The Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God

I'm probably going to lose this debate because there are a lot of religious people out there that just don't take the time to read my arguments. I've had two other debates thus far about religion, both in which people tell me that I "completely pwnt" the other debater, while people that didn't say that gave no reasoning as to why they voted for the other person. Meh. I guess you can't have everything perfect. I affirm, that The Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God. __________________ First off I will go over the definitions of this debate, then go on to refute his points, and finally provide you with my own case and why you should vote PRO on this topic/resolution. I'll accept his definition of Religion, though I'm not sure why he defined it that way; one of his previous versions of this debate included the words "The Christian God" in his case. (This debate is the third of his attempts to challenge me; i refused the previous two since he doesn't like me running abuse and I don't find it all that fun running it.) Since God normally refers to the Christian God, and since my opponent declared himself Catholic, I define "God" as the Abrahamic God mentioned in the Bible. I also define "rational" as "logical conclusions". Basically all I need to do in this debate is show a logical way to see that if The Big Bang Theory is true, there is no reason to believe that God exists. "A note here, I have no intention of defending belief in the supernatural." I would like to know what Evan's burden IS then. If it's not defending the supernatural, what is it? He has the burden of proving that God's existence and The Big Bang Theory are compatible, and with that, he has to at least back up how they do. I'm not too sure who has the burden of proof here, so I'll put one on myself as well. But if he doesn't meet his, you automatically vote PRO. Obvious reasons. "I believe the Big Bang Theory is basically correct. I believe Creationism is basically incorrect. I read Genesis at the allegorical level, as do most of the Catholics I know. I see no contradiction between Science and Religion. Science and Religion approaches to the same thing, which is truth." Good. I do too. Good. I do too. Wait. What is he defending then? Nothing? He needs to tell me what specifically he believes in when he says "allegory". I've heard that different churches within Christianity have different interpretations, so I'm not exactly sure what his interpretation is. Actually at this point you can ALREADY vote AGAINST Evan because he'll essentially be a moving target in the next round; he should have clearly defined in R1. There are actually many contradictions between science and religion. Oh wait, he can just say it's an allegory if it conflicts. Moving target. Hmm. This last claim is his only link of how The Big Bang Theory and Christianity/Religion are compatible, and I disagree. Christianity was set up as a political control structure that claims to know supernatural things. Overlooking that, I also do not see how confessing to a priest reaches truth. Since Evan does not say anything specific about how religion reaches truth, you cannot believe his argument to begin with. (Actually, you can extend that to his entire position; he doesn't give a single warrant anywhere.) But even then, to claim that religion creates charities and other nonprofit beneficial organizations Evan has the burden of proof and must argue that religion is the basis of morality. Which it isn't. "Supernatural claims might be completely unjustified, but they are not disprovable by science. That is what I want to talk about." With that, here are my arguments. The thesis of my position is that: There is a rational explanation of how the world began, and because there is one, it rationally disproves God. Let me begin by saying this. Some of you may have seen this video, some of you may have watched my debates and are asking yourself the question "Why is he using the same stuff over and over again?", but I'm using it because EVERY-SINGLE-TIME, it's a debate about "proof". (Pretty much one of my past debate's args.) Albert Sweigart in his video, "An Atheist Response" explains "[...]Next firefly brings up that both atheism and christianity require faith because you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. 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." Just step outside the logos bubble for a moment and think rationally. The PRO's argument is essentially that 'just because theres no evidence doesn't mean he doesn't exist'. 'For all we know he could be choosing to hide his existence from you.' I don't know about you, but that sounds like a point that comes from your stereotypical conspiracy theorist. Evan does this kind of thing somewhere else too, where he mentions "allegory" (The moving target argument I have against him). It is to my knowledge that whenever something new comes up that defies religion, they merely change their interpretation of their holy text which they hold to be the absolute truth. If it was the absolute truth, why the heck are there new interpretations every three or four centuries? Al continues, "The issue here is who has the burden of proof. If I told everyone that I saw a UFO land in my backyard, the burden of proof would be on me to produce evidence that this actually happened because I'm the one making the sensational claim. I don't have to prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because I'm not the one making that claim. The burden of proof rests with the unicornians. This is why I consider myself an atheist even though technically I can't disprove the existence of the Christian God. If you claim that an omnipotent God sent his son to be crucified so he could rise into Heaven and provide salvation for mankind, you'll have to produce sufficient evidence if you want me to believe you. Otherwise I'll simply believe that that isn't the case." So yeah, I agree when he says "supernatural claims are not disprovable by science". But then, neither is Santy Clause. My attack on the other interpretation I have to his case can't be made, because he doesn't define what allegories he believes in. To define anything next round he opens himself up to me running abuse. I suspect his actual question to me is "how does science disprove the allegories of religion".... but he didn't say that. I'm open for a " DO NOT VOTE " ending to this debate if that is the case, Evan. Otherwise, get ready for some debate theory.