The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
10 Points

Is the Big Bang Theory Possible?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 911 times Debate No: 52650
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




The Big Bang theory is not possible.

Here is how the Big Bang is often presented:

Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it.

That's right, apparently all the matter was condensed into something the size of a crumb, which exploded and created our whole universe. The Sun, Moon, planet earth, and even you and me supposedly came from this little "crumb" floating out in space.

Another problem with the Big Bang: Supposedly the mass of this "crumb" created energy. I think we have all heard of "The Conservation of Mass" and "The Conservation of Energy." We can't create energy....period. Energy is ALWAYS conserved. When we burn wood, we are just releasing the stored energy in the wood. When we set of 1,000 pounds of dynamite, we are just releasing stored energy.

The Big Bang is just not possible, it defies too many common laws of science. The Big Bang is a theory, The Conservation of Mass and Energy is a fact.


In your opening you have a few mistakes and common misunderstanding of the big bang theory.

"somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago" now although we cannot give the exact date about when the Big Bang happened, astronomers have more of a well known time period. "Our universe sprang into existence around 13.7 billion years ago.("

"all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page." "This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded" That is a very common misconception about the Big Bang theory. "Though the term may sound like the universe began with a giant explosion, many scientists say that's not part of the theory. An explosion implies that something exploded, or expanded, from one center point outward into space. In fact, the Big Bang theory suggests that space itself expanded.

"If it were an explosion it would have a center," said physicist Paul Steinhardt, director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J. "We actually observe that everything is moving away from everything else. It's really about an expansion of the universe .("

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.("

Now some of this is hard to grasp and these scientists who study and research this have years of education on the subjects but my opposer states that ""The Conservation of Mass" and "The Conservation of Energy."" which is some of the reasons why the Big Bang Theory is not possible, yet in this article( it states how it does not break those laws.

here is a fragment from the article. "[I]n the inflationary scenario, the mass-energy of matter was produced during that rapid initial inflation. The field responsible for inflation has negative pressure, allowing the universe to do work on itself as it expands. This is allowed by the first law of thermodynamics.
In other words, no energy was required to "create" the universe. The zero total energy of the universe is an observational fact, within measured uncertainties, of course. What is more, this is also a prediction of inflationary cosmology, which we have seen has now been strongly supported by observations. Thus we can safely say,
No violation of energy conservation occurred if the universe grew out of an initial void of zero energy."

"little "crumb" floating out in space."
"There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.

In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding. This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point.(

No, that little point of matter that was the Big Bang was not a little point of stuff inside an empty universe. It was, in fact, the entire observable universe. There was no "outside" of that point into which it could explode. In fact, the Big bang was not an explosion at all; it was simply the very hot state of the early universe. Distances between objects were much shorter back then, but the universe was still homogeneous and isotropic. Wherever you were in the early universe, you would see a homogeneous, even, distribution of matter and energy around you. There was no empty "space" outside of this point of matter into which it could expand, for all of space was already there, in that little "point." The expansion of the universe is manifested only in the stretching of space itself.("

Now my opponent argues that the Big Bang is not possible. at all. I find that hard to believe considering 1. it is the most accepted theory by scientists today. 2. there is background microwave cosmic radiation which supports Big Bang. 3. Edwin hubble proved that everything is expanding still and going away from us. 4. three astronomers found we are not slowing down in expansion but speeding up.

These are only a portion of facts, theories, findings that support the Big Bang theory. Not only would I argue that the big bang theory is possible, I would say it is the most probable theory today. Thank you.

To support the facts and claims i have made here are a list of websites you can visit to educate yourself.

I think one of the best websites to argue with my opponent would be (
Debate Round No. 1


"Our universe sprang into existence around 13.7 billion years ago."
Yes because of course we can predict that it was 13.7 yup of course. There was nothing to correct me on, Many sites have different dates, due to the fact the we can't tell for sure, so really there was nothing to correct me on.

