The Instigator
Eugenious
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
killshot
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Big Bang Theory is Scientifically Impossible

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,922 times Debate No: 120191
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (67)
Votes (0)

 

Eugenious

Pro

Something cannot come form nothing.
Order cannot come from disorder.
The Big Bang Theory defies scientific knowledge left and right. My opponent will have to prove that the Big Bang is not impossible. Please be respectful, And good luck to you!
killshot

Con

You said, "Something cannot come from nothing".

Well first off that is a proposition on it's own and you would be responsible for proving that. I know what you meant; however, And I'm not going to tie you down in the philosophical nonsense. I want to actually have a real conversation with you and be productive. I look forward to it :)

In the world of physics things are possible that are not common to us on a macro scale. Particles pop in and out of existence, Entanglement occurs (Einsteins spooky action at a distance), Electrons can be in multiple states (superposition) at the same time, Etc. Also, The definition of "nothing" is different in physics than it is in our normal nomenclature. Nothing in physics still has properties, Whereas nothing in our normal usage literally means non-existence/absence of. The word nothing in physics is a bit provocative, I'll admit. I think it was used intentionally to incite attention. But if we are saying something cannot come from nothing we need to first be clear about what "nothing" is. When I say nothing, I will be referring to it's context in relation to physics, Unless stated otherwise. Dr Lawrence Krauss, Despite his recent academic shaming, Is very intelligent and widely respected and he wrote a book on this subject. It's called "A Universe From Nothing". I recommend you read it if you haven't already.

You said, "Order cannot come from disorder. "
Can you explain further what you mean? I assume you are referring to entropy, But rather than write a response, It would be easier to first get a definition/example.

You said, "The Big Bang Theory defies scientific knowledge left and right. "
Examples? Please. . Lol

Here are my initial questions back towards you.

1) Do you acknowledge that our universe is expanding in an outward direction?
2) Do you acknowledge the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and travels at about 300k meters per second? You can use Google to get the actual number. This site will not let me post it here for some reason. .
3) Are there any laws of physics you do not accept? If so, Why and please provide examples/counter explanations that fit within the model of reality.

I look forward to your responses.
Debate Round No. 1
Eugenious

Pro

My opponent wants me to PROVE that something cannot come from nothing. But I would ask him, Have you ever observed this occurring? It never has, And that in and of itself proves this point.

Next, I am using the true definition of "nothing. " And that is the absence of anything. If something cannot come from nothing, Then the Big Bang theory is impossible.

Next, There aren't really any other ways to say "order cannot come from disorder. The Big Bang, As the name obviously implies, Was an explosion. No explosion in history ever created something. Did the 9/11 explosions that occurred bring about any complex creation? Could a nuclear bomb dropped in a junkyard create a new Bugatti Veyron? No! It can not! This is what I mean by that.

Now, To answer my opponent's questions. I acknowledge that the universe gives the appearance of expanding, But this is not evidence of evolution. The universe being at a central spot could have happened with either the atheistic or creationist worldviews. Next, Yes, The speed of light is constant in a vacuum, But once again, That doesn't prove anything. If you're going to use the age-old argument that because the light of stars light years away is reaching us, The earth must be billions of years old, That is incorrect. The creationist view supports the idea that just as man was created fully developed, The universe was as well. But this is beside the topic. We aren't talking about the age of the universe. We are talking strictly about the Big Bang. In our last debate, You accused me of going off topic. Looks like you have that tendency too, Huh? Lol
I would need examples of physics laws that apply to this topic before I discredit any of them. Your question is very broad, And we need to stick to the topic.

So far, You cannot prove that something can come from nothing, And you cannot prove that order comes from disorder.
Back to you.
killshot

Con

You said "My opponent wants me to PROVE that something cannot come from nothing. But I would ask him, Have you ever observed this occurring? It never has, And that in and of itself proves this point. "

Sure, And you have too. Photons, They do not exist, Then they exist as a byproduct of energy. You seem to have completely disregarded my entire paragraph I wrote you explaining that there are things in physics that appear delusional to our everyday senses.

