The Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God

I started seriously, but I got to having fun towards the end. I just thought I should warn you. ---------------- Why did you bother rejecting my first two topics and accepting this one? I mean, seriously, it isn't like I wasn't clear. I have no intention of debating the validity of belief in the super natural. It's not because I don't think I couldn't do it, it's just completely inappropriate to try and hash out something as complex as the existence of God on a site as clumsy as this. Besides, I've already proved to be somewhat inarticulate on here, why would I make the attempt one of my most complex beliefs? Unfortuneately, it sounds like this arguement is going to be primarily about abuse and you trying to say I need to support belief in God. That is exactly what I was trying to avoid when I made this debate. There is a reason that I took the Con position and gave you the exact topic you wanted. Read the resolution. The only burden I have is to disprove that the Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God. You were the one talking smack. You were the one making big claims. I never said you ought to believe in God. I never said that I had any reason to believe in God. All I said, all I have tried to say with this debate, is that the Big Bang Theory does not disprove God. You talked the smack. You set terms. You accepted the topic the way it is. If you don't like the distribution of the burden, don't come crying to me about it. -------------------- Before I get to the actual arguement, I'll go through the stuff that shouldn't even be an issue based on the topic and the first round, but will probably be argued anyway. "I would like to know what Evan's burden IS then." To show that you don't meet your burden. That's why I'm CON. "He has the burden of proving that God's existence and The Big Bang Theory are compatible" I, and my position, are innocent until proven guilty. I started this topic expressly stating that I did not understand how they were incompatible. To prove that they are compatible, then, all I should have to do is show that any incompatibility you put forth isn't really incompatibility at all. "I'm not too sure who has the burden of proof here" The Pro does. "But if he doesn't meet his, you automatically vote PRO. Obvious reasons." Mine is to negate yours. "Actually at this point you can ALREADY vote AGAINST Evan because he'll essentially be a moving target in the next round" But neither one us wants to argue abuse, right? And what moving target? Your target is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Mel Gibson. How does a target get any broader than the Alpha and the Omega? Fire away! "he should have clearly defined in R1." How is my method of Biblical Exegis relevent to my belief in God? I didn't define it for the same reason I didn't tell you I've had a planter's wart on my big toe since the eigth grade. I didn't see how it was relevant. "Since Evan does not say anything specific about how religion reaches truth, you cannot believe his argument to begin with." I never claimed religion reached truth. Actually, I messed up that particular sentence. You'll notice it is not even gramatically correct. They are both approaches to finding truth. Whether or not they are valid apporaches is beside the point. They are both approaches. Science has not always been right, and I don't believe every religion has been right either. Regardless, they are both ATTEMPTS at truth. I never said they were good attempts. "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." And what in the name of the Pink Panther's Purple Panties does morality have to do with anything? -------------------- "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." Now this is worth addressing, though it is not actually true. The Big Bang is the beginning, but one has to ask what came before the Big Bang? Where did the Big Bang come from. I think it was Stephen Hawkings who said that this was a nonsense question. Before the Big Bang, there was no time. There was no change before everything started expanding out, therefore there was no time. But this is as big a mystery as anything. How could the Big Bang have begun? There was no time for it to begin. The universe was born literally in no time at all. What set off the Big Bang if there was no change possible to set it off? And now, the rational explaination is suddenly clear. Korezaan understands less than he thought he did, and God sneaks back into the realm of possibility (though I still don't know if a rational explaination of the beginning of the physical universe would exclude Him anyway). Now, my opponent will be tempted to bring up the God-of-the-Gaps. It's a fine arguement, but why bother? It is not a disproof, and that is what he claimed he could provide. ------------------------ Back to the superfluous extra-topical junk. ""[...]Next firefly brings up that both atheism and christianity require faith because you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God." I don't care to prove God, and given the topic, I don't see why I should have to. You're the one who bit off more than you wanted, not me. "because theres no evidence doesn't mean he doesn't exist'" That is not even remotely my arguement. "Evan does this kind of thing somewhere else too, where he mentions "allegory" (The moving target argument I have against him)." Hey, I could argue that Original Sin (or the fallen state of man, they're the same thing to my mind) is practically self-evident, but that wouldn't really be relevant, would it? "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." Actually, our moral teaching has remained remarkably the same. "If it was the absolute truth, why the heck are there new interpretations every three or four centuries?" I blame the protestants, but that's just me. "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." But I never claimed that a UFO landed in my backyard. You're the one who claimed you could "rationally prove" that no UFO has ever landed in my backyard. I'm not the one making sensational claims. "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." Not according to the topic. This unicornarian has learned that some people just won't see the invisible pink unicorns in front of their eyes and has decided to pick his battles. I can't debate the existence of unicorns with everyone, especially if I want to get in some time for riding. "This is why I consider myself an atheist even though technically I can't disprove the existence of the Christian God." Congratulations to the Pro for admitting that he cannot support the topic. "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." Wait, I thought we were talking about unicorns. "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." What allegories do you have? I just heard a great one with a dragon. "I suspect his actual question to me is "how does science disprove the allegories of religion".... but he didn't say that." I was actually going to ask you what your shoe size is. "Otherwise, get ready for some debate theory." Can I pass?