Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

Ave.First of all, my picture from my opening statement did not appear. I apologize for this. Here is the picture that didn't appear in my opening statement under my defense of the first premise. It seems that Con is not going to give an opening statement where he shows that BB cosmology favors theism over atheism. Rather, it looks like Con is going to criticize my argument, which demonstrates that BB cosmology is supportive of atheism. Therefore, I will devote this round to defend my argument for a self-caused universe based off of BB cosmology.I think Con has mischaracterized modern day cosmology. The Big Bang model does not necessarily describe the expansion of the universe from a pinpoint, which seems to be Con's word for singularity. I demonstrated in the last round that such a singularity is unnecessary when quantum mechanics is considered. So, there is no basis to Con's description.Con states that scientists think the Big Bang was caused by nuclear fusion. This is a straw man and doesn't represent the opinion of any scientist that I know of. Nuclear fusion is when two or more atomic nuclei collide at high speeds and create a new type of atomic nucleus. [1] This is the process that powers stars like our Sun. It's also the reason we have helium and other elements. In what way could this process have caused the Big Bang? I don't even understand how this concept could be made conceptually coherent. I encourage the audience to read the two sources that Con provided. None of these sources mention scientists who think that the Big Bang was caused by nuclear fusion. There is no factual basis to the assertion that any scientist thinks the Big Bang was caused by nuclear fusion.Con argues that it's scientifically impossible for molecules to form atoms. This isn't true at all. Science has explained how the subatomic can give rise to the atomic. Nucleosynthesis is the explanation of how nucleons (things like electrons and protons) formed atomic nuclei. Nucleons were able to escape becoming part of an atom because the high temperatures in the early universe would allow them to move at such high energies as to escape the effects of gravity. [2] That may sound absurd, but gravity is by far the weakest force, and you can demonstrate the weakness of gravity just by moving. [3] Once the universe cooled, the temperatures were lower, so nucleons were not able to escape the effects of gravity.Con cites Newton's laws of motions to argue for the first cause. The problem with this argument is that Newton's laws of motion relate to classical mechanics. Classical mechanics breaks down at the subatomic level and anything before Planck time. My fourth reference explains why classical mechanics cannot be applied in this way. [4]'Newton's laws are valid only under certain conditions. In general, the distances with which one works must be much greater than the size of atoms and molecules. If this is untrue, then quantum mechanics must be used in place of classical mechanics. In general, the speeds which one works with must be much less than the speed of light. If this untrue, then relativistic mechanics must be used in place of classical mechanics. Even when the above are true, Newton's laws are only valid with respect to inertial frames of reference.' The Big Bang's cause would have to be something subatomic, because it gave rise to the existence of atoms. Therefore, classical mechanics cannot be applied to the cause of the Big Bang. Even if all of the explanations I have given are wrong, it does not mean that cosmology favors theism. That would be a 'god of the gaps' argument, and even theists agree that such arguments are fallacious. You cannot posit the existence of god by putting him into an ever-shrinking gap of scientific knowledge. [5] Con launches an attack on my sources. He takes issue with the fact that I cited the same website twice. However, this was necessary for me to do. The website I cited is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It was an article that was divided into many parts. By linking two URL's, anyone who reads the source is brought to the specific part I was citing, rather than being forced to start from the beginning on a huge wall of text. Con also attacks my article on the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem. His problem is that the article was too difficult to understand. I'm sorry, but it's simply not my fault if Con doesn't understand physics. Besides, you don't even need to read the whole article. That wasn't the point of my reference. I referenced that article because it featured my quote from Stephen Hawking. It's a way of showing the audience that I'm not making the quote up. Con also argues that Quentin Smith's paper, which was my forth citation, contradicts itself. It only seems to do this because he took Smith's words out of context. Smith argued that the universe causing itself in an 'X caused X' way is incoherent. He explains that he means self-caused in the sense of 'Z caused by Y caused by X', ad infinitum. It's only in the former sense that the idea is incoherent, not the latter, which is what Smith is trying to argue. In conclusion, Con's argument is very weak and filled with errors. Here is a list of all of my criticisms at this point. 1: There is no evidence that scientists think the BB was caused by nuclear fusion.2: There is an explanation of how atoms formed.3: Newton's laws of motion are irrelevant to the cause of the BB because the cause of the BB has to be subatomic, while Newton's laws only work for classical mechanics, or things on the scale of atoms.4: Even if my scientific explanations fail, it does not follow that BB cosmology supports theism over atheism.Vale.References1: https://en.wikipedia.org...2: http://burro.cwru.edu...3: http://astroreview.com...4: http://en.wikibooks.org...5: http://en.wikipedia.org...