The Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God

Okay, that's fine. Voting issues are going to be inside the responses; don't have enough space to repeat them coherently at the end. _________ "Why did you bother rejecting my first two topics and accepting this one? " Because it was better. However, I didn't really consider his case. "The only burden I have is to disprove that the Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God. " Incorrect. But even if that were true, he didn't do that in R1. "You were the one talking smack. You were the one making big claims. " I don't believe I make big claims. Even if that were true, at least I gave my warrants. "I never said you ought to believe in God [. .. ] don't come crying to me about it. " Evan, you started the debate. Don't come crying to me if you didn't get what you wanted. "Before I get to the actual arguement, I'll go through the stuff that shouldn't even be an issue based on the topic and the first round, but will probably be argued anyway. " In the next several responses this preface he gives will be debunked. "To show that you don't meet your burden. That's why I'm CON. " CON does not necessarily have no burden. If the topic was "A UFO landed in my backyard", the PRO has the burden of proof. If the topic was "A UFO didn't land in my backyard", the CON would have the burden of proof. On this topic I believe that theres no obvious distribution, so I just set up something where we both had burdens. His burden is not ONLY to prove I'm wrong, but also to prove that he's right. "I, and my position [. .. ] isn't really incompatibility at all. " Incorrect. This justifies "Invisible Pink Unicorns exist until proven untrue". There is no innocent or guilty in this debate, we aren't condemning anyone, he cannot just evade your own burden simply by saying "since theres no proof against, you ought to believe they're compatible". Burdens do not work that way. "The Pro does. " Responded to this earlier. Also, this is a new argument, he should have defined what the burdens were in R1. "Mine is to negate yours. " This too. "But neither [. .. ] Fire away! " Just because I don't want to doesn't mean I won't. Moving target is a term used in real debate where the affirmative position alters their case in the rebuttal speech(es). In this case he's being abusive by changing your position. BTW that was a response to allegories. But even if that fact is overlooked, I still win the round. "How is my method [. .. ] relevant. " I don't know what an Exegis is. Even if what he said here is true, he still gives me no interpretation so I can't really fight his case. He tells me to prove that theres a mutual exculsiveness going on, well, I can't do that if I don't know EXACTLY what he wants me to show. He tells me to attack the Abrahamic God, and I do that in my R1. But I can't really disprove, IE, Affirm if he doesn't give me something to argue against. "I never claimed religion reached truth [. .. ] I never said they were good attempts. " Not a reason to believe they're compatible. "And what in the name of the Pink Panther's Purple Panties does morality have to do with anything? " It's called pre-empting an argument. Apparently you chose not to make the arg. "Now this is worth addressing [. .. ] set it off? " I'd like to mention that the debate that sparked off this one had my definition of Big Bang in it (. http://www.debate.org...). It doesn't say anything about time not existing. He's bringing up a new definition. "And now, the rational explaination is suddenly clear [. .. ] he claimed he could provide. " Hmm. Wonder where I talked smack? But okay back to the argument. Realm of possibility: I've disproved this over and over and over and over again. Just because its possible doesn't mean its true. Just because its possible doesn't mean its compatible. He isn't meeting his own burden, regardless if he believes he has it or not. I don't know what God Of The Gaps is. I'll look that up later. I agree, this is probably the most relevant part of the entire debate. And I win it, because you don't rationally believe in something unless there's proof for it. THIS EXISTS BEYOND THE REALM OF JUST THIS DEBATE, SO EVEN IF I LOSE EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT I'VE PRESENTED IN THIS ROUND, THIS ONE STANDS TRUE: YOU DON'T RATIONALLY BELIEVE IN ANYTHING UNLESS THERE'S PROOF FOR IT. Since the Big Bang theory is an alternative explanation and there IS proof for it, it is more rational to believe in that than believing in a divine being. Therefore, since an alternative, the Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God. The only arguments against this would be that 1) The Bible is a series of allegories, 2) God made the Big Bang happen, and 3) Just because you can't prove he doesn't exist means that he does. The first one I have already talked about; he doesn't define his allegories, AND HE CHOSE to not do so in R2. Second and Third, refer to the stuff I typed in all caps. "I don't care to prove God, and given the topic, I don't see why I should have to. You're the one who bit off more than you wanted, not me. " He needs to prove that they're compatible though, and my point there was that he'd need to prove something about God. Even if my second subpoint is false, he didn't met up to the requirements of the first. "That is not even remotely my arguement. " He has no argument. All he does is refute me. "Hey, I could argue that Original Sin (or the fallen state of man, they're the same thing to my mind) is practically self-evident, but that wouldn't really be relevant, would it? " It's EXTREMELY relevant; I can't affirm unless I know what I'm arguing against. "Actually, our moral teaching has remained remarkably the same. " Women not being allowed to speak in church, stoning people to death because they work on the sabbath, killing your neighbors because they worship a golden bull. .. . I'd say no, it isn't the same. "I blame the protestants, but that's just me. " Okay. Don't see an impact tho. "But I never claimed that a UFO landed in my backyard. " Wrong again. Though this argument may seem like OMGZTHECLEVERESTTURN EVARRR it falls apart rather quickly with just a little bit of scrutiny. First of all, that was an analogy. Any reasonable person would conclude that I was doing that. Then he just directly inserts the wording of this topic into the structure I gave in the analogy. Like everything else he's done so far, this is a misinterpretation. He's actually just attacking my quote from Albert anyways. .. . But that's nitpicking. The response to his argument is simple: I have rationally proved that no UFO has ever landed in my backyard by simply saying that there's no UFO. The sensational claim comes in when you DO claim that a UFO lands in your backyard. Otherwise I'll simply believe that isn't the case. And even before you look at my argument. .. Do you, as a reasonable human being , honestly believe what he's saying? He just said "that proving that no UFO has ever landed in my backyard", IE, "not saying that a UFO has landed in my backyard", is a sensational claim. What the heck? ?? "Not according to the topic. " Responded to this near the top. "Congratulations to the Pro for admitting that he cannot support the topic. " Congratulations to the CON for not seeing that he's attacking a quote. "Wait, I thought we were talking about unicorns. " Wait, I thought we were talking about affirming or negating. "What allegories do you have? I just heard a great one with a dragon. " Responded to this earlier. "I was actually going to ask you what your shoe size is. " It's 12.5. "Can I pass? " No.