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

Con and I have agreed that this is the last round since I am leaving town for a while. "Pro initiated the debate, so it's his job to write a clear resolution. The resolution references two events that might have occurred, The Big Bang and the Crossing of the Red Sea as described in the Bible. Pro did not really define either event, he only pointed to them. " You address these issues in round 1 not round 3 con. If I wasn't clear I appologize. "That means we must look to the Bible for the description. " Which I have pointed to. "The splitting of the sea is described in several passages of Exodus, and is subject to some controversy as to which translation of the original Greek text is correct. " I used the Hebrew Bible less controversy. So ya here you could say I wasn't clear but I would be really annoyed because I would assume you know what I meant. And if I assume wrong please don't write a long paragraph about it and state a source for something that doesn't matter. "Pro's description is fine for letting me know what he is referencing, but his description is not quite accurate as a formulation of the theory. " This is not my definition. I am no expert on the Big Bang. This is from the Meriam Webster dictionary. In most debates people use the dictionary defintion. I thought it was enough for the debate of which is more probable. I didn't think for a debate like this I need to go in complete detail just that an explosion occurred. I also did not think we would be having this discussion in round 3-4. "We are debating the real Big Bang theory, not Pro's impression of what he thinks the theory says. " Sounds like we are debating the definition. Again this is not my impression. I have conceded numerous times that I am no expert. So it is not what I think. You even said you can get a basic understanding from MERRIAM WEBSTER'S DEFINITION. So again I appologize if I was unclear but I think for the sake of a debate of which is more probable I don't think it would make a significant difference (again please no long paragraph on this part it isn't that important). Con once again wastes character space to quote parts of the Bible in which I already quoted. "That is miraculous, and Pro called upon that part of the story in attempting to establish chariot wheels as evidence for the event occurring. " It seems we don't have trust Con. You don't believe me when I say this isn't sufficient evidence and complete proof. Here I'll quote it for you. In my opening argument, before you said a word, I said: "So obviously I haven't proved that it happened I just proved that it could have happened and that it is somewhat probable. " I was just saying it is based on some evidence. And plus you chose only to adjust the chariot wheels and completely disregarded my proof how the winds could have triggered a reef. Again I am arguing probability of the event not that it happened. I know for sure I am clear on this part of the resolution right con? Later Pro argues that this doesn't prove that it happened so I respond: "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. " So even in this round con decides to reiterate there is no evidence for it not just where I quoted him, but here: "I established that the alleged archaeological evidence was most likely bogus, and Pro abandoned the claim. " Okay from my quotes from round one, it is logical to conclude that I already admitted that this is not sufficient evidence. Now that is not bogus is it con? So to summarize this point, some evidence exists. It proves that it could have happened. It slightly supports what the Bible says. But the Big Bang contains no such evidence. "Pro says that 14 million Jews believe the literal truth of the Bible story, and that somehow that validates the story by witnesses. /first of all, I don't believe that 14 million Jews interpret the story as literally true. He offers no proof. " No human can prove what they genuinely believed but at that time period, if they were saying that there were Jewish they believed. No Jewish commentaries even hint that it didn't happen. In Jewish prayers they are suppose to say mention it. So nowadays I totally agree with you but at that time period they did. There was not really such thing as a non-religious Jew. Obviously they weren't anywhere near perfect but it is such a fundamental belief. There is a commandment for Jews to remember it. "But believing in a traditional story is not evidence for it's truth. There hundreds of millions of Hindus, many of whom believe the stories of Hindu sacred writings, and the same is true of Christians, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Taoists, and Shintoists. " Wow con you did it again. The resolution is which is more probable. I am not arguing that it happened. Secondly, this is not the same for every other religion. Take Islam, no Muslims claimed to witness the power of G-d. Only Mohammad did. Christianity I am not sure exactly so don't kill me if I'm wrong but I don't think his followers except for Joseph saw the alleged wonders. Now even if his, I don't know 10 followers saw it, the numbers do not compare to 14,000,000. I proved that there were 14,000,000 Jews at the time. So con rants (again) about how this is not evidence WHICH I SAID FROM ROUND 1! but this is a debate of which is more probable, 14,000,000 witnesses compared to zero. The only argument con gives for why the Big Bang is more probable is because many scientists support it. And his other proof is the galaxies and stuff like that. (Since he agreed this is the last round he cannot make a new argument why) So the logic is basically the Big Bang created Galaxies because Galaxies exist. Where is the part about the Big Bang causing it? Did an explosion cause it? We don't have any proof of that not even a hint that an explosion happened. You still did not provide physical evidence THAT AN EXPLOSION caused it. It is part of the definition which you accepted. Using Galaxies as proof, is just as bogus as my evidence of the chariots i. e there is no proof that the explosion caused the world or that Moses/G-d caused therefore we must look at the other categories. The question is did an explosion cause the creation of the universe. Obviously there is proof of a universe but did an explosion cause it, is the question. "the evidence for the Big Bang is as good as any proof in science. " I proved that your proof is equal in reliability to ONE OF MY PROOFS. Bottom line is they both claim that there is a cause. An explosion in the case of the Big Bang, and Moses/G-d in the splitting of the sea. When I said in the beggining this is not really a debate about G-d I meant I am not really going into the part about the cause but rather the splitting itself. "There is no logical basis for comparing miracles. .. How probable something seems is completely subjective" You used the example of New Guinea how they were not impressed. What you really proved is that probability is not always correct. Like I said I think that the splitting of the sea is more probable. That does not mean it is true. It could be the Big Bang happened but the splitting of the sea did not. If you tell someone I will probably be home tommorow, that means he isn't busy now he can't remember anything he has to do so it is logical for him to conclude that he will probably be home. But something could come up. Doesn't matter, with his prior knowledge it is still logical that is more probable that he will come home. Like I said a lot more happened in the Big Bang and with no witnesses or anything, it is hard to believe. summary: Con brought up many irrelevant arguments. The splitting of the sea is more probable because it has more witnesses, less wondrous, and has SOME evidence the Big Bang has no evidence an explosion or "Bang" caused it.