You said "Next, I am using the true definition of "nothing. " And that is the absence of anything. If something cannot come from nothing, Then the Big Bang theory is impossible. "

This is a straw man. You cannot use the "real" definition of nothing, Because that is not what we are talking about. The big bang is a scientific theory and it involves physics. In the world of physics, Nothing is not the same as it's typical nomenclature usage - nothing in physics has a different meaning. If we are discussing a subject, We have to use the terminology applicable to that subject. I already wrote about this in my last rebuttal, Which once again you seemed to ignore with your selective reading.

You said "Next, There aren't really any other ways to say "order cannot come from disorder. The Big Bang, As the name obviously implies, Was an explosion. No explosion in history ever created something. Did the 9/11 explosions that occurred bring about any complex creation? Could a nuclear bomb dropped in a junkyard create a new Bugatti Veyron? No! It can not! This is what I mean by that. "

Contrary to its name, The big bang was not an actual explosion, It was just an expansion. You are totally off base here. There was no 9/11 or nuclear warhead that started our universe.

You said "Now, To answer my opponent's questions. I acknowledge that the universe gives the appearance of expanding, But this is not evidence of evolution. The universe being at a central spot could have happened with either the atheistic or creationist worldviews. Next, Yes, The speed of light is constant in a vacuum, But once again, That doesn't prove anything. If you're going to use the age-old argument that because the light of stars light years away is reaching us, The earth must be billions of years old, That is incorrect. The creationist view supports the idea that just as man was created fully developed, The universe was as well. But this is beside the topic. We aren't talking about the age of the universe. We are talking strictly about the Big Bang. In our last debate, You accused me of going off topic. Looks like you have that tendency too, Huh? Lol
I would need examples of physics laws that apply to this topic before I discredit any of them. Your question is very broad, And we need to stick to the topic.

So far, You cannot prove that something can come from nothing, And you cannot prove that order comes from disorder.
Back to you. "

I'm going to break this down into smaller chunks so we can discuss it further.

1) I'm not sure what evolution has to do with an expanding universe. I will just disregard this as nonsense and move on. If you meant something else here, Write a few more details next time.

2) There is no center of the universe, So I don't know where you are getting that idea from. In order to have a center you have to have a boundary.

3) I'm glad we agree the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. This DOES matter. If something travels at a specific speed you can determine how long it will take to get somewhere. This is paramount to our discussion. I was not using this to argue the age of the universe or take us off subject, As you insinuated. I was asking you this because it's important evidence as proof of the big bang. If we agree that light moves at a constant rate in a vacuum, Then we can agree that electromagnetic radiation (light) will be stretched if the universe is expanding. This is exactly what we see - stretched light. If the universe is expanding, It must have had a smaller origin since it's expanding. Through mathematics, You can reverse all this back to it's starting point. Hence, Big bang. This is also important in calculating the age of the universe like you mentioned, But it's irrelevant to my point here.

Red shift is one of the ways we know the universe is expanding since the spectral lines are being displaced towards longer wavelengths resulting in "red" electromagnetic radiation. It is shifting towards the red spectrum, Hence red shift. It is proportional to it's velocity of recession and thus it's distance - Doppler shift. This tells us the universe is expanding outwards, And mathematically we can then figure out how fast. It's rate of expansion is actually increasing, Which is causing the shifting to occur. Moving backwards through time, The universe would be smaller and smaller (because it's expanding). Eventually it becomes so small (T=0) that the laws of physics begin to break down. This is it's origin point - aka the "big bang".

What caused the big bang? No one knows for sure and it's outside the scope of this argument. There are theories such as the multi-verse, Lawrence Krauss's theory of Something From Nothing (where nothing isn't your version of nothing), To name a few. This is not related to the big bang though. The big bang does not describe the universes cause (if it had one), It describes what happens around and after T=0 (T = time).

4) Creationists are not scientists and unless you can provide me with something stronger than "because they say this", I am not even wasting my time refuting it. I will say this much - in Christian theology, The Genesis creation story clearly depicts the entire universe and all life being created in about a week. This is entirely unscientific in every possible way. The Genesis myth is not "how God sparked the big bang". Our universe was not created in 7 days or anything remotely close. This is off subject and I don't want to straw man this any further. I am only responding to this because YOU brought it up. We can debate this in a separate debate, If you'd like.

