The Big Bang Theory does not disprove God.

I negate, the Big Bang theory disproves God. (Lol I almost typed Bing Bag) "I always find it interesting that there is often an assumption that God and science cannot exist simultaneously." >Not really an assumption, it's just a default to the other side since YOU have the burden of proof. And you still do, no matter how you word the resolution/topic. Religion and Science aren't compatible, and you have to prove that they are. But I'll entertain you anyways. (doesn't mean you lose your burden of proof; I will just simply provide arguments as if I had the BoP) "I have heard many people say that the "accepted" theory of the universe is that of the Big Bang, and that it disproves creationism." >By definition, Big Bang and creationism are mutually exclusive: If one is true, the other is false. Big Bang is true, therefore creationism is false. One says that the world was created over a period of some billion years, the other said it was over 6 days. Can't possibly happen logically, so they are mutually exclusive. There is nothing to prove creationism (except perhaps the Bible, which would only work if you believe creationism in the first place, making it a circular thing), while Big Bang has a lot of evidence and fits in intuively, therefore the Big Bang theory is widely accepted. This argument alone wins me the round. "I contend that not only is the Big Bang Theory not completely proven, but that if it was a fact it does not prove that there is no supreme being." >Mm, well, nothing in science is ever complete. That's why it's called science; it continually changes its ways to adapt to new situations. It's not like religion, which holds dogmatic beliefs to be the absolute truth. Regardless of that, nothing can ever really be proven or disproven. As Albert Sweigart in his video An Atheist Response explains, "[...]But the problem with this argument is that you really can't prove or disprove the existance of pretty much anything outside of abstract areas like mathematics or predicate logic. You can't prove that werewolves don't exist. You can't prove that Invisible Pink unicorns don't exist. You can't prove that carniverous humanoid underground dwellers don't exist. Technically this means we have to be agnostic about the existance of invisible pink unicorns and everything else. But we'd feel rather silly if we had to admit that there is a remote chance that Santa Claus really does exists building those wooden toys that no kid ever gets for Christmas." (http://www.youtube.com...) This is where the burden of proof I mentioned earlier comes in. You set up this debate as if the CON has the burden of proof to show that God and the Big Bang theory are mutually exclusive, as if God and the Big Bang theory are compatible to begin with. This is not true, as the Big Bang theory says that we came from nothing and has no mention of a divine being. I'm assuming by God you mean the Christian God, and these two theories/beliefs/etc are already conflicting, as one propounds that the world was created in 6 days while the other says it was a process over a few billion years. (hmm i feel like i'm typing the same things). I also see no impact in saying that the Big Bang theory is not completely. You need to give me at least some grounds to argue with or you're abusive, and that would be a very boring debate as we still have 2 rounds to go. I don't find it very fun to run abuse. Though technically and literally speaking Religions are abusive in their points, as they just change their 'interpretation' of their respective texts over time to fit in with science, so maybe you will have to use abusive args. Meh.