The Big Bang Theory does not disprove God.

I always find it interesting that there is often an assumption that God and science cannot exist simultaneously. I have heard many people say that the "accepted" theory of the universe is that of the Big Bang, and that it disproves creationism. I contend that not only is the Big Bang Theory not completely proven, but that if it was a fact it does not prove that there is no supreme being.

I negate, the Big Bang theory disproves God.
(Lol I almost typed Bing Bag)

"I always find it interesting that there is often an assumption that God and science cannot exist simultaneously."

>Not really an assumption, it's just a default to the other side since YOU have the burden of proof. And you still do, no matter how you word the resolution/topic. Religion and Science aren't compatible, and you have to prove that they are. But I'll entertain you anyways. (doesn't mean you lose your burden of proof; I will just simply provide arguments as if I had the BoP)

"I have heard many people say that the "accepted" theory of the universe is that of the Big Bang, and that it disproves creationism."

>By definition, Big Bang and creationism are mutually exclusive: If one is true, the other is false. Big Bang is true, therefore creationism is false. One says that the world was created over a period of some billion years, the other said it was over 6 days. Can't possibly happen logically, so they are mutually exclusive. There is nothing to prove creationism (except perhaps the Bible, which would only work if you believe creationism in the first place, making it a circular thing), while Big Bang has a lot of evidence and fits in intuively, therefore the Big Bang theory is widely accepted.

This argument alone wins me the round.

"I contend that not only is the Big Bang Theory not completely proven, but that if it was a fact it does not prove that there is no supreme being."

>Mm, well, nothing in science is ever complete. That's why it's called science; it continually changes its ways to adapt to new situations. It's not like religion, which holds dogmatic beliefs to be the absolute truth.

Regardless of that, nothing can ever really be proven or disproven. As Albert Sweigart in his video An Atheist Response explains,

"[...]But the problem with this argument is that you really can't prove or disprove the existance of pretty much anything outside of abstract areas like mathematics or predicate logic.

You can't prove that werewolves don't exist.
You can't prove that Invisible Pink unicorns don't exist.
You can't prove that carniverous humanoid underground dwellers don't exist.

Technically this means we have to be agnostic about the existance of invisible pink unicorns and everything else. But we'd feel rather silly if we had to admit that there is a remote chance that Santa Claus really does exists building those wooden toys that no kid ever gets for Christmas."

()

This is where the burden of proof I mentioned earlier comes in. You set up this debate as if the CON has the burden of proof to show that God and the Big Bang theory are mutually exclusive, as if God and the Big Bang theory are compatible to begin with. This is not true, as the Big Bang theory says that we came from nothing and has no mention of a divine being. I'm assuming by God you mean the Christian God, and these two theories/beliefs/etc are already conflicting, as one propounds that the world was created in 6 days while the other says it was a process over a few billion years. (hmm i feel like i'm typing the same things).

I also see no impact in saying that the Big Bang theory is not completely. You need to give me at least some grounds to argue with or you're abusive, and that would be a very boring debate as we still have 2 rounds to go.

I don't find it very fun to run abuse.

Though technically and literally speaking Religions are abusive in their points, as they just change their 'interpretation' of their respective texts over time to fit in with science, so maybe you will have to use abusive args.

Meh.

Extend all of my arguments. My opponent has failed to respond and because of that I am currently winning the debate.

This round now consists of over 100 characters.

Your assumption that I was speaking of only the God in the Bible was false, therefore I call this debate void. I was speaking of a supreme being in generally, and therefore your argument that the Big Bang and Creationism are mutually exclusive is incorrect. And if you want to talk about burden of proof, then explain how the idea of a Big Bang goes against the laws of science itself - something cannot be made out of nothing, where did all the energy come from? A God perhaps?

Interesting how you forfeit R2 and give no reason why.

But okay, I guess I will just argue your current point.

_________

"Your assumption that I was speaking of only the God in the Bible was false, therefore I call this debate void. I was speaking of a supreme being in generally, and therefore your argument that the Big Bang and Creationism are mutually exclusive is incorrect."

Since he NEVER SPECIFIED and CHOSE NOT TO and FORFEITED R2 SO HE YOU COULD COME BACK OUT OF NOWHERE TO REDEFINE HIS STUFF, you as the audience should NOT LET HIM JUST SHIFT HIS ADVOCACY AND VOTE FOR HIM SO THAT IT ENDS AT A STALEMATE.

