands easily. As far as how life started, evolution I think has far more evidence than the creation hypothesis. For example, all species carry similar DNA sequences of their genomes. The sequences can be demonstrated with the letters A, T, C, and G. After analyzing different genome sequences of different species, you can now have what's called a phylogenetic tree. This tree demonstrates the relationships between species. These "trees" also almost always match up with other trees based on fossils, anatomy, and molecular biology. Scientists generally agree that this strongly supports the fact that all living organisms are related which can only be explained by evolution.

I could go into much more detail but I'm sick and have to work tomorrow, so why should I when my opponent's hardly put anything into the debate herself?

[1] http://news.virginia.edu...
[2] http://dawkinsrottweiler.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 3
tennis47

Con

I believe in God, and you can think whatever you want to think.
phantom

Pro

Con's dropped all my arguments as well as hers.

I take that as a forfeit.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
Acually, Luggs, Genesis states in different places, different orders. That's the great thing about the bible, if you want to prove something, just pick whichever passage supports your point. Your opponent can then choose a different passage to prove a mutually exclusive opposing point!
Posted by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
The ironic thing is that Con didn't even get the order right. Genesis states that animals were created before humans. I believe the order was aviary animals, marine animals, then land animals. Afterwards, Adam, and Eve.
Posted by andrewkletzien 3 years ago
andrewkletzien
How can Con know the order in which things were created and know their specifics, and yet recede into an admittance of not knowing on what days things were created? Are the two questions of things that are really of that much epistemological difference? They both seem pretty unknowable to me, even if I believed god created everything. Looks like picking and choosing (and selective ignorance) to me.
Posted by THEVIRUS 3 years ago
THEVIRUS
The fact is that I am willing to believe in a God if it is proven, but I will not downgrade a God because their follower was stomped on because they were winging it.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 3 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Big Bang or God???? Why not both???
Posted by Topiarey 3 years ago
Topiarey
This is literally the worst non-troll debate I've ever seen in my short existence on this site. From the con, that is. Props to Pro for suffering through this.
Posted by Topiarey 3 years ago
Topiarey
This is pretty sad.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Why not both. :)
Posted by phantom 3 years ago
phantom
Not sure you can hand over debates to other people lol, but I've found I don't know as much about the Big Bang as I probably should, so I'm glad I took it if just for the learning experience.
Posted by UltimateSkeptic 3 years ago
UltimateSkeptic
I'll take it if you don't want to anymore..
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 3 years ago
Grantmac18
tennis47phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I could state the reasons for my decision, but I dare not waste my time on an explanation to an individual who could not be bothered to act with a modicum of respect. Despicable.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
tennis47phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con relied solely on her personal beliefs, ignored the points raised by Pro, cited no sources, and generally played the stereotypical part of the chess-playing pigeon.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
tennis47phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not provide any evidence in support of the theory of creation. Con was also unable to poke any holes in Pro's explanation of the Big Bang, which was supported by many sources. Con more or less forfeited, so conduct to Pro as well.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
tennis47phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I award a "full sweep" as rarely as I can. This is an example of when such scoring is warranted. Disrespectful in presenting arguments, a complete lack of sourcing, no arguments presented... in every category Pro has scoring potential.
Vote Placed by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
tennis47phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con never addressed Pro's arguments. S/G tied. Pro's arguments were better, by far. Sources to Pro because Con used none whatsoever.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 3 years ago
Jarhyn
tennis47phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct PRO for CON's forfeit. Convincing to pro, as con forfeit. Reliable sources to PRO, as CON failed to source her account of the creation story (bible? torah? koran?), as well as CON's use of a theological creation story; a theological holy-book account is only evidence of the accuracy of the original text, not the claim contained therein, else it would be a circular argument.
Vote Placed by Xerge 3 years ago
Xerge
tennis47phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped many of Pro's arguments. Con did not present a substantial case either.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
tennis47phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This was basically a forfeit. Con never made an actual argument, never addressed Pro's arguments, and essentially gave up at the end.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
DoctorDeku
tennis47phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't even try here, he dropped every argument made by the pro and never responded to Pro's refutations. Straight 7 to Pro.
Vote Placed by Magicr 3 years ago
Magicr
tennis47phantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offered evidence, Con offered none and failed to respond to any of Pro's arguments. Conduct to Pro because Con basically dropped out at the end, wasting Pro's time. Sources because Pro used them to back up his claims.