Instigator / Pro
12
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Topic
#2817

The Big Bang Probably Happened

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Sum1hugme
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1632
rating
20
debates
72.5%
won
Description

The Big Bang Theory - the theory that the universe expanded from a hot, dense state to a cool and sparse one.

Universe - spacetime and its contents

BOP is shared:

Pro : The Big Bang Probably Happened
Con : The Big Bang Probably did not Happen

I hope this is fun.

-->
@Benjamin

Thank you for voting

PRO starts out by claiming that the big bang theory has met the highest standard of scientific rigour. He supported that claim by mentioning multiple successful predictions of the big bang theory.

However, CON's appeal to the timeline of science does make a huge impact. Having clarified that it was the CURRENT expansion of the universe that was predicted, CON puts things into perspective. I simply buy his argument that the current expansion of the universe was used to predict the big bang, and not vice versa. PRO argues that the "earliest form of the Big Bang Theory" was being confirmed. Yet CON's demand for evidence (like a specific quote) wasn't met. The only thing that is left of PRO's argument is that "the universe expanding" was predicted and confirmed, which is neither specific nor impactful enough to support PRO's initial claim -- that of the big bang theory having stood "highest scientific rigour".

In my opinion, PRO should have used the argument that the universe expanding is actually direct proof of the big bang. If the universe expands today, and we assume uniformity, then there was indeed a "hotter and denser" universe in the past. As far as I know, that is the reason why the big bang theory is universally accepted among scientists. Using this argument would have assured PRO victory unless CON had access to extreme rebutting facts I am not aware of.

On with my analysis. The crime detective metaphor mentioned by PRO was indeed a good one. PRO shows us why the specifics numbers and other variables of the big bang theory aren't to be nitpicked. I was convinced that the age of the universe is not a crucial part of the big bang theory if a part at all. This does invalidate CON's argument that the big bang theory needs evidence for billions of years.

CON admits that the big bang theory predicted CMBr. He chooses to expose the inadequacies of the big bang model with regards to explaining our observations of CMBr. He appeals to fine-tuning of energy and the horizon problem. PRO's rebuttal is that the big bang theory is easily fixed if we insert cosmic inflation, a fact to which CON agrees. Interestingly enough, CON challenges the validity of the big bang theory based upon PRO's very statement. CON says that a theory is not valid if the observations it predicts force the theory itself to be changed. This should be partly true as per PRO's own standard presented in R1.

Furthermore, CON argues that cosmic inflation doesn't adequately fit PRO's criteria of a scientific theory. He sources multiple experts who agree that cosmic inflation is too flexible and vague to really be falsified, and makes the argument that infinite possibilities make