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

"My opponent's case is built upon an argument from incredulity. His false proof is that if A and B are proposed as explanations, and A seems to an average person to be less incredible that B, then A is the more likely solution. The error is that what seems to be more or less incredible is subjective and depends entirely upon the experience and knowledge of the person judging." Okay here are facts. More things occurred as a result of the Big Bang. At this point if you are just going to summarize my logic without rebutting it, I will leave it to the voters to decide if an explosion creating the entire world is more probable or a sea splitting. the argument still stands. I do not understand the comparison between con's example and my argument. All he proved is that they were not impressed because they believe miracles like this happen. Let me know if I misinterpreted it. Maybe you could elaborate "Being "less incredible" is by no means proof of truth, nor even a good indicator of what is true" 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. So even if generally what you are saying is true, it is really the only thing we could analyze of which is more probale. Again it is possible that the Big Bang happened but the splitting of the sea did not but this is a debate of which is more probable. "Before science, most natural phenomena were explained as the work of gods or spirits." Is this even relevant? What is your point here? "Science is more probable then miracles" I would say scientific facts are probable then miracles not assumptions made by scientists like the Big Bang. 'Pro's argument implies that the parting of the Red Sea was a miracle." What part of not arguing about G-d or anything like that do you not get. I also provided a scientific explanation of how it happened (if it happened). I don't know where you got to this conclusion. "Wikipedia provides references to alternate versions of the events" Congrats to them but you accepted in round 1 that we are going by the Bible and it says "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and G-d moved the sea with a strong east wind, and he turned the sea to damp land and the water split... Moses stretched out his hand over toward it; and G-d churned Egypt in the midst of the sea" Source: Exodus chapter 14 verses 21-30 which is the source we agreed on. We agreed to go by the Bible for the splitting of the sea so I am disregarding wikipedia and your irrelevant part about the word "suph". 'Witnesses are not as good as scientific evidence" Agreed but neither the Big Bang or the splitting of the sea contain much. "Pro claims that there were many witnesses to the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea, but he does not cite a single statement of witness claiming to have observed the events as being an apparent miracle." Okay well that's what I learned in history so since I cannot find a sight that says that Jews claim it (I don't think such a sight exists), think of it this way. Judaism originated in 2000 B.C.E http://www.patheos.com... The splitting of the sea supposedly occurred 3000 years ago and this is true because the following link later says it when they were doing an investigation http://www.telegraph.co.uk... So the fact that the story exist means that if you go back in time there were 14,000,000 Jews who claimed to witness it whereas nobody claimed to witness the Big Bang. With that being the case, con decides to compare modern times to 3000 years ago and just cites how witnesses have lied. Anyway Your argument is based on witnesses identifying who the person was but not that they are incorrect when it comes to what happened. And also in the cases you mention they have reason to lie which might be to protect the person, they hate police, I don't know. But what reason would 14,000,000 people lie about something like this? This is not very probable that they would lie. "When it comes to scientific observations, witnesses are the least reliable evidence" Who said anything about scientific observations con? The 14,000,000 Jews are just saying what happened maybe they are wrong about why it happened but that is not the debate. Even if 14,000,000 of them might not be completely reliable, it is still more proof than the Big Bang offers. 14,000,000 witnesses compared to zero. In this case, which is more probable? If you are going to claim that 14,000,000 people lied you have to at least give some reason why they would. Just because witnesses lie 3000 years later is not good proof. "The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time." Pro already accepted my definition in round 1 from the Merriam Webster dictionary. He cannot just change it in round 2. So it should be disregarded. "BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like." I never claim that it did (sigh). "There are twenty-six scientific observations supporting the Big Bang Theory ranging from Hubble Diagrams, the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation, the existence of dark matter and dark energy, the formation of stars and galaxies, and the dominance of light elements" Okay yes these exist but the key point is did an explosion cause it. There is no proof of that. Con's 4th point seems like he just wants to waste character space. I already said that the evidence I provided is not sufficient to prove that it happened. You spent a few paragraphs just to prove that it doesn't prove it after I already admitted that. But this proof is better than no proof. And also no need to cite sources for unnecessary things. Your fifth point: Where does this calculation come from? All you attempted to do this round is prove that I haven't proved the splitting of the sea is more probable. You haven't given one argument for why the Big Bang is more probable then the splitting of the sea. So you spend an entire round attacking my points and without giving even an argument you conclude that there is 99% chance that the Big Bang happened. Conclusion: I proved that many of my opponent's points were irrelevant and things I already mentioned. He had no arguments for me to rebut so I think my arguments still stand at this point.