The Big Bang Theory does not disprove God.

Interesting how you forfeit R2 and give no reason why. But okay, I guess I will just argue your current point. _________ "Your assumption that I was speaking of only the God in the Bible was false, therefore I call this debate void. I was speaking of a supreme being in generally, and therefore your argument that the Big Bang and Creationism are mutually exclusive is incorrect. " Since he NEVER SPECIFIED and CHOSE NOT TO and FORFEITED R2 SO HE YOU COULD COME BACK OUT OF NOWHERE TO REDEFINE HIS STUFF, you as the audience should NOT LET HIM JUST SHIFT HIS ADVOCACY AND VOTE FOR HIM SO THAT IT ENDS AT A STALEMATE. But independent of my opinions, there are still many reasons to vote negative. I've already refuted this point and actually while writing my R1 I was considering to put "higher being" in there somewhere so the debate would expand a bit, but i decided against it. The common usage of God refers to the Christian God, and since he did not specify I would have to assume that to be the case. This "general usage" point is true because if it weren't, we'd have to define every word down to the freakin word "The", because THE could stand for "Trans-Hudson Express" or a number of other acronyms. And even if you don't believe that, he never specified why he disappeared in R2, I SAW HIM go online and participate in his other debates while I was sitting here all the time wondering "Why the hell is he completely ignoring this debate? ", and clearly, he's pulling off this tactic just so he can SOMEHOW convince you as the audience to pull off tying votes for him. I urge you to reconsider. But before I do that, let's see what else he has to say. "And if you want to talk about burden of proof, then explain how the idea of a Big Bang goes against the laws of science itself - something cannot be made out of nothing, where did all the energy come from? A God perhaps? " According to Wikipedia (proving this stuff is actually generally true to some extent), "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state FROM A PRIMORDIAL CONDITION OF ENORMOUS DENSITY AND TEMPERATURE. The term is also used in a narrower sense to describe the fundamental "fireball" THAT ERUPTED at or close to an initial time-point in the history of our observed spacetime. " Never says it came from nothing. Just says that the Big Bang was an explosion of that fundamental fireball. Regardless though, he can't make that argument for two reasons. First, the argument would be abusive. It doesn't matter if it's completely proven or not, nothing in science is ever complete. It's not a religion. EVEN IF you don't reject it on the grounds of abuse, the line of reasoning is still flawed. The theory of gravity has even less proof than the Big Bang theory, yet both are pretty much accepted in the scientific world. and EVEN IF you don't believe THAT, the resolution/topic presupposes the two so we can argue about if the Big Bang theory disproves God or not, and EVEN IF you don't believe that, this isn't a debate about the truthfulness of the two ideologies, just if one disproves another. Second, he has less proof. Big bang has a lot of math and research that prove it true. God/Creationism only has faithful believers. By the way, notice how he never says that he DOESNT have the burden of proof. Since I've destroyed his simple argument and never inserts another layer about how he doesn't have th burden of proof, that MUST mean that he agrees that he has it. You have 8+ reasons to vote CON. 1) Look to the top of my R1. I tell you specifically that "Religion and Science aren't compatible, and [he] ha[s] to prove that they are. " I then go on to explain I'll even do a bit more and act as if I had the burden of proof. Since he never meets his burden, and 2) I've met my meta-burden, he already loses the debate on two levels. 3) He attempts to trick you the audience into voting for him. .. .. just because he failed to come back in R2 and specify a few terms. I think the reason to vote CON is obvious on this one; he should be punished for insulting your intelligence. 4) The "common usage until defined" argument holds true everywhere, and still holds true in this debate. My opponent never defines the words God nor Creationism until the last speech, so I had to assume that God meant the Christian God (He's Christian, I checked) and that Creationism was, well. .. .. Creationism. 5)He can't pull off that argument because it doesn't fly; on his line of reasoning we would have to define words such as A, THE, AND, and all those other simple words (hell, every single one I'm using right now) because they might all mean acronyms or something else. As with the rest of his case, he has the burden of proof, and this is an independent reason to vote CON because 6) he never gives you a reason why you should believe his new definitions. Even if the audience wanted to, he gives no reason and therefore cannot be voted as the better debater. 7) I'm going to go off on a limb here and mention that "Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed. " OFTEN the Christian God, but noy always So even if you don't believe any of my other arguments against his R3, his entire point falls because Creationism doesn't only talk about the Christian God. My case still applies, and 8) EVEN IF you don't believe that, look at my R1. You can delete the stuff I said about "6 Days" and insert it with "X amount of days" to fit "X religion". The basic point of my case still stands; there is no religion nor creationist theory that says the universe is 12~16 Billion years old. Believe what you want, I'm not attacking everyone's religion here, but the Big Bang theory says the world is 12~16 Billion years old, X religion says the universe is X years old, and in every case (that I've ever seen), X is significantly smaller than 12~16 Billion, and therefore my Mutual Exclusion argument still applies. +) I use deductive reasoning. He uses inductive reasoning. Which isn't reasoning.