The Instigator
ThePhysicist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
APhysicist
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The Big Bang theory is true

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 1 vote the winner is...
APhysicist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 385 times Debate No: 42168
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

ThePhysicist

Pro

Pro will argue in favor of the resolution that the Universe's hypothesized "Big Bang theory" is in fact true.

Theory:

According to the Big Bang theory, matter and energy was compacted together. The universe was extremely dense. At one point, there was a cataclysmic explosion. The mass and energy filled up those spaces.

Contentions:

1. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.

2. If statement #1 is true, then energy must be finite.

3. The Sun needs energy.

4. If statement #3 is true, and the mass and energy is filling up those spaces, how does the Sun have energy?

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org......;
APhysicist

Con

Introduction:

My name is Jacob. I am 14 yrs. old. I live in New York.

Please bear with me. I registered the day this debate was added.

Rebuttals:

1. Indeed. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor destroyed.

2. True. Energy is finite.

3. Yes. The Sun does.

4. Mass and energy does not fill up those spaces.

Alright. While solid objects are dense (Mass compacted together as having no space to go around), liquid and gas is not; the mass has space to go around in which it does. Same goes for our Universe.

Source:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
ThePhysicist

Pro

Rebuttals:

If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?

The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says:
"matter cannot be created or destroyed"
APhysicist

Con

Rebuttals:

"If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?"

The Universe was extremely dense. Not even the size of a molecule. That is what held it together.

"The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says:
"matter cannot be created or destroyed"
"

No, it does not.

How?

1) Like said:

"Alright. While solid objects are dense (Mass compacted together as having no space to go around), liquid and gas is not; the mass has space to go around in which it does. Same goes for our Universe."

2) You can fit as much energy and mass in the Universe.
Debate Round No. 2
ThePhysicist

Pro

Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?
APhysicist

Con

Rebuttal:

"Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?"

I can not answer that it was eternal; If the Universe was extremely dense and the temperature was extremely high, how was it able to hold in for so long?

So, I would answer that a monotheistic God did so.
Debate Round No. 3
ThePhysicist

Pro

God doesnt exist. Period.

If he is omnipotent, he can make a rock larger than himself.
APhysicist

Con

Rebuttals:

"If he is omnipotent, he can make a rock larger than himself."

That defies logic by definition. If he's infinite in size, it would make sense that he can not create something larger than himself.
Debate Round No. 4
ThePhysicist

Pro

There is dark matter which slows down the growth.

It wasn't there last time.

And mass cannot be created.
APhysicist

Con

Rebuttals:

"There is dark matter which slows down the growth.

It wasn't there last time.

And mass cannot be created.
"

Yes, dark matter slows down the growth.

And yes, indeed, dark matter came into existence. However, not in the way you think it did. Let us say that matter was converted somehow into dark matter.

Conclusion:

1) Pro should lose spelling/grammar because he forgets that "doesn't" is a contraction of "does not" and he is supposed to put an apostrophe between the "doesn" and "t".

2) Pro should lose arguments because while my rebuttals remain uncontested, I always did so to his.

I thank my opponent for requesting this debate.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Scientia 2 years ago
Scientia
This debate is hoax " he or she is utterly sitting there replying to himself. Both of the accounts have similar usernames, the same ages, and similar English syntax.
Posted by APhysicist 3 years ago
APhysicist
@Murphy98

I can not answer that it was eternal. If that matter was compacted together, and the Universe was extremely dense, how was it able to hold in for so long?

So, yes. I would say that a God did so.
Posted by Murphy98 3 years ago
Murphy98
Answer me this- What started the Big Bang? You can argue until your blue in the face, but matter can't be created from nothing. Am I correct in assuming that the defender of the Big Bang believes that all the matter and energy in the universe was compressed in a highly unstable "thing" (sorry, I don't know what else to call it). If so, where did that "thing" come from?
In my opinion, this proves the existence of God, or at the very minimum an inteligent designer or higher power, because something had to create this universe, or the "thing", and since nothing in the natural world has been able to produce matter simply by wishing something into existence, I look to the supernatural, i.e. God.
Posted by APhysicist 3 years ago
APhysicist
That is unusual. Our name is almost entirely similar.
Posted by ScrinTech 3 years ago
ScrinTech
@The_Instigator: I don't know why so many people use Wikipedia valuable sources are better
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheAmazingAtheist1 2 years ago
TheAmazingAtheist1
ThePhysicistAPhysicistTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Both had great conduct. Simply for failing to put an apostrophe between doesn and t, S&G goes to Con. ThePhysicist never refuted his opponent's arguments. So, arguments go to Con.