It is reasonable to believe the Big Bang Theory is correct

"99.99% of people living on this planet ( including me and I'm sure you too, if not, please tell) don't have access to the tehnology required to study such advanced science like cosmology" While this is true, I would like to point out that the entire paragraph following the above sentence is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. There is no cabal preventing my opponent from studying astronomy and investigating the truth of these claims for himself. The fact that he has not done so is no argument against the big bang theory. "Another thing that I want to say now is that I accepted your statement from round 1 "By "Big Bang" I mean a rapid expansion in the very early universe which gave rise to everything we see today." , but from what I can tell , you are not consistent with this definition because your arguments are for another definition of Big Bang." Where did I imply that I was arguing for anything else? Please quote my inconsistencies... "Look. I know you took the wikipedia entrance for this subject, but in the end, if I have to say it, I'll say it, wikipedia can be edited by basement dwellers [1], and I hope we will agree upon the fact that when you discuss how the "universe began" (as if this expression even makes sense) , you can't rely on this." Nice try, but I got my definition from my astronomy textbook. If the definition on wikipedia is similar its only because that is the commonly accepted use of the term "Big Bang" and what scientists generally mean when they use the term. "Your argumentes is for this Big Bang as defined by [2] : (cosmology) the cosmic explosion that is hypothesized to have marked the origin of the universe." If you read my round, you would know that I specifically refuted the idea that the big bang was an explosion. I also stated that the big bang marked the beginning of the universe AS WE KNOW IT- not the origin of the universe {fullstop}. So this definition is unacceptable. Since you have already agreed to mine, you have no business trying to change it in the middle of the debate. >>>:::Refutations:::<<< 1. Again, appeal to ignorance. My opponent's inability to understand the theory is not a fault of the theory. While it is true that there is no way to answer the question of what the universe is expanding into scientifically, that is because we are literally incapable of measuring or otherwise interacting with anything outside out of the our universe. There are many speculations on the subject. However, such an objection in no way invalidates the massive amounts of evidence showing that the universe IS indeed expanding. If my opponent has some framework capable of explaining why the universe appears to be expanding but isn't, I would have something more to say. Since he appears not to, his argument amounts to nothing but personal incredulity. 2. What happened before the BB- who cares? The Big Bang theory has nothing to say about what came before it. Note that gamemaster has not addressed my explanation as to why such information is irrelevant, but instead crafted an argument as if I had never mentioned the subject at all. 3. I am not here to argue for Stephen Hawking's position, nor am I here to argue what happened before the big bang. So this point is, once again, irrelevant. However, I will say that gamemaster's assertion that Stephen Hawking is wrong is nowhere near a refutation of anything he has said. 4. More irrelevancies! A person is clearly not wrong about everything by virtue of the fact that the believe in god. 5. I will attempt to do so if you will attempt to summarize it in your own words. Its not my job to debunk arguments you are too lazy to make yourself. My opponent has offered no counters to any of the evidence I presented. He argues that the Big Bang Theory is wrong because it doesn't explain what came before the Big Bang. However, NO theory explains anything that lies outside it's scope; his so called criticism of the Big Bang is actually the result of its strength, namely its limited scope (limited by the evidence). My opponent has yet to acknowledge this. He has also completely ignored what I wrote regarding what the Big Bang Theory DOES and DOES NOT entail. All his arguments pertain specifically to areas which I explained are NOT within its scope. He has not bothered to explain why they should properly be included, only attempted to include them by brute force (and changing definitions halfway through). I can only hope gamemaster's next round is more pertinent to the issue at hand.