The Instigator
Gavyen12Kelly
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The "Big Bang" Theory, is more plausible than the Christian "God"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Mike_10-4
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 833 times Debate No: 67690
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Gavyen12Kelly

Pro

I believe that the big bang theory is more solid than that of the Christian Religion for many reasons that i will bring forth in the following rounds, first round is for acceptance,
Thank you and good luck
Mike_10-4

Con

I accept this debate relative to the debate's title and the following elaboration by Pro in Comment #2:

The Christian God himself, not the religion (i dont want to challenge the stories of the Bible, that would take to long,) instead I'm targeting God himself, as well as jesus, Targeting his power to create all that is and everything, nothing more.”

With that said, and on this day of New Year's Eve, I wish Pro a happy New Year and may we begin this Year with a constructive debate having a mutual learning experience.
Debate Round No. 1
Gavyen12Kelly

Pro

Happy New Year

I personally believe that the "Big Bang" Theory (noun, Astronomy
1.
a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, abundance of the elements, and the laws of physics.)
is more plausible and more solid than that of the Christian God himself, now i am addressing the "7 days" of which god created all, nothing more. I believe science is the creator of all, not god, and i will argue this using the big bang theory.
In the following rounds i will disprove the opponents statements with my own drawing from data found in research of the big bang theory.
I will let the opponent state first his evidence
Mike_10-4

Con

I believe in an entity, commonly addressed as God, an event entity that created the universe and everything in it, which includes the “laws of physics” also known as the Laws of Nature. For those of us who believe in God, the Laws of Nature is essentially the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting.

For atheists and those of us of faith, including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all (“72 virgins” upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc.).

On the subject of man's written scriptures about God, the late Joseph Campbell (one who studied the evolution of religions) once stated (http://www.brainyquote.com...):

Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.”

Pro stated, “I believe science is the creator of all...”

Science is about studying repeatable patterns in nature and trying to understand our place in the universe, while using those patterns to advance our standard of living. When we understand a pattern to some degree, we classify it as a Law in Nature. Science did not create the Laws of Nature, it is a way to come to understand them.
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...

Pro stated, “...now i am addressing the "7 days" of which god created all, nothing more.”
Pro also stated, “(i dont want to challenge the stories of the Bible, that would take to long).

The “7 days,” is just one of those “stories of the Bible.” On the other hand, according to Albert Einstein, time is relative. Therefore, 13.8 billion years in one timeframe is equal to “7 days” in another (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

In summary, using the scientific method to read God's handwriting, there is empirical evidence of a “Big Bang” the event of creation, where the Laws of Nature is God's program in the evolution of both inanimate and animate.

Therefore, the “Big Bang” theory is plausible via the scientific method reading the handwriting of God. It cannot be more plausible than God, for those of us of faith, believe God is the event entity of the “Big Bang;” hence, creation. The men of science have no empirical evidence of what caused the “Big Bang;” until then, we have faith (God), philosophy, and hypothetical assumptions thereof, and therefore, the evolution of belief systems will continue.
Debate Round No. 2
Gavyen12Kelly

Pro

Yes, "Big Bang" is not a solid point of belief, but nor is a higher being, in this case specifically, the Christian God.
Also, the "7 Days Of Creation" is not a bible story, it is an summary to explain how god created all we see today, land, water, plants, life, stars, space, everything, thus it is not classified as a "story".
Also, we cannot claim that Science is simply a way to read the Laws of Nature, Laws of Nature is a common ground for life, and is identified by Science. Thus, if the Big Bang Theory, is true, than the laws of nature have thus been created by the Big Bang Theory, since it was the beginning of literally everything.

Con States "Therefore, the "Big Bang" theory is plausible via the scientific method reading the handwriting of God. It cannot be more plausible than God"
But can't it? Science has been proven time and time again, while religion has not, and while we are at this point, proving religion would use...Science? correct?

This is beside the point, the point of the debate is to argue which is more plausible, that of God, or that of The "Big Bang" Theory. With this said, scientists have found a few solid points of evidence to prove that the universe does have a Epi-point, that the universe is ever expanding, that galaxies are moving farther away, that space is cooling down, all these are points of evidence that the big bang theory exists, all of these are solid points of evidence, while religion is still a big what if, there is no proof of a god, there is no proof that god created the heavens and the earth, or the water that we drink, meat that we eat, or hell, even us ourselves, but science has come forth and provided explanations, solid, real, explanations, for not one or two questions, but millions, about our evolution and what we came from. Religion, as i see it, is false hope, a set of rules for people to follow, something to blame a problem on, something to deny responsibility.

So, is faith really as plausible as that of science, that of "the big bang" and all of its evidence. No, it is not.

By the way, I am not atheist, I am a Deist
Mike_10-4

Con

Pro stated,By the way, I am not atheist, I am a Deist.”

Deist: “The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws.”
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Deist and Christians are both monotheistic-based believing in the same God. Christians believe God intervenes after creation, where Deist believe God does not intervene after creation. Both Deist and Christians agree that God created the universe; and from the latest scientific knowledge, God created the universe via the "Big Bang."

Since this debate is about creation of the universe (“The Big Bang Theory”) and since Deist and Christians believe in the same God, then beliefs after creation are irrelevant to this debate.

I think this debate is over.
Debate Round No. 3
Gavyen12Kelly

Pro

Whoa, thats not the Definition i learned when i googled, the definition i was aware of was that God was real, but was not the creator of the universe.
Sorry for that mistake.
That will without a doubt be my downfall
Mike_10-4

Con

Whatever you “googled,” please supply the link to your definition.
Debate Round No. 4
Mike_10-4

Con

Thanks for your link. My advice when citing a reference you want to use the most credible or, nonfiction published work, or a well-known source. Your link seems to be a blog of personal opinions; in a debate, stay away from those!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Gavyen12Kelly 2 years ago
Gavyen12Kelly
I forgot how biased this would be, of course people who are religious are going to vote for religion.
Posted by Gavyen12Kelly 2 years ago
Gavyen12Kelly
The Christian God himself, not the religion (i dont want to challenge the stories of the Bible, that would take to long,) instead I'm targeting God himself, as well as jesus, Targeting his power to create all that is and everything, nothing more
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Is it more plausible then the Christian God or Christian religion?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by chrisjachimiak 2 years ago
chrisjachimiak
Gavyen12KellyMike_10-4Tied
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 killed this debate in all aspects. Pro, didn't provide many sources like Con did. Con had more convincing arguments overall, although Pro had some. I found a few grammar mistakes in Pro's speeches, that why that point went to the con. Conduct point goes to Con, because its wrong to make your opponent post his arguments first.
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Gavyen12KellyMike_10-4Tied
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: I give arguments to Con because he simply gave more information and Reason For Debate. The logic was clearer overall because Pro didn't provide as good of arguments.