5) The reason I asked you for laws that you disagree with is simple. If we agree on all the laws of physics, You have absolutely no choice but to agree with me there was a big bang. In order to disagree with the idea of a big bang, You would need to disagree with numerous laws of physics. Since you are arguing against the big bang, I assume you have more than "because i don't think it could happen" as a reason, Right? I agree with all current laws of physics.

What scientific evidence do you have that disagrees with the big bang?
Debate Round No. 2
Eugenious

Pro

Eugenious forfeited this round.
killshot

Con

Really? . .
Debate Round No. 3
Eugenious

Pro

First off, You said "Photons, They do not exist, Then they exist as a byproduct of energy. " First you say that they don't exist, Then you say that they exist in a certain circumstance. Well, Then they DO exist! If they exist in a certain sense, Then they exist.

Next, No matter what definition of "nothing" you're using, Ultimately the universe had to have had a moment when there was nothing. The belief that the universe always existed and always will exist was proved wrong centuries ago. So, Whatever you say, The universe had to have come from nothing at some time. So please answer the contention that something cannot come from nothing.

Next, You said that the Big Bang was not an "explosion, " but an expansion. Well, This "expansion" would have needed an incredible amount of energy to expand into the massive universe we have. But this is besides the point! Even if this wasn't an explosion, It was still disorder. My exact argument was that order cannot come from disorder.

Next, You broke down my argument into a few smaller arguments and attempted to refute those, So I'll do the same thing and answer each of your individual "rebuttals. " First off, You said in response to my expanding universe answer, "I'm not sure what evolution has to do with an expanding universe. I will just disregard this as nonsense and move on. If you meant something else here, Write a few more details next time. " Well, If this has nothing to do with the debate, Why did you mention it in your first argument? If it has nothing to do with the debate, It is just as incorrect when yo use it.
In answer to my next argument, You said "There is no center of the universe, So I don't know where you are getting that idea from. In order to have a center you have to have a boundary. " You know very well what I mean. If, As you say, The universe is expanding, Then the universe must have at one time been in one central, Small location.
In response to your answer to my third argument, Could you please offer some hard evidence that we see light being stretched? Even if this was the case, It actually isn't proof of the Big Bang. If the creationist model is true, Then the universe would have been created already in its mature state. We see in the Bible that Adam was created as a man, Not as a baby. So it naturally follows that the universe would also be created in its mature stage. This answer also is to refute your next point about red shift.

Next, You said "What caused the big bang? No one knows for sure and it's outside the scope of this argument. " Outside the scope of this argument? We're talking about the alleged "science" surrounding the Big Bang theory. If the starting of the Big Bang was a part of the Big Bang, Then it most definitely is in the scope of this debate. Pleas answer my previous arguments surrounding this point.

Next, I would like you to actually prove that creationists aren't scientists. This was a very bold statement, And you offered no actual proof of this. This was an argument from emotion, Not of fact.

Next, So far, None of the laws of physics actually prove the Big Bang. If they did, It would not be a theory but a law.

Finally, You asked for scientific evidence against the Big Bang. I'm glad you asked!
1. The Magnetic Monopole Problem: "A magnetic monopole is, In short, A particle which contains an electrical charge, Creating a net "magnetic charge" within the individual particle. If the Big Bang theory were true, It should be one of the most prevalent (common) particles in the universe. However, Instead it is the complete opposite - a magnetic monopole has never even been observed, Not even once. This is a serious problem because it means there is something entirely wrong with the Big Bang Theory, Because the total and absolute lack of even a single observed magnetic monopole particle is a direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of the Big Bang theory.
2. The Flatness Problem, Also known as the Oldness Problem: "Initial density of matter and energy in the universe is a very specific critical value. Small deviations from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time. If the universe started off slightly positively curved, It would be enormously positively curved today, And the same holds for negative curvature. However, The curvature of matter and energy in regards to density remains very small so the probability that a Big Bang could have occurred to create the current universe is so astronomically slim that it is entirely improbable.
3. We should be able to see the Big Bang or shortly after, Since the farther you look the farther back in time you see; but we don't: "Essentially, The problem is that if the Big Bang occurred 13. 7 billion years ago, Then the deeper we peer into the universe, The closer to the Big Bang that we should see. However, No matter how deep we peer into space, Still we see no evidence of a Big Bang.

