There is no god

Big Bang: Firstly, CON does not know the difference between colloquial theory and scientific theory. Let me educate you on this: Colloquial theory: an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action. Now scientific theory: A body of knowledge that is supportive of, And explanative of facts. In simpler terms, To get a scientific theory, You start by looking at all the available data. Based on that, You create a model that most accurately describes the data. The simplest model that explains most, If not all, The available data with as much precision as possible, Ends up being the theory scientists use. So you are claiming to know the issues with the Big Bang Theory when you don't even know what the term "theory" means in this context. I am not a cosmologist or an astrophysicist and it is clear that you aren't either. Still even with a high school level physics education, I can debunk your premises: 1. The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can't be created or destroyed, But it can be changed. This law applies to the Universe only, Therefore it does not, In any way, Violate the Big Bang Theory. There is nothing with the big bang theory that violates the first law of thermodynamics. This website explains why your first premise does not make sense in an even better way than I did(1): Therefore, To those who claim that the very idea of a Big Bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy) that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, Proponents respond that the Big Bang does not address the creation of the universe, Only its evolution, And that, As the laws of science break down anyway as we approach the creation of the universe, There is no reason to believe that the First Law of Thermodynamics would apply. 2. That is all the big bang theory aims to explain. It explains the singularity and what happened afterwards. This premise is not a drawback of the theory in any way. 3. I have no idea what this premise even means. I think my opponent means to ask that: "How can something come from nothing? " This is a nonsensical question. In no way does this question disprove the big bang. Still my answer would be that no serious expert in the big bang ever said that something has to come from nothing. It is the creationist's favorite strawman fallacy(Misrepresenting the opposing side and refuting that argument they never said instead). " Yess I bit agree with that point that God is there to fill the knowledge gap. (But here u r accepting the existence of God)" No I am not accepting the existence of God. I reject the existence of God in fact. I assert that your God does not exist. Why does your god not exist? >You assert that your "God holds the power of creation and destruction". You mention how various holy books prove creation and destruction of universes. This is an empty statement. I can take the books of Narnia and assert that thus they all prove the existence of Prince Caspian, I can take all the books of Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts and say they all indicate the existence of Dumbledore. Just because a bunch of books say something, It does not mean that that thing is true. You need to provide evidence from outside scripture to prove that scripture is true. It is an extraordinary claim that "God holds the power of creation and destruction" yet you provided no evidence for this assertion. You make many assertions about the God yet you don't explain how you know these things to be true. The remaining part of your round is just unfounded assertions. You describe things your god allegedly did but you provide 0 evidence. I can refute your god because your premises are flawed and your description is unfounded. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence, Can also be dismissed without evidence. Sources: (1) https://www. Physicsoftheuniverse. Com/topics_bigbang. Html