The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Does the fact that science can't say what happened before the Big Bang suggest there must be a God?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 739 times Debate No: 120082
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




The Big Bang theory is a very good theory - it explains everything from one Planck Time after the Big Bang till now. I'm not disputing that, I agree that the Big Bang is the most likely cause for how our universe is today. But the something-from-nothing explanation that we're given back in High School 1) seems a bit off- if you can't prove the universe was the size of a pinhead (which then grew to the size of the solar system almost instantly, But that's not the part I'm disputing), Then why tell us? 2) if our universe was formed from the universe before this collapsing in on itself, Where did that stuff come from? Why does anything exist? How are the intricate muscles of human hands typing this, If they shouldn't exist in the first place? I can't accept that there isn't a God. As soon as Science can tell me what happened between 0 and 10^-43 seconds (that's one planck-time), I will throw my hands down and become an Atheist. Explain, If you will accept, How you believe there isn't a God, And still believe in the Big Bang.


This will be short easy and swift. 1. Which god out of the roughly 4200 religions that are in existence dump roll oh pretty please with beef jerky on top. . . Now? So who knows how many religions have died off in the history of man? Thus that would leave the question of how many gods from how many religions that have previously existed? Then you have to ask the question why only "a god"? Why not thousands, Hundreds of thousands, Billions, Trillions, Quadrillions? Since you do not have an answer to that, Your answer is "I don't know". Another question that you do not have an answer to is why a "god"? Since you do not have an answer to that question, Your answer once again is "I don't know. " I will save you a lot of trouble. . . Nobody, Not one person in the history of the human race has ever been able to prove that a "god" or anything from the supernatural has ever existed. Since this is true, And the B. O. P. Is upon you, You would need to test, Demonstrate YOUR god. Once that's done, You would need to assert this god. Once that's done you would need to declare this god to scientific communities from around the world so that believability can occur into fact. But then again, And this took place on yesterday's Atheist Experience. . .

Matt Dillahunty: Let"s imagine for a second that I"m god and I"m cool and the book I"m writing is "If I were god". Would we even be sitting here discussing whether or not there"s a god? Because if I"m god and I"m cool the first thing I"m gonna do is let everybody know "Hey I"m god and I"m cool" and the argument"s over! You can have other arguments like how cool I am or why am I not doing this or that. But at least there can be no argument that I exist. The least cool thing you could do is play the world"s longest game of hide-n-go-seek.
John Iacoletti: Instead you have a bunch of mental gymnastics of why its not good to question why I exist or not.
Matt: Yeah so imagine that what if I use the example before, What if I never met my parents and there"s always a note on the refrigerator door written by somebody else telling me what to do. Would it even be in the scope of reality that my parents actually loved me or cared for me or wanted me to know that they were real? Do I have any reason to think that they are real? If I was god and I saw all these other people saying "god said this god said this" "No I f--king didn"t. I didn"t say that. " How uncool is it for god to remain unsilent? Its like it gets back to one of my favorite things from Tracie Harris (I"m going to be using her actual quote here)
Tracie Harris "If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That"s the difference between me and your god. He watches and shuts the door and you go ahead and you rape that child and when your"re done I"m gonna punish you. If I did that people would think I"m a freakin" monster. "
Matt: None of us would do that.
Hector Garcia: god would tell the Westboro baptist church "No I hate figs! "
Matt: I would say based on divine hedonist, Based on the problem of evil that Hector was raising and other stuff, I think we can state conclusively that there is no god that is cool. There is no god that is caring that wants to engage with people. That god is pretty much defeated by the fact that there"s a billion people that think that god has told them different things and that there"s been no correction from god.
Hector: Yeah. Just the volume of human suffering that is possible. And all the anguishes that we can experience.
Caller: Well you know and you bring up cancer and that"s what I lost my fiance too.
John: Sorry.
Caller: Thank you. I appreciate that. It would have been nice. If you're gonna take the love of my life at least give me somethin" here. Comfort me. Somethin".

Btw, Science doesn't know everything. For you to expect science too is simply ridiculous, Childish and outlandish. If you don't know something, "I don't know" is the proper answer. You cannot blame your unanswered questions on a supposed god that's never been proved. That's not science. What it is, Is a complete absurdity.
Debate Round No. 1


I say "A God", Simply because that's what most of the people in the world believe exists. But I'm not limiting it to "A God". I don't care if we refer to "A God" as "one God" or "many gods" or even "a god". It can be whatever. My question was how you could agree with the Big Bang, And still remain an Atheist. In effect, I'm asking you to either explain to me what between 0 and one Planck-time or explain to me how the stuff from the pin-head (that's the size of the universe one Planck-time after the Big Bang) came into being. For this argument at least, The Burden of Proof lies on you, Not me. I'm not proving there is a god, You have to prove there isn't. But again, This isn't a debate on whether there is a god or not. This is a debate on how one can remain an Atheist and still believe the Big Bang happened.