A quick google search showed me that even in 2012 we have been able to see 13. 2 billion light years, Which is see the equivalent of 13. 2 billion years into the past. (We can probably see even farther now. ) However, Since the Big Bang was supposed to occur only 13. 7 billion years ago, Then we should be looking at the early pre-formed universe. We shouldn't see fully formed stars and planets. However, Instead we see stars and planets just like in our own galaxy. This is a serious problem for the Big Bang theory because we're looking at the "early universe" yet it doesn't appear very early at all. Thus, The Big Bang could not have happened. Additionally, Although this is in fact yet another issue (one that has been addressed before), If the universe happened totally randomly then there should be all kinds of different forms that we should see as we look out into space. It wouldn't be the same planets, Stars, And galaxies in every direction. Instead it would be a vast array of different types of things. For example, In one direction we might see stars and galaxies but in another direction we might see exotic forms. However this is not the case, Further disproving any Big Bang from ever happening.
4. Dark Matter and Dark Energy: "Dark Matter and Dark Energy have never been proven, Or observed in any way whatsoever, Yet the Big Bang theory depends on the existence of such potentially mythological substances. Not only that, But in order for the Big Bang theory to even be valid, Dark matter and dark energy would have to be the most abundant things in the universe. The "dark" in "dark matter" and "dark energy" doesn't mean color. It means, "unknown". In other words, The proponents of the Big Bang theory couldn't figure out how it could possibly happen so they said, Let's make up some fictional matter and energy that "made it happen". It's kind of like me saying I am the most powerful person in the universe. My power is everywhere and can do everything! You just can't see my power but it's there! And then someone with common sense saying, Pfft whatever man, Yeah right. "
5. The theory of Inflation violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity: "Big Bang theorists have tried to use a magical effect called "inflation" to solve several of the obvious problems, Including the Horizon Problem and the Flatness Problem. The problem is, Inflation states that after the Big Bang, All the particles in the universe traveled faster than the speed of light. But Einstein's General Law of Relativity proves that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Inflation can effectively be called a "magical" effect because it does not hold any basis in science. Theorists made up this magical effect which says, Essentially, That in some magical way everything traveled exponentially faster than the speed of light to get where it is after the supposed "Big Bang".
6. Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models: "Occam"s Razor states that that which has the fewest adjustable parameters should be chosen. However, The Big Bang theory opposes Occam"s Razor, Because it can only exist with innumerable adjustable parameters. Models of a Static Universe have far fewer adjustable parameters than expanding universe models. The Big Bang theory is an expanding universe model. Hence, According to Occam"s Razor you must choose a Static Universe model over the Big Bang's Expanding Universe model. "

Are these sufficient for now? Each of these comes from a scientific perspective, So you should have no problem agreeing with them. If you don't, Please provide actual evidence of it.

PS. - Seriously? I said why I had to forfeit the last round! Now who's using selective reading?
Back to you!
killshot

Con

You said "First off, You said "Photons, They do not exist, Then they exist as a byproduct of energy. " First you say that they don't exist, Then you say that they exist in a certain circumstance. Well, Then they DO exist! If they exist in a certain sense, Then they exist. "

What I said was photons do not exist, Then they exist, Meaning they came into existence. This was an example of what you were asking for. Quit playing word games, You know exactly what I was trying to convey. Another example is virtual particles. If you don't know about this stuff, Google it.

You said "Next, No matter what definition of "nothing" you're using, Ultimately the universe had to have had a moment when there was nothing. "

There is only one definition of nothing when used in the context of physics. Context matters. Your claim that a universe HAD to have come from nothing is an assertion YOU will have to support. There is nothing saying the universe itself isn't eternal. We don't know what happened, If anything, Before the big bang. That question alone may be nonsensical. The universe could be the product of a multi-verse or many other things. The answer is "WE DON'T KNOW". Theism is certainly not the answer, That we do know.

