The splitting of the sea is more probable then the Big Bang

Definition of eventsPro initiated the debate, so it's his job to write a clear resolution. The resolution references two events that might have occurred, The Big Bang and the Crossing of the Red Sea as described in the Bible. Pro did not really define either event, he only pointed to them. He gave no description at all of the Biblical event beyond saying, "The splitting of the sea is the one that occurred in the Bible." That means we must look to the Bible for the description. The splitting of the sea is described in several passages of Exodus, and is subject to some controversy as to which translation of the original Greek text is correct. Pro says "the Big Bang is defined as a theory that the world originated billions of years ago from an explosion at a single point." That suffices to reference the Big Bang Theory as a scientific description of a cosmological event, and not the Big Bang Theory which is a television show. Pro's description is fine for letting me know what he is referencing, but his description is not quite accurate as a formulation of the theory. It is unreasonable for me to suppose that Pro had invented a separate theory with the same name as the well-known theory solely for the purpose of the debate. We are debating the real Big Bang theory, not Pro's impression of what he thinks the theory says. In my view, his errors make little difference in the debate. The Big Bang describes the formation and expansion of our universe.My only purpose for discussing the Biblical language of the parting of the sea is to establish that it is described as a miraculous event, and not a natural event. Miraculous events are much less likely than natural events, so the distinction is important. Referring to Exodus in the King James Bible, "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided." (Pro claims that having the Lord part the seas can somehow be discussed without bringing religion into the debate. That's not possible.) The Lord causing the strong wind upon command is miraculous, but also having dry land revealed rather than a mucky sea bottom is miraculous. The Bible says, "the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left." Ordinary winds can cause a receding of water, but not walls of water. The story continues, "... the Lord looked down upon the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud, and He troubled the army of the Egyptians.And He took off their chariot wheels, ..." That is miraculous, and Pro called upon that part of the story in attempting to establish chariot wheels as evidence for the event occurring. Comparing ProbabilitiesI established that the alleged archaeological evidence was most likely bogus, and Pro abandoned the claim. Pro also claimed that there were witnesses to the parting of the sea, but neither I nor Pro could find any account outside of the Bible story. Pro says that 14 million Jews believe the literal truth of the Bible story, and that somehow that validates the story by witnesses. /first of all, I don't believe that 14 million Jews interpret the story as literally true. He offers no proof. But believing in a traditional story is not evidence for it's truth. There hundreds of millions of Hindus, many of whom believe the stories of Hindu sacred writings, and the same is true of Christians, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Taoists, and Shintoists. Their respective stories of, say, the origins of the world are often directly contradictory. Therefore he quantity of believers has no authority. It isn't evidence.The resolution says the Biblical parting of the sea is more probable than the Big Bang. There is no credible independent evidence for the splitting of the sea, and scholars attribute the story to being an embellished composite of actual non-miraculous events. Therefore the probability of it occurring as the miracle described in the Bible is very low.The Big Bang is a natural event occurring within the laws of nature. Pro said, "It is literally a guess not based on any facts. It is merely an assumption." In the last round I cited the twenty-six facts of cosmology that provide the strong basis for the Big Bang Theory and which disproved the Steady State Theory and other contending theories. Pro is completely wrong, and he did not dispute any of the facts support the Big Bang. I admitted that nothing in science is absolutely certain, but the evidence is so strong and has been seriously considered by scientists for so long that the probability that the Big Bang occurred is very near one. Pro had argued that the parting of the sea was witnessed while the Big Bang was not, but he abandoned that in the face of no witnesses being found for the splitting of the sea and the general greater reliability of physical evidence over witness testimony. The Big Bang fingerprints are all over the universe.By any reasonable reckoning, the probability of the Big Bang is greater than the probability of the Biblical splitting of the sea.The argument from incredulityIn e last round, Pro said, "First of all remember that this is a debate of which is more probable. Don't forget that proof for either of these events are non existent." 100% certainty is impossible, but the evidence for the Big Bang is as good as any proof in science.It seems to me Pro has a second meaning for the resolution, which he mixes with the straightforward assessment of probabilities. The idea is that the degree of miraculousness of something can be assessed independently of the cold probabilities. Pro argues that the splitting of the sea is not as miraculous as the creation of the universe by the Big Bang, and because it is not as miraculous it is more probable. So if the Big Bang were a miracle and the splitting of the sea were a miracle, we ought to consider the splitting of the sea a more probable miracle.There is no logical basis for comparing miracles. An individual might find one thing more exciting or impressive than another, but that's purely a property of the individual making the comparison. My point in citing the New Guinea natives being unimpressed by a video recorder was to show that how improbable something seems is completely subjective. Since miracles have no regard for the laws of nature, there is no grounds for supposing and one is more incredible or more probable that another. For all we know, a simple large Bang is an easier miracle than constructing water walls and drying sea muck. In fact, we have no reason to suppose that there are any rules governing miracles that makes one more incredible than another.Pro has the burden of proof to show that the splitting of the sea is more probable than the Big Bang. If they are both supposed to be viewed as miracles, even though the Big Bang is not, then there is no way to prove one miracle is more likely than other, and Pro cannot meet the burden of proof.If Pro only means to compare the straightforward probabilities, I'm okay with that. The Big Bang is near certainty and the miraculous splitting of the sea is very unlikely. The Big Bang is a scientific theory supported by strong evidence. The splitting of the sea by the will of the Lord is a religious miracle, and is not possible to prove.At the outset, Pro commented that the Big Bang is sacred to atheists. That's not true, of course, since atheists go with the scientific evidence. However, many religious people view the Big Bang as confirming the Biblical view of creation. It better corresponds to having a distinct time of creation in Genesis than does the competing Steady State Theory. I don't understand the notion that God ought to be allowed to part seas, but not to create the universe with natural laws as science describes.