I get it, So now you are changing the rules for the stipulations of your debate and you really don't have the foggiest idea as to what you are talking about - correct?
"I can't accept that there isn't a God. " Is exactly to-the-letter what you stated. So do you want to take back what you stated back, Or not?
"I say "A God", Simply because that's what most of the people in the world believe exists. But I'm not limiting it to "A God". " Oh yes god damned full of manure spread bile crap you are UNLESS you wish to take back your word OR forfeit this debate. Which is it?
Until you answer one or the other questions, Whatever you have to say, This debate comes to a screeching halt and is on hold.
Debate Round No. 2


Sir, If you want, I will create another debate with a new name just to stop you raising hell about the stupid name I chose. But you're obviously avoiding the question I asked you twice, And it's obvious you don't have an answer. However, If you do have an answer, Then you will accept my challenge to another debate. If you don't accept my challenge, Then it just confirms you never had an answer, To begin with. So what will it be- back out like a coward or face the challenge head on?


It has nothing to do with the name you choose. It has everything to do with your communication skills. You cannot say one thing, Absolutely mean it, And then POOF says another and then mean it in the opposing corner unless you believe you are the god of the bible or Donald Rust Brain Trump easily the worst president this country has ever had as examples in which I do know that you are 100% better than both! Makes sense? See what I mean by your lack of communication skills? What question would that be that you've asked twice that you really didn't? I get it, I really do, YOU are completely avoiding YOUR headliner question that was easily pulverized, Not only by me, But by others who have posted on this debate, And YOU are trying to change the subject and YOU are not doing a very good job at it. Right? Nod "yes"!
But sure, Compose another debate, My answers will still be the same.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Concodroid 3 years ago
I know exactly what you mean, @The_Right_Opinion, But for some reason my wording of the original question was bad.

And it isn't possible to know in the future. It's impossible, Simply because something can't come from nothing, And so in this one case, It could be "therefore, God". Of course, For nearly anything else you can't put that, But for this one example you can.
Posted by The_Right_Opinion 3 years ago
Doesn't the premise here already beg the question? The answer isn't that something came from nothing, The answer is that we don't know what happened. You're not supposed to say "we don't know, Therefore, God". You're meant to ask the question from a neutral position and *prove* the god. This is a misunderstanding of scientific reasoning that I see a lot. The inability for a science to just fill in the gaps in their knowledge with random ideas (claiming them to be fact) is not a flaw with science. Just because theists have AN answer, Doesn't mean it's even close to THE answer. It's a hypothesis and should be treated as a hypothesis, Not treated as the conclusion. And lastly, Just because we don't know now, Doesn't mean we won't know in the future.
Posted by Concodroid 3 years ago
Because the definition of theism is believing God came from nothing. That's faith, Which isn't something I'll get into in this debate. But Science can't say "Oh, I believe that this happened, So it happened. " Science has to prove something for it to be considered true. But they can't prove what happened before the Big Bang. The definition of science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. " But we can't observe what happened in the Big Bang, We can only see it's effects. But those effects are enough to prove there was a big bang. We can't say what happened to cause the big bang, And we can never know. If we can say what happened, That throws the whole of religion out of the door. But we can't. The Christan religion doesn't have any new discoveries that change the whole of the book (save from maybe a new book being discovered, Which is unlikely). But in Science, It changes all the time, And those changes have to have proof. @PointProven but Unicorns aren't currently said to have created the universe. Something we don't know doesn't lead to something else, I agree completely with that. You CAN'T say "The sun will turn into a giant marshmallow tomorrow. How do you know it won't? You haven't lived through tomorrow to tell me it hasn't. " But if something will never be proven, Then you are allowed to lead to something else. Example: "My computer screen flashed white for a second. No log has ever captured it, Nor was it captured on video. Can you prove it didn't happen? " You can't. You never can. Depending on who you are, You either believe it did happen, Or you didn't. But we're not dealing with computer screens, We're dealing with. . . Everything. And if we can never prove where all of this came from, Then you're lead to believe that something started this off. And the only reasonable explanation, As of right now, Is the supernatural.
Posted by PointProven 3 years ago
The answer is no. The real question should be: Does the fact that science can't say what happened before the big bang suggest there must be unicorns?

My point is that a lack of an explanation doesn't act as an explanation for something else. If we don't know something, How the hell does that lead you to "Must have been magic! "?
Posted by RationalMaterialist 3 years ago
The only way to honestly suggest there is a God is with evidence. They say the time period before the big bang can't be sensed so it suggests nothing.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Because scientists get the universe from nothing and you get God from nothing. How are you saying one is unacceptable and the other is?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Calling Pro "childish" is poor conduct.
Vote Placed by timmyjames 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was very condescending and rude. Grammar also goes to pro

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.