The Universe began with a Big Bang. Prove me wrong. - The Best Online Debate Website | - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website |

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.

The best online Debate website -! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The Universe began with a Big Bang. Prove me wrong.
in Science

I personally believe that the Universe began with a 'Big Bang' - a huge explosion of matter from nothing, caused by quantum fluctuations. Can you change my mind?
  1. Live Poll

    Do you believe that the Universe began with a Big Bang?

    7 votes
    1. Yes, I believe that the Universe began with a Big Bang.
    2. No, I believe that the Universe came into existence in some other way.
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Argument

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2030 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    I do not "believe" in the Big Bang, but I see it as a very plausible model.

    Here is how we came to it in the first place. Almost a century ago Hubble analysed the data on the redshift of distant galaxies and noticed that the speed at which they are moving away from us is, on average, proportional to that distance. Now, one could assume that they are just moving away from us as a result of some regular physical processes, but the numbers just didn't add up on that hypothesis. As the more and more data was collected and the relation between distance and the speed was found to be universal, only one conclusion begged to be made: that the space itself in the Universe expands. And since there is no reason to believe that our location is special and a center of the Universe, the expansion has to be happening everywhere, in every single point in the Universe.

    Now, if that is the case, then what happens if we turn the clock back, to see what happened in the future? We will see the opposite: the Universe contracting, instead of expanding. As it contracts more and more, it becomes "smaller" and "smaller". And where does it end? In collapsing to one "point", one singularity, and that is it. After that, our physics breaks.

    Now, we do not know for sure that this is what would really happen; perhaps at some density scale the laws of physics become very different from what we are used to. It does not have to be the case that tracing the time back will necessarily lead us to all mass concentrated in one point.

    However, as scientists, what we can do is ask this: "If this is really what happened, if the Big Bang was indeed how our Universe was created, then what extra evidence of that could we have?" And here is where cosmic microwave background comes in: it is almost perfectly consistent with the Big Bang hypothesis, down to incredible precision in its energy density, and it is very hard to explain without it. Add to it the famous WMAP results, and many other seemingly unrelated results, and everything adds up really well.

    Does it mean that the Big Bang has been proven? No. But the model is plausible and matches a lot of evidence we have, with very few contradictions, if any. It definitely has done a better job at explaining evidence than any other hypothesis in existence. I am not aware of any theory that attempts to explain the cosmic microwave background without involving the idea that at some point in the past all matter was condensed in a very small volume.

    There are many things that we cannot explain just yet. The famous lithium problem, in which I in particular delved for a bit, still remains a mystery, although there are some plausible explanations existing and waiting for a more solid evidence. The inflation theory also has a lot of problems, suffering from strong dependency on fine parameters that are unlikely to be determined accurately any time soon.
    But we do explain much more by accepting the theory of the Big Bang, than we do by trying to employ other alternatives.

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win

Details +


  • I recently read a new scientist paper which said something about quantum fluctuations preventing the big bang wrong. Another piece of evidence I found is Brazillian physicist Cesar Silva Neves argues that the original singularity never existed. He says their is proof of a rapid expansion but no proof of the original singularity. Some more arguments against the big bang are

    If their was an explosion it would have formed a small amount of lithium.

    When the Big bang happened cosmic background radiation would have been symmetrical when there are asymmetries in the cosmic background radiation.
  •  You stated, “a huge explosion of matter from nothing, caused by quantum fluctuations.” 
     This statement, in itself alone, is a contradiction. You believe that an explosion of matter, that came from nothing, created the existence of everything. Yet you then say, “the explosion of matter, was caused by quantum fluctuations.” Quantum fluctuations is not ‘nothing.’ It is something. 
     Also, the Big Bang theory is supposedly a theory of scientific nature. But the nature of science is the use of data to prove a theory. To say that nothing created something would be the opposite of the nature of science. For science says, “A theory can only be proven from physical data supporting the theory to be true.” Yet if you say, “nothing made everything.” Then that has no data to prove the theory to be true. So it is actually a faulty theory, with the foundation of nothing. No facts, just foolishness. 
  • DeeDee 816 Pts
    edited September 24

    How would you go about proving something cannot come from nothing? Also what exactly is nothing from a scientific viewpoint? 
  • We can't know for sure if the Big Bang Theory is valid or not. Whenever someone challenges how we know this, we simply say "I don't know" because we don't know if it's the concrete hardcore evidence. However, the years of research and studying on the topic leads people to believe in the Big Bang Theory. Take merely a few minutes to go into study articles and definitions to see all the studies that were made just to come up to this conclusion if you accept it or not, and it's fine if anyone doesn't. We may never truly know where everything in space and time was created. So yes, the "were you there" argument is flawed and is an argument from ignorance.
  • @RS_master
    Have you heard of inflation? Inflation was an extremely rapid period of expansion in the early seconds of the Universe. Any minute irregularities in the distribution of radiation before inflation would have been hugely amplified by the inflation. And that is why there are asymmetries in the CMB.
  • The Big Bang Theory exists only if you accept that the scientific method isn't necessary for the adoption of a theory.  Science has rules that, when not followed, lead to corrupt or "Junk science".  This is how the Big Bang Theory came to be. 

    Much similarly to the adoption of human evolution due to the discovery of the Piltdown Man which turned out to be a hoax, the adoption of The Big Bang Theory is the result of Scientists allowing the scientific method to be simply ignored in favor of a better narrative.  Were the scientific method to be applied to the Big Bang Theory then it would collapse under the weight of scrutiny for failure to be observable, testable, verifiable or replicable.  This well known fact however, is overlooked by the masses simply because it's convenient.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".

  • How do yo know this, because scientists and authority figures told you so and you are taking their word through a willingness to accept what they say through blind faith (kind of like religious people), or you really know without a shadow of a doubt that it is the case. Because, unless you are an actual scientist who has a special qualification to be talking on this subject, then I would put my money on the former. My issue with so many people is that they claim to be so enlightened and scientific, when in reality they are just doing the same thing religious people do, it's just that they have replaced god and religion with science and "scientific" authorities. 
    "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing freedom."-Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "It is not mistake change for progress."-Millard Fillmore

    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-Ayn Rand

    "To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."-Barry Goldwater

  • @Rabbahrayah
    There is no such thing as nothing as a scientific concept. Quantum particles will always spontaneously appear and disappear, leaving only a trace of energy.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch