The Instigator
piefav
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
gannon260
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The "Big Bang" is possible on a Christian standpoint.

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 1 vote the winner is...
gannon260
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 699 times Debate No: 68918
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

piefav

Pro

What I mean by this topic is that the big bang is believable of a Christian or other religious person. If you are a Christian with an unbiased counter-claim and you want to debate, go ahead and accept. This round is just for starting.
gannon260

Con

I accept. I will argue that from a christian and biblical standpoint, the big bang is not possible. I look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
piefav

Pro

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the EARTH"
-Genesis 1:1

My stand point on the Big Bang is as so, God caused a big bang to create the universe. This "Big Bang" created stars and planets. God found an empty place in the universe and created a new planet, Earth, as well as a new star, the sun. He placed these 2 near a set of planets that were orbiting a bigger star (these planets being mars, venus, etc.) and he started creating the land and heavens and etc. He doesn't say anything about creating the universe, or galaxy, just the Earth.
gannon260

Con

In the bible in genesis the creation took seven days. According to the big bang theorem, creation took 13.8 billion years. According to the big bang theory, the photons came first (light) then stars and planet formation while in the bible, the heavens and earth came first, then light, then the sun, then the stars. The bible does not say that in the beginning, god created an explosion but rather the heavens and earth.

Niv bible
Wikipedia
Debate Round No. 2
piefav

Pro

So you are saying that the Earth was created and then the sun and stars and etc. I have a question then, what about other planets? It doesn't say "And God said, "I need to make a planet that people will frown apon" and God made Pluto". So, this still leaves to possibility of God making the universe of just planets with a big bang...
gannon260

Con

You didn't answer the timeframe or the timeline. Since God created everything, why did he fail to mention the planet? God created everything and he did work, if god truly created the universe with work then Creating the big bang would not have been him working. It would rather God doing the work to create everything and as fter the bang, he took a break. The fact is that in the bible, god clearly took an active part in the creation genesis 1:16 "god made the two great lights." If God created the big bang, it would not require work. God did not create an explosion therefore. The big bang conflicts with creation in time frame and according to the bible.
Debate Round No. 3
piefav

Pro

That rebuttle still doesn't answer, what about the planets?
gannon260

Con

"what about other planets? It doesn't say "And God said, "I need to make a planet that people will frown apon" and God made Pluto". So, this still leaves to possibility of God making the universe of just planets with a big bang..."

I litterally cannot comprehend what form of answer you want to me to create. The logic behind this argument has no beginning nor end. This still leaves to possibility of God making the universe of just planets with a big bang???? First you have the big bang theorem all wrong. sorry its kinda too late in the debate to make new arguments like that so i am not required to answer that without pulling out new evidence. Because i like logical debates, the big bang is a scientific theory on how a signularity exploded icreating all matter, the dust cooled down and gravity created suns and planets, then thats how we are here today. If God truly made the universe directly by creating planets etc, then this conflicts with the very notion that all matter was created in the big bang.

Vote based on the fact that he never presented a reasonable explanation about the time difference and time occurences. Also, the bible endorses a fact that God created everything directly while the big bang theory created naturally through progression and physics. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by piefav 2 years ago
piefav
I feel it is so hilarious that my opponent told in his own counter, "vote con"
Posted by a_janis1 2 years ago
a_janis1
@gannon260
The only thing I would add to that is not only interpretation/reason but also through Divine revelation as well because both are essential truths to Catholic faith and teaching.

I certainly do have a great deal of respect for you especially after this reasonable discussion. And what many people do not understand is that Christianity is actually very encouraging of scientific finding. Unfortunately People judge the religion based on some of its followers, not the content and nature of the religion itself. If people had the read the Catechism of the Catholic Church thoroughly before condemning the Church, they would see there would be nothing to condemn. Also, most followers of the Catholic faith do not understand as throughly and deeply the religion itself as you and I. In fact, you, by accepting that the Bing Bang can coincide with God, are beyond the reasoning of some Catholics!

Thank you for this discussion and I welcome any other debates you may wish to have in the future! Have a nice day
Posted by gannon260 2 years ago
gannon260
I suppose what you mean by this is that the belief that an a supreme being is possible within the interpretations of followers and can align with scientific theory. There are many different alternatives to christianity and i suppose that if my opponent were to make the argument you have made, the Debate is set up for his success. The big bang is possible since christian interpretation can be so wide and expansive based upon interpretations. Unfortunately, it's too late to claim that argument so i suppose i'm safe from that argument.
Posted by gannon260 2 years ago
gannon260
Bickering solves nothing, you don't get real information out of it. Thanks for the viewpoint @a_janis1. If anyone is reading the comment section before voting, please keep in mind to vote based upon the ideas presented in the debate itself aside from a side conversation. Thank you.
Posted by a_janis1 2 years ago
a_janis1
@Gannon2607
AHHHHH alright you got me there. Yes, Peter did reject Jesus three times before the cock crowed. But even then, he repented, begged for forgiveness, and preached Jesus' message across the land after. And other disciples were martyred for not revoking the divinity of Jesus.

My argument is that the means by which God created the universe do not matter when concluding whether the Bing Bang can refute God. This is because God would have been the cause by which the infinite particle that created the Big Bang was created and set into motion. And that was how God chose best to create His universe.

And when taken literally, then yes, The Bible and the Bing Bang cant match. But from its creation, the Bible was never designed to be taken literally. Therefore, the Bible and the Bing Bang also coincide.

And Christianity is not mere human interpretation. The faith was both directly and indirectly revealed to us. God sent His only begotten Son to save us from sin by dying on the cross, ad on the third day rising again. That is direct faith. Whilst the Magisterium has the duty to interpret a Bible which is divinely inspired. So the faith of Christianity was revealed to us through revelation (Gods direct involvement) and reason (human capacity to understand). Therefore, Christianity is not JUST human interpretation/reason.

I do highly commend you on being respectful in this argument! So thank you. More often than not, debates seem to turn to bickering, unfortunately
Posted by gannon260 2 years ago
gannon260
So according to your logic, God did created the universe but not directly. OK I suppose that's a rational arguement, but yet again it flies into the face of much of the Bible which shouldn't be taken literally. So essentially, all of christianity is based upon human interpretation of a divine gospel.
Posted by gannon260 2 years ago
gannon260
FALSE, Peter recanted Jesus' three times.
Posted by a_janis1 2 years ago
a_janis1
a religion doesn't make much sense. The apostles were from vastly different geographical locations who were gathered by Jesus' traveling. They could not have congregated together for they did not know each other. Jesus congregated the apostles.

Apostles often were former sinners who turned towards faith after an encounter with Jesus. They would have no reason to give up their lives of leisure and wealth and pleasure for one that asks you to give what you have to those who need it.

Furthermore, the disciples and apostles were stoned, crucified upside down, and brutally martyred. None revoked the name and divinity of Jesus. Doesn't that say something? A vindication that what Jesus brought to them was more than just a made up ideology. The Catholic faith is not invented. It was revealed to us through the Son, the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Bible
Posted by a_janis1 2 years ago
a_janis1
@gannon260
Well not taking the Bible literally is certainly part of it. But there are also other ways in which God and the Big Bang coincide well with each other. I can answer those with some of your questions that you presented.

All your questions are good and reasonable questions that should be asked! So here are the answers:

Nothing can create itself. We know that 0+0=0. Nothing + nothing = nothing. Obviously there are things in motion in the universe, we can trace these causes of motion and existence to a being who must have been the initial creator and mover. Nothing could create that being because there was nothing before Him. Nothing could move that being because there was nothing before Him to move Him. This is a difficult concept to grasp especially on a comment box. But simply put, there must be an initial from which everything else can exist. That "initial" is called God. God, who exists outside of this universe that he created is not restricted to the limits of time. (just as an author exists outside of the story he creates and is not subject to the time limit within the story) God has always existed.

Next, historians have shown through Roman records Jesus of Galilea (Jesus Christ) did exist. Jesus has records to His name and Roman officials, whose documents have nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity, discuss Jesus, further validating His existence to historians.

And of course some parables in the Bible aren't taken literally such as "If your left ear causes you to sin, you should cut it off etc." But a parable is simply a way of making a point. Jesus could literally have said "Don't sin" but then what weight does that carry? Parables emphasize a point. However, some Bible passages are taken literally such as "Love your God above all else, and love your neighbor as yourself". The Magisterium's job is to decide what passages are literal and which are parables.

And the apostles being a congregation that decided to make a
Posted by gannon260 2 years ago
gannon260
So essentially the argument in the debate for pro is that the bible shouldn't be taken literally. Good point, but where does god come from? And if the bible is to be not taken literally, are all the Stories in the bible merely metaphors for ideas or misdeeds? Is jesus even real then? Truly if it were not to all be taken literally, could the apostles have been a congregation to invent a concept to help people?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
piefavgannon260Tied
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 made my decision when Pro tried to compare the Big Bang model with his Christian model and completely didn't understand the Big Bang model. I think this is an argument a Christian could make, interpretation is a wonderful thing. But it didn't happen in this argument.