The Universe Can Be Explained Naturally Without God

There are several problems with this debate so far:1. The resolution of this debate is "The Universe can be explained without God". My opponent has taken the Con side of this argument, meaning he is against the fact that the universe can be explained without God, so in essence he is FOR the universe being created by God. Although based on my opponent's atheistic claims and previous argument, this is not the case.2. In his clarifications, my opponent has said, "For the sake of debate, we will assume that God could hypothetically be used an explanation for the beginning of the universe." and also, "Either way, Con has to accept that the Big Bang happened in the context of this debate. The very definition of "universe" in this debate includes the notion that The Big Bang was a reality. If Con, for some reason, doesn't like that then he should not have accepted this debate."So basically the Pro side of this argument can use the explanation of God but has to use the definition of the universe as being 13.7 billion years old? This is illogical, as the earth isn't that old and references in the Bible can confirm that the earth is approximately only 6,000 years old. My argument is based upon this and numerous scientific observations. If this is unacceptable to my opponent, then he should have explained the debate terms more clearly. In summary, the Pro side can explain the universe in any form except for God? How does that make sense? I would like to continue with my main pointsThe Big Bang Theory"The above is problematic as The Big Bang theory is the scientific explanation that describes the evolution of the universe, it is not a scientific explanation of life; the best candidate for that is Abiogenesis[1]. As a theory that describes the evolution of the universe, The Big Bang Theory is a very well established scientific theory, which has made predictions which have been confirmed by testing"Also, I posted my argument to the forums and received no scientific response."The Big Bang Theory adheres to the scientific method you listed. So, I am "completely dumbfounded" as to why you think there is a problem. The Big Bang Theory is universally accepted by cosmologists because the evidence for it is so overwhelming. If you don't value evidence, then I don't know what to tell you."The reason I do not value the "evidence" is because there is no scientific evidence to value. The Big Bang Theory merely is a means to explain the universe without God. My opponent fails to bring up any actual evidence regarding this topic as well. I am more than willing to hear any evidence, as long as it falls within the boundaries of science, not philosophy or religion. The Big Bang Theory is illogical as a scientific explanation of the origin of life.You cannot use science to prove/disprove the theory because it is just that....a theory. The Big Bang Theory states that 13.7 BYA (currently), the universe sprang into existence from a singularity. But where did this singularity come from? A better question is where did the energy come from to form this "singularity"? Where did matter itself come from? The scientific method states that in order for something to be proven it must follow the steps of the scientific method listed below: 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.By definition of dictionary.com, a theory is "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:"Now that we have set parameters and definition in place, let us discuss the theory itself. According to science, the Big Bang Theory is completely illogical and shouldn't even be referred to as a theory! Frankly, I am amazed that this ridiculous idea has gotten to the theory stage. By definition, the Big Bang "Theory" cannot be tested and it is certainly not coherent in any sort of group. The first step of the scientific method states that you must observe some aspect of the universe. Since the Big Bang falls into a pre-universe formation, then it is not scientific. The only thing correct about the definition is that the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted by scientists as an explanation for the beginning of everything.Why do scientists continue to regard this as science?The age of the earth as observed through science todayMath question: The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of about 4 cm/year. The moon is 238,900 miles from earth. The earth is estimated (by scientists) to be 4.54 BILLION YEARS OLD. Assuming that 4 cm/year is a constant, how close was the moon to the earth at the beginning? Answer: Approximately 126,059 miles Estimated time when life began on earth: 3.5 BILLION YEARS AGOThat would mean the moon would have been 151,908 miles from earth.Conclusion: Nothing would have lived with the moon that close to the earth. There is also a thin layer of dust on the moon, as witnessed by the Apollo astronauts. You'll probably give me the argument that the moon came from the earth, or the moon is just an asteroid that struck the earth X number of millions of years ago. You need to show evidence though! Not theories as to how the moon got there. That isn't science because it cannot be proved. Just like the Big Bang Theory cannot be proved because it isn't repeatable and no one witnessed it happen.There are other observations, such as the sun shrinking (about 1 inch per year), etc. I won't be able to list all of them but there are 101 observations listed here: http://creation.com...The concepts of time, space, order, and realityAll four are too complex to just evolve from nothing. They had to have a creator. Unless you want to state that we are not living in reality, you have to step back and examine all four and how they interact to really appreciate their design.Imagine if you took all the parts needed for a clock and placed them inside a transparent box. Eventually if you shook that box long enough, would all the parts fall into the exact position needed? Of course not. The evolution of life and the beginning of the universe are far more complex than a clock, and yet scientists today claim the very same argument.http://www.answersingenesis.org...;Ultimately, the universe's origin and explanation all comes down to a matter of faith. Do you have faith in scientists? Or would you rather have faith in a God who took care to design everything in precise detail? In either side of this debate, you must have faith in one or the other. Thank you for reading.