The Instigator
RazorxLeaf
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
roypolicypro
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Why the big bang is real?

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 2 votes the winner is...
RazorxLeaf
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 472 times Debate No: 86779
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

RazorxLeaf

Pro

The big bang is obviously real due to scientists seeing that distant galaxies are further red-shifted from spectrography. This shows that the universe must be expanding and, therefore, it evidences that at one point the universe must have started as a singularity - when the big bang took place (huge burst of gamma rays which can also be detected as CMBR today).
roypolicypro

Con

I believe the topic should be: Is this big bang real? I will debate nonetheless as a challenge.
First, the Big Bang is a 'theory' which quite literally means: "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true" -- (Merriam Webster) -- This means it is not proven so there is a high chance it could be false.
Second, I believe God has created Heaven and Earth. Without religion science is explainable - which many people do not understand. To put it simple "mass can neither be created nor destroyed" - many agree with this as it is "proven" it is not a "theory". Even if you are not my (or any religion) you must have a way for explaining the precursors to the big bang. Or even if the world made itself - saying that how you believe sounds absolutely ridiculous - how was life made? Did lifeless matter evolve into life matter? No. Something, someone had to begin the process of life. God is my way of explaining the beginning of Heaven and Earth and religions serve this purpose (with many more). If I continued asked the question: What caused that? - there is no scientifically proven answer (and none at all). EX (i will makeup answers simplicity): What caused big bang? A: Expansion of a Big Rock -- What caused the big rock to expand? A: Gamma Rays -- What caused Gamma Rays to exist? A: the rock -- What caused the rock to exist? A: umm.. ??? -- I'm sure not only you, but many others will see my point. To be clear, I do not intend to offend any religious beliefs (or the absence of a religion) nor any scientific works; I believe I have logically proven reasons why the big band should at least be doubted as real. Therefore I have done my job as the CON (against) and should be voted to win this debate. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: matt8800// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: While neither provided a great argument for their position, only Pro presented empirical evidence as a source. Con argued that there must be a god to create the universe. While this may or may not be true, no argument was presented as to why the big bang and god couldn't both exist.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This vote is past the statute of limitations (at least 1 month after the voting period ends).
************************************************************************
Posted by Lisen2Reason 12 months ago
Lisen2Reason
pro won using actual facts con loses for being religiously biased instead of actually thinking
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Edlvsjd// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con simply states something about the universe expanding, which no one but "scientists" can observe. (why do the constellations stay the same?) con offers a ligitimate statement in that matter cannot create life, never has and never will. Either how God came about is still not even conceivable, or it has been hidden like the flat earth. http://www.debate.org...

[*Reason for removal*] Voter requested that this vote be removed. In the future, you can alter your vote by changing the point allocation.
************************************************************************
Posted by nightwish672 1 year ago
nightwish672
Okay, I'm upset that PRO didn't even bother putting up a better argument. But the arguments presented by CON were completely flawed. CON doesn't know the scientific meaning of theory.

CON immediately goes back to God and unable to explain how he came to be (as all Religious people do). You must remember that we must think outside our own common sense to understand The Big Bang. Sorry, but if you aren't a physicist, then of course you're going to take the easy route and side with God. But if you choose God, that creates an even bigger problem, one I won't get into.

I haven't studied quantum physics that much, but in order to even argue against the big bang, you need an understand on quantum physics. You need a general understanding on the area, this is why people at a neutral stance will side with God instead of Science. Science involves hard world, dedication and time to understand it. The more you study science, the more you will let go of foolish beliefs.

But anyway, CON doesn't know what he's talking about, his arguemnts are flawed, and CON hasn't put up much of a fight.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
The big bang is not disproven by the laws of physics. If it was, scientists would have scrapped the idea.
Which law does it break?
Posted by crepuscularkid 1 year ago
crepuscularkid
Yeah, laws can't prove it can happen because that's not what laws do? Scientific laws are almost completely unrelated from scientific theories. The only common link is that sometimes a theory will explain the why behind a law.

I don't rest on science like you rest on your religion. Science doesn't give me reasssuring feelings or promise me definite answers. Science promises a method to remove human error and find tentative answers.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to say the Big Bang theory doesn't have enough evidence when there's zero good evidence for the truth behind religion?
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
Hopefully we can fix my misclicks soon
Posted by roypolicypro 1 year ago
roypolicypro
Hello crepuscularkid, I see exactly what you are saying. Maybe you are right that laws can't disprove it, but I don't think laws cant prove it either, which is why it is a theory. Nonetheless, as you say, I can't think of a single thing that wouldn't in some way violate the law of conservation of mass. My only explanation rests in my religion, other may rest in their religion, atheists rest in science. Scientifically speaking, there simply isn't enough to prove the big bang is real and for these reasons, I think you should vote CON.
Posted by crepuscularkid 1 year ago
crepuscularkid
There has to be some beginning to the universe though, and I can't think of a single thing that wouldn't in some way violate the law of conservation of mass.

A theory in science is an explanation of why, where a law is the detailing of the what. The Theory of Gravity isn't a possible explanation, it's /the/ explanation based on rigorous data collecting and analyzing. Evolution, too, is a well researched, well supported, and wholly backed explanation for the diversity of life.

I don't work in the realm of science, but for the Big Bang to have the support it does in the science community, I doubt that laws can disprove it. If it were that simple, then it would be completely rejected from the outset, and not be gaining traction as the best explanation.
Posted by roypolicypro 1 year ago
roypolicypro
Hello Heirio, I realize this is a "Scientific Theory". It is much more complication than the few sentences your comments provides. See the proven action of the attraction of two objects is the Law of Gravity, however, the Theory of Gravity would refer to 'Why do the two objects attract?" As you can see one is a fact, one is a possibly explanation for the fact. In today's debate we are explain how the world started in a theory of the big bang. Also, if you read my claims, I would argue the big bang is not the start of the universe because using scientific LAWS it can be disproved. Simply, if matter cannot be created nor destroyed how did the big bang happen?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
RazorxLeafroypolicyproTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: While neither provided a great argument for their position, only Pro presented empirical evidence as a source. Con argued that there must be a god to create the universe. While this may or may not be true, no argument was presented as to why the big bang and god couldn't both exist.
Vote Placed by crepuscularkid 1 year ago
crepuscularkid
RazorxLeafroypolicyproTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins because Pro doesn't meet their burden of proof. While I disagree with Con's conclusion, it is ultimately up to Pro to prove to a satisfying degree the truth of their claims, which they did not. I doubt that any conversation about the Big Bang could be satisfying with only one round (and a lackluster one at that). They only provide two pieces of "evidence", but don't explain why that evidence helps their cause. What is it about galaxies being "red-shifted from spectography" that means the Universe is expanding? Con's case only holds ground because Pro couldn't respond. We don't actually have to know what came before the BB if we can show that the BB happened. And you talk is if your religion is somehow exempt from the problem you are pointing out. If god created everything, where did God come from? In fact, God's inclusion in a scientific debate not pertaining to religion only served to weaken an already lacking argument. Thoroughly disappointing debate.