You said "Next, You said that the Big Bang was not an "explosion, " but an expansion. Well, This "expansion" would have needed an incredible amount of energy to expand into the massive universe we have. But this is besides the point! Even if this wasn't an explosion, It was still disorder. My exact argument was that order cannot come from disorder. "

Show me why order cannot come from disorder. It's completely possible that wind blowing across a beach can arrange the sand particles into a sand castle. The probability is just incredibly low and it's not something we see. It is possible, However. Our solar system however is NOT an example of this because our solar system is a product of the laws of physics. Gravity and many other things played a part in the formation of our solar system. This is all backed by science and you can even see distant galaxies in the stages of formation. Once again, You have made baseless assertions and you have not backed it up with any actual evidence. Prove it.

You said "Well, If this has nothing to do with the debate, Why did you mention it in your first argument? If it has nothing to do with the debate, It is just as incorrect when yo use it. "

I mentioned it first because YOU DID, First. I was taking them in order. Try to keep up.

You said "You know very well what I mean. If, As you say, The universe is expanding, Then the universe must have at one time been in one central, Small location. "

No I don't know what you mean. There is no center on something that has no boundaries. Referring to a center is nonsensical.

You said "In response to your answer to my third argument, Could you please offer some hard evidence that we see light being stretched? Even if this was the case, It actually isn't proof of the Big Bang. If the creationist model is true, Then the universe would have been created already in its mature state. We see in the Bible that Adam was created as a man, Not as a baby. So it naturally follows that the universe would also be created in its mature stage. This answer also is to refute your next point about red shift. "

Yes I can, Google red shift. There, I put about as much effort into this as you are with your one sentence rephrasings and intentional misdirections. I already explained above how we see light stretching, Which is only consistent in an expanding universe where light is moving through the expanding vacuum of space.

You said "Next, You said "What caused the big bang? No one knows for sure and it's outside the scope of this argument. " Outside the scope of this argument? We're talking about the alleged "science" surrounding the Big Bang theory. If the starting of the Big Bang was a part of the Big Bang, Then it most definitely is in the scope of this debate. Pleas answer my previous arguments surrounding this point. "

Um, I did answer. I said "we don't know". That IS an answer, Whether you like it or not. This discussion is about the big bang being scientifically impossible. It is not about what started the big bang. You know this and you're only trying to dodge the subject.

You said "Next, I would like you to actually prove that creationists aren't scientists. This was a very bold statement, And you offered no actual proof of this. This was an argument from emotion, Not of fact. "

Easy, Creationism has no basis in naturalism and is not in concordance with reality. It uses magic and makes assertions that are entirely antiscientific. Therefore, Creationists ARE NOT SCIENTISTS. They are delusional imbiciles that are so indoctrinated and brainwashed in their thinking that they actually deny reality and hard evidence that contradicts their presuppositions. Done.

You said "Next, So far, None of the laws of physics actually prove the Big Bang. If they did, It would not be a theory but a law. "

Wrong. Laws are consistent observations of natural phenonomen that theories explain. I suggest you take a basic science class if you don't even know the difference. How can you possibly argue against a powerful scientific theory like the big bang when you don't even have the most basic comprehension of science and it's methologies. This alone demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.


As for your evidence against the big bang, Nice 2 second Google search and copy/paste. If this is seriously all you got, And all the more effort you're going to put it, Then I'm not even wasting my time writing a scientific response. You can Google the rebuttals and copy/paste them back in yourself.

Here are my quick responses:
1) Monopoles are theoretical and their absense is explained by inflation.
2) The probability is slim is not a valid argument. Anthropic prinicple.
3) There is no "center point" of the universe that we are looking at when we see light. We are seeing light being refracted and reflected off many distant objects, Light being created from distant stars, And light arriving from the outer edges of the expansion (red shift). Your argument makes no sense.
4) Just because we haven't found a way to detect it doesn't mean it's not there. Are you familiar with particle physics? Higgs Boson.
5) Only things with mass cannot travel faster than the speed of light because they would require an infinite mass.
6) Static universe requires us to ignore red shift and other phenomenon that disproves it. Explain red shift in a static universe for me please.

