Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

Ave.Con starts off his argument by saying 'My goal today is to educate my opponent'. This struck me as a rude remark that was not called for. But, I will leave it to the audience to decide if this was a violation of the conduct rules.Let's analyze the first section of Con's argument called 'Began'. This entire section is based on a strawman of my opening statement. Con says I asserted that god had a beginning. I have not asserted this a single time. The only assertion I made in regards to god was that he can't exist because an initial state can't exist. Con has not provided a single quotation from my opening statement where I said that god had a beginning. If Con tries to find such a quotation, he will be sorely dissapointed, because it does not exist. Explaining why god always existed is irrelevant, because I have not asserted to the contrary.The second section, which Con calls 'The universe', is similarly filled with strawman attacks on my opening statement. I never stated that the universe had no conceivable cause. I actually argued that the universe had a cause, and the cause of the universe was itself in an Z caused by Y, caused by X, sense of the term. I also never argued that the universe came from nothing. Much to the contrary, I argued that every something (or state of the universe) is caused by a prior something (or state of the universe). There was not a single point in my opening statement where I argued that one of these states came from nothing. Section two, just like section one, is based entirely on strawman arguments.The third section is useless because it ignores everything I said in my opening statement. My opening statement demonstrated that an initial state cannot exist for god to cause. Con completely skipped over this argument in order to focus on his strawman attacks. At this point in the debate, my argument against an initial state existing have not been addressed by Con. Therefore, there is no reason to think an initial state existed. Therefore, there is no room for god.Stating the premises of the KCA is also useless. The purpose of my opening statement was to demonstrate that, even if the universe began to exist and had a cause, such a thing does not entail the existence of god. I don't doubt that the universe began to exist. I don't doubt that the universe had a cause. Asserting that I doubt those statements is nothing more than a strawman argument, the type of argument that plagues Con's argument.The amount of content that Con skipped is stunning. Every state of something is caused by a prior state of something? Completely ignored. There is no T=0 state, so there is no initial state? Completely ignored. There is no T=0 state, so god could not have created it? Completely ignored. When Con barely scratches my arguments, he does so by setting up straw men that don't relate to them at all.Con's argument was dissapointingly short. I typed several thousand characters, while Con's argument probably didn't come close to 1200. Because of this, I'm left with very little to respond to. I'll devote the rest of my round to showing that Con has strawmanned me extensively.Con and Strawman ArgumentsCon: While you are asserting that god had a beginning, this is simply not so.I never asserted that god had a beginning. My challenge to Con in the next round is to quote the part of my argument that asserted this. He can't, because I never did.Con: The universe has no conceivable cause?This implies that I stated the universe had no cause. However, I explicitly states in my opening statement that I would try to show how something other than god could have caused the universe. 'It will be my position that Big Bang cosmology supports the idea of the universe causing itself. 'Con: Really? So it just came out of nothing?I never stated that the universe came from nothing. I stated the exact opposite in my opening round. 'The conclusion of this argument is that there is something because there is something else to cause that something...'Now, this may be three examples, but these three examples form the basis of everything Con said in his argument. I'll turn this debate over to Con, and hopefully we'll get more substance and less strawman attacks.Vale.