But yes, once again, the whole universe started out as a tiny particle, somewhere between the size of a PROTON to the size of a GRAIN OF SAND. This defies scientific laws, which are facts, not theories. Here are my sites:

Ok so let me make a correction on my last statement: The tiny dot (later known as you, me, our planet, and the whole universe) spun faster and expanded, thus creating our universe. As that mass expanded outwards, it would have had momentum going outwards, thus meaning it couldn't have bunched up to form planets or galaxies, it was traveling outwards, and it would never stop according to "The Law of Conservation of Momentum" Also, since it was all traveling out ward, that means IF (and that is a very questionable if) the mass randomly changed directions and bunched up to form planets and galaxies, that means all planets would be traveling in the same direction, once again according to "The Law of Conservation of Momentum" But here is the thing....they don't. Venus and Uranus move backwards. Mind blowing right?
Check out this common model of the Big Bang:

And no, unlike you I didn't copy and paste information. I used common laws of science, common sense, and planetary facts to prove you wrong. But once again, "The Law of Conservation of Momentum" is a fact, and the Big Bang is a theory.


I copy and paste my information and cite it because these websites have FACTS and actual information to back what I say and contradict your statements. Me and you we are not scientists I could use almost all of my characters without pasting a single thing and I could cite my sources, but these people who write these article have tons of facts and information which they use in genius ways. I am only going to copy and paste one thing in this round and that is

"Theories arise in science to explain general observations and to associate predictions with physical measurements. The mathematics of one theory allows us to relate the principles of that theory with the fundamental principles underlying other physical theories. When a theory predicts how matter and energy will interact in such a way that the requirements and restrictions of the theory are obeyed, it must also be checked for compliance with the encompassing fundamental principles that allow us to theorize in the first place. Universe expansion, at cosmological distances, has consequences that fail to obey a few key principles of our domestic physics; CONSERVATION of energy and CONSERVATION of mass caused by high relative velocity; CONSERVATION of momentum; CONSERVATION of gravitational potential energy."

now I urge you to go to that website ( and at least read some of this because it explains all of your laws which you think prove the Big Bang theory wrong.

"Check out this common model of the Big Bang: " if you click on the website that this image is from ( this website explains why that picture is wrong and why you are still wrong.

Now what you and many others still have confused is that the infinitesimal point did not expand into an already existing space it is an EXPANSION OF SPACE itself. As the website states. I believe you should look at your research before you just paste it. I will state again, That picture is from a website that explains how the picture is wrong.

Now I could make childish comments back at you, but I would like to keep this debate scientific and mature. I only have to prove that the Big Bang is POSSIBLE which I believe scientists, astronomers, and myself regurgitating their information and facts have more than proven the possibility that the Big Bang is possible

As for the laws you are stating do you think scientists and astronomers haven't already thought of all of these laws? Explain to me why it is the most accepted theory in the Science world?

Also as for the date of the Big Bang I trust sites which even explain how they date the big bang theory and some even to go so far to say it cannot be older than 15 billion years old so therefore your statement is quite inaccurate. Sites such as ( ( ( ( (
Debate Round No. 2


First off, that model was explaining that the Big Bang was an expansion, which I thought you said was fact? Please go back to that website. Second off, how can that little speck (once again, later known as our universe) begin to expand? It can't gain energy to do that, according to the "Law of Conservation of Energy." You haven't actually proven any of these laws wrong yet, all you keep doing is copying and pasting information even if it has nothing to do with my previous statements.

And please do read what you copy and paste, because your 2nd paragraph in Round 2 is actually proving the the Big Bang is not possible. I really think you need to stop copying and pasting, or at least read what you do copy and paste.

So my points still stand, since you haven't proved how the Law of Conservation of Momentum, Energy, and Mass prove the Big Bang true, and how my statements were false.


No the model showed that it was an explosion into a pre-existing space which then the website proceeded to explain why that is wrong. I went back to the website and it shows that the model(Image you posted) was wrong it was an expansion of space itself.

"your 2nd paragraph in Round 2 is actually proving the the Big Bang is not possible."
It does not show it is not possible it shows that those laws break down when we go back to the beginning of the time itself.