Remember, You are the one saying the big bang is scientifically impossible. The burden of proof is on you, Not me. It's up to YOU to provide proof. Try to find some scientific reasons next time and not something on a creationist website. I hope you can put a little more effort into the next one and actually type your explanations. Anyone can Google copy/paste something that's already been hashed out.
Debate Round No. 4
Eugenious

Pro

To start off, I would like you to stop being insulting and debate rationally. You don't need to throw in junk like your statements about me not having a basic education and other bilge like that. Your debating has been rather impulsive so far, And it's really unethical. Just because you think something doesn't mean you need to say it.

Now, For your "arguments. " First, You said, "What I said was photons do not exist, Then they exist, Meaning they came into existence. This was an example of what you were asking for. " Did these photons come from your definition of nothing or mine? If it came from yours, It doesn't fit in this debate.

Next, You repeated your attack on my definition of nothing. Do you honestly believe that the universe has been around forever? This certainly is an outdated belief that has been easily proved wrong. If you believe this, Please offer some evidence of it. If you don't actually believe it, Please stop wasting time by even mentioning it.

Next, You questioned my view of order and disorder. Dan Barker, Renowned atheist, In a debate between him and the apologist Kyle Butt, Spoke about how you cannot prove on-hundred percent that God doesn't exist, But you can prove how "improbable" his existence is. He said that it is nearly impossible, So he doesn't exist. And yet, You say that because of there being a minute chance of order coming from disorder, It could have happened. Starting to contradict yourself, Eh?

Next, You said in response to my argument about the universe being at one point, "No I don't know what you mean. There is no center on something that has no boundaries. Referring to a center is nonsensical. " Wow. Now who's playing word games? You apparently didn't even bother to read my previous statements on this. I said that the word "center" that I used means more like "starting point. " I made this clear, And you are straw-manning me by twisting my words. For someone who accuses me of misquoting you, You certainly do a lot of it yourself.

Next, If the answer "I don't know" is sufficient to you, It's sufficient to me. If you can get out of answering a key point just by saying "I don't know, " then what's stopping me from doing just that? And you atheists accuse US of using the "God of the Gaps" argument. I find this quite humorous.

Once again, You resorted to insults by stating that we creationists aren't scientists. You called us "delusional imbeciles. " Funny. I seem to recall debating someone on that exact topic and winning. . . I proved you wrong already. I don't need to again.

You accused me of using a 2-second google search. Wow. This coming from the guy who's told me to "google it" multiple times. To prove his point. If it is veritable when you say to do it, It is just as veritable when I do it. It seems that you like to pick and choose when you want to use logic.

Once again, You say that the burden of proof is on me to prove my view. In our debate over Christians being delusional, YOU STARTED THE DEBATE, And you still insisted multiple times that the burden of proof was on me. You really are unethical, Aren't you? You change your logic and requirements whenever it would hopefully further your side. This is the style of debate that I abhor. I hat debating with people like you, Because you change whenever it suits your purposes. This is very unethical, And the burden of proof is on both of us. So stop trying to turn attention away form you.
Back to you.
killshot

Con

I will be as direct as I like when I'm arguing with someone who is immature and refuses to debate honestly, Which is what you are clearly doing. You are making assertions that are not founded in science and you are being dishonest by intentionally ignoring or misusing definitions (like nothing and laws/theories). You are either lacking in education and truly don't understand the definitions, Which is ok but it means you are not ready to tackle a subject like this, Or you do understand them and you are just being dishonest and ignorant - which is it? Or both?


Did these photons come from your definition of nothing or mine? If it came from yours, It doesn't fit in this debate.

Case and point. I'll try to make this very easy for you. They come from the definition of nothing we are referring to when we are discussing physics. Quit trying to play word games. I was VERY clear on what the version of nothing is we are referring to - dishonesty will not get you anywhere in a debate like this.


Next, You repeated your attack on my definition of nothing. Do you honestly believe that the universe has been around forever? This certainly is an outdated belief that has been easily proved wrong. If you believe this, Please offer some evidence of it. If you don't actually believe it, Please stop wasting time by even mentioning it.