But independent of my opinions, there are still many reasons to vote negative. I've already refuted this point and actually while writing my R1 I was considering to put "higher being" in there somewhere so the debate would expand a bit, but i decided against it. The common usage of God refers to the Christian God, and since he did not specify I would have to assume that to be the case. This "general usage" point is true because if it weren't, we'd have to define every word down to the freakin word "The", because THE could stand for "Trans-Hudson Express" or a number of other acronyms.

And even if you don't believe that, he never specified why he disappeared in R2, I SAW HIM go online and participate in his other debates while I was sitting here all the time wondering "Why the hell is he completely ignoring this debate?", and clearly, he's pulling off this tactic just so he can SOMEHOW convince you as the audience to pull off tying votes for him.

I urge you to reconsider. But before I do that, let's see what else he has to say.

"And if you want to talk about burden of proof, then explain how the idea of a Big Bang goes against the laws of science itself - something cannot be made out of nothing, where did all the energy come from? A God perhaps?"

According to Wikipedia (proving this stuff is actually generally true to some extent),

"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state FROM A PRIMORDIAL CONDITION OF ENORMOUS DENSITY AND TEMPERATURE. The term is also used in a narrower sense to describe the fundamental "fireball" THAT ERUPTED at or close to an initial time-point in the history of our observed spacetime."

Never says it came from nothing. Just says that the Big Bang was an explosion of that fundamental fireball. Regardless though, he can't make that argument for two reasons.

First, the argument would be abusive. It doesn't matter if it's completely proven or not, nothing in science is ever complete. It's not a religion. EVEN IF you don't reject it on the grounds of abuse, the line of reasoning is still flawed. The theory of gravity has even less proof than the Big Bang theory, yet both are pretty much accepted in the scientific world. and EVEN IF you don't believe THAT, the resolution/topic presupposes the two so we can argue about if the Big Bang theory disproves God or not, and EVEN IF you don't believe that, this isn't a debate about the truthfulness of the two ideologies, just if one disproves another.

Second, he has less proof. Big bang has a lot of math and research that prove it true. God/Creationism only has faithful believers.

By the way, notice how he never says that he DOESNT have the burden of proof. Since I've destroyed his simple argument and never inserts another layer about how he doesn't have th burden of proof, that MUST mean that he agrees that he has it.

You have 8+ reasons to vote CON.

1) Look to the top of my R1. I tell you specifically that "Religion and Science aren't compatible, and [he] ha[s] to prove that they are." I then go on to explain I'll even do a bit more and act as if I had the burden of proof. Since he never meets his burden, and

2) I've met my meta-burden, he already loses the debate on two levels.

3) He attempts to trick you the audience into voting for him..... just because he failed to come back in R2 and specify a few terms. I think the reason to vote CON is obvious on this one; he should be punished for insulting your intelligence.

4) The "common usage until defined" argument holds true everywhere, and still holds true in this debate. My opponent never defines the words God nor Creationism until the last speech, so I had to assume that God meant the Christian God (He's Christian, I checked) and that Creationism was, well..... Creationism.

5)He can't pull off that argument because it doesn't fly; on his line of reasoning we would have to define words such as A, THE, AND, and all those other simple words (hell, every single one I'm using right now) because they might all mean acronyms or something else. As with the rest of his case, he has the burden of proof, and this is an independent reason to vote CON because

6) he never gives you a reason why you should believe his new definitions. Even if the audience wanted to, he gives no reason and therefore cannot be voted as the better debater.

7) I'm going to go off on a limb here and mention that "Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed." OFTEN the Christian God, but noy always

So even if you don't believe any of my other arguments against his R3, his entire point falls because Creationism doesn't only talk about the Christian God. My case still applies, and

8) EVEN IF you don't believe that, look at my R1. You can delete the stuff I said about "6 Days" and insert it with "X amount of days" to fit "X religion". The basic point of my case still stands; there is no religion nor creationist theory that says the universe is 12~16 Billion years old. Believe what you want, I'm not attacking everyone's religion here, but the Big Bang theory says the world is 12~16 Billion years old, X religion says the universe is X years old, and in every case (that I've ever seen), X is significantly smaller than 12~16 Billion, and therefore my Mutual Exclusion argument still applies.

+) I use deductive reasoning. He uses inductive reasoning. Which isn't reasoning.

Vote CON.