"you haven't proved how the Law of Conservation of Momentum, Energy, and Mass prove the Big Bang true, and how my statements were false." I do not have to prove these laws wrong I don't have to state anything about these laws. If you fully read and went to the websites which I posted you would show that some of these laws do not break the Big Bang Theory or some break down at creation of the universe.

"Law of Conservation of Energy" you continue to bring this up and I have posted other things on this but I believe you can read and understand this website that may help you understand a little more about the Big Bang Theory(

Inflation is how the Big bang happened and gravitational waves support this. If you do not know of these or do not believe me here are two websites which explain and support this. ( (
Debate Round No. 3


Well for starters, I am glad you quit copy and pasting, but yet once again you seem to be avoiding what I ask. I want you to answer what I ask, and your websites that you claim have all these "answers" do not. Trust me, I have read all 26 websites that you posted, yes TWENTY SIX, and they are obviously not read by you AT ALL. Please do make sure your sites back up what you are saying. And yes, I do read those sites, and most of them have nothing to do with what you had stated.

Since you haven't proven anything I have said wrong yet, I will keep providing points to prove everything you say wrong.

Many of your websites claim that the Universe is expanding, which I agree with is possible. But here is another point: It would not keep growing from expansion, it would have to have been something with incredible force to send our universe into expansion, thus meaning it was most likely an explosion, not an expansion. If the universe is still growing from this "expansion" then energy must be constantly created to make it grow, but that defies the "Law of Conservation of Energy." Don't give me sites that don't prove anything, give me facts to prove this one wrong, and good luck trying.

My next point: did you ever hear of "The Conservation of Angular Momentum?" It is pretty much stating that since particles are moving outwards and away from their central point of energy (Where that little grain of sand is that created the whole universe according to the Big Bang) This means that particles couldn't have collided, or at least if they did, not enough of them could collide to form planets, or stars, or even more impressive, galaxies. Please explain this to me. Yes i know this proves that the Universe is expanding, but it pretty much defies logic, so according to the Big Bang Theory and common laws of science (which are FACTS, not theories) if the Big Bang did happen, stars, planets, humans, and galaxies couldn't exist.


All my sites prove something and many of them touch on subjects which I relate them to. Now without stating facts, by means of copy and pasting so you know they are accurate, you say the website does not say this or does not say that. With that being said I am going to start citing and stating facts so your arguments have no room to even be possible.

To begin I will touch on "The conservation of Angular Momentum" which you mentioned in round 4 and round 2. You state that everything would have to be going in the same direction or that barely anything could have formed. That is wrong and here is the proof from SCIENTISTS not assumptions from Laws.

"The law of conservation of angular momentum only states that the total angular momentum in the universe (after vector addition/integration) is equal to the original angular momentum at the time of the big bang. Local forces like gravity can change local angular momenta as long as it adds up to the same quantity when one considers the entire universe.

The source of the angular momentum of objects is not asserted by physicists to be some kind of intrinsic angular momentum from the big bang. It is a product of the gravitational collapse of a large, diffuse body into a smaller, more compact object. In this process, substantial gravitational potential energy is released into other forms. Some of it goes into the heat energy of the resulting object, but some goes into orbital and rotational angular momentum.

The big bang was not spinning. It isn't even semantically meaningful to say it was. The big bang was not an event which occurred in space. The big bang was space, all of space, for a single instant in time (t=0). Space does not spin.("

"defies the "Law of Conservation of Energy.""

You see you are having trouble understanding one main thing. All of the energy was already there we are not having more created as you stated in your argument. Now I believe this is the 2nd or 3rd time I have linked this website, but you seem to not understand so I will pull quotes so the voters may see the point I am making without having to leave this debate.(

"Although the universe is mostly empty space (leaving aside for the moment dark energy and dark matter), there is quite a lot of matter in it. Some of it is in dense clumps that we call planets, stars, and galaxies. The rest is far more dilute and consists of interstellar gases and dust. And quite a lot of it is in the form of massless photons. So the question naturally arises: where did all this stuff come from? Doesn't it require a massive input of energy right at the beginning that violates the law of conservation of energy (also known as the first law of thermodynamics), one of the bedrock principles of science? The answer is simple: No.("

"The total energy of the universe consists of the energy due to the motion of all the particles (called kinetic energy), the energy that is stored because of the gravitational forces between the particles (called potential energy), and the energy associated with the mass of all the particles (usually referred to as rest energy)."