I don't know if it is or isn't. That is out of scope, But nice straw man.


Next, You questioned my view of order and disorder. Dan Barker, Renowned atheist, In a debate between him and the apologist Kyle Butt, Spoke about how you cannot prove on-hundred percent that God doesn't exist, But you can prove how "improbable" his existence is. He said that it is nearly impossible, So he doesn't exist. And yet, You say that because of there being a minute chance of order coming from disorder, It could have happened. Starting to contradict yourself, Eh?

I never said this. Once again, Nice straw man. You're really trying hard to misdirect and push the burden of proof on me. You made the proposition this debate is focused on - support it.


Next, You said in response to my argument about the universe being at one point, "No I don't know what you mean. There is no center on something that has no boundaries. Referring to a center is nonsensical. " Wow. Now who's playing word games? You apparently didn't even bother to read my previous statements on this. I said that the word "center" that I used means more like "starting point. " I made this clear, And you are straw-manning me by twisting my words. For someone who accuses me of misquoting you, You certainly do a lot of it yourself.

There is no straw man here, I would have to be setting you up for a knock down. That's simply not the case and I never used it to knock you down. I'm being very careful with my words because I know what you're attempting to do. The universe has no center, Because it has no boundaries. This is nonsensical.


Next, If the answer "I don't know" is sufficient to you, It's sufficient to me. If you can get out of answering a key point just by saying "I don't know, " then what's stopping me from doing just that? And you atheists accuse US of using the "God of the Gaps" argument. I find this quite humorous.

That is a perfectly honest answer and you are free to use it anywhere you want. If there is no answer, The answer is "I/You don't know". Throwing in an answer of "Oh, Magic did it" (God of the gaps) is not an answer.


Once again, You resorted to insults by stating that we creationists aren't scientists. You called us "delusional imbeciles. " Funny. I seem to recall debating someone on that exact topic and winning. . . I proved you wrong already. I don't need to again.

My arguments were sound in that debate and I won it regardless of your fellow creationist sympathy vote. Creationists are NOT scientists, They are antiscientific.


You accused me of using a 2-second google search. Wow. This coming from the guy who's told me to "google it" multiple times. To prove his point. If it is veritable when you say to do it, It is just as veritable when I do it. It seems that you like to pick and choose when you want to use logic.

Because you are putting no effort into this debate and simply on here to troll/rant with your unfounded assertions. It's not worth the time writing a large response when you're arguments are self-defeating on their own. Readers can clearly see your limited scope of knowledge and intentional dishonesty. This is not the first debate I've had with you.


Once again, You say that the burden of proof is on me to prove my view

Who started this debate again and made a proposition they failed to support? Oh right, YOU.
Debate Round No. 5
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
Understandable. We really went all-out.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Too much to read for me.
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
Why hasn't anyone voted on this?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Eugenious

Some people would disagree.
Appreciate the compliment.
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
Oh, I see. What I meant was that it was an interesting way of looking at it. I think he is most likely wrong, But I never actually said I agreed. I also wanted to thank you for something. Most of the people who oppose me are very rude and vulgar. You, However, Though we have disagreed, Have been quite polite. Thank you for contributing to the correct debate atmosphere. I really appreciate it.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
You were agreeing with Adrian when he was wrong. A simple search of atheism would have shown he was wrong. Next time do check what someone is saying before agree with them even if they believe the same things you do.
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
Forgive me, Omar, But I misunderstand your most recent comment. Could you rephrase it?
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
Hey, Here's another thing about backwardseden stating that I've never won a debate. Fist off, Go ahead and check my records. For only recently starting on debate. Org, I've already won several debates. SO you can see that this is literally a bold-faced lie. Next, Go ahead and check backwardseden's records. Guess what you'll find? He's done 134 debates total and won, Drum roll please. . . . . 4 debates. Wow. Nice little attack on me there, "backwards. " Better luck next time with your deception.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Eugenious

Thank you for the compliment.
I quoted a definition by typing in atheism define and theism define.
You played into your confirmation biases instead of realising what you agreed to was wrong. Next time do try to check facts given by people who believe in the same things you do. You never know they may be lying.
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
This has been interesting.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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