"The key feature to bear in mind is that the gravitational potential energy is a negative quantity. You can see this by realizing that in order to separate two objects, one has to overcome the attractive gravitational force and this requires one to supply positive energy from outside. This is why launching satellites into space requires such huge amounts of positive energy supplied by fuel, in order to overcome the negative gravitational potential energy of the satellite due to the Earth's attractive force."

"This negative gravitational potential energy exactly cancels out the positive energy of the universe. As Stephen Hawking says in his book A Brief History of Time (quoted by Victor Stenger, Has Science Found God?, p. 148): "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero." In other words, it is not the case that something came out of nothing. It is that we have always had zero energy.

Alan Guth, one of the creators of the inflationary universe model, points out that the fact that "in any closed universe the negative gravitational potential energy cancels the energy of matter exactly" has been known for some time and can be found in standard textbooks. (See The Classical Theory of Fields by L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, second edition, 1962, p. 378-379.)"

"But what made the universe and all its mass come into being at all? The suggestion is that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. It used to be thought that the vacuum was truly nothing, simply inert space. But we now know that it is actually a hive of activity with particle-antiparticle pairs being repeatedly produced out of the vacuum and almost immediately annihilating themselves into nothingness again. The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time. This phenomenon has observable and measurable consequences, which have been tested and confirmed. (The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997, p. 272)"

"Space is expanding from the Big Bang and the acceleration of dark energy. But the objects embedded in space, like planets, stars, and galaxies stay exactly the same size. As space expands, it carries galaxies away from each other. From our perspective, we see galaxies moving away in every direction. The further galaxies are, the faster they"re moving.

Thank you for the luck on finding these website that do not prove your laws wrong which I stated they prove that they do not disprove the possibility of the Big bang theory.

Many of your claims are assumptions and conclusions from which you yourself created by using these laws as a type of excuse. I came across this website ( which is not only beyond inaccurate the intro is the mirror image of your intro, but I noticed you did not cite nor quote your intro. Plagiarism is not something to play around with. if all of your claims are not assumptions then please cite your sources which support you claims/assumptions.

Now to clarify I am not saying the laws you are using to back your claims are wrong or not factual I'm saying you are using the laws to make claims and assumptions by things you skim across online without backing or by using your own common knowledge, which unfortunately does not hold up in a scientific debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4


TheMaster_Debator forfeited this round.


Although my opponent forfeited I will conclude with my closing argument.

Now this argument is simply "Is The Big Bang Theory Possible?" simply yes it is possible, but it is not 100% proven which is understandable. I will shortly list the facts and people which support this theory.

Edwin Hubble- discovered galaxies and stars are still expanding
Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess- discovered universe is not only expanding, but is expanding at a faster rate than which we thought.
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson- discovered Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which is the leftover noise from the Big Bang.
Gravitational Waves- it's evidence of how the universe rapidly expanded less than a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.

If you research any of these or do any more research on the Big Bang you will see why it is not only possible, but in my personal opinion the most probable possibility out there. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheMaster_Debator 2 years ago
I really wish my router at home was working over the weekend, so I could have posted my final argument. But I will make my closing in the comments:

Many common laws of science prove the Big Bang isn't possible, and like I said many times before these are laws (Which are proven, they are facts) And the Big Bang is a THEORY.

I really wish earlier in the debate your sites were more accurate, and actually agreed with each other, and proved what you were saying, but later in the argument you did a much better job.

It was fun debating with you, I hope to debate with you again.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by travis18352 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct goes to pro because con forfitted
Vote Placed by Bannanawamajama 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Agreed with Pro before and after. Conduct to pro because Con forfeited. Spelling and Grammar were close enough. Arguments to Pro because Con didn't make arguments that accounted for gravity as a factor, which turned out to be relevant. Sources were even because mostly they were just quoting articles on both sides.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't seem to understand several basic features of the big bang, even after they were repeatedly stated by Pro and in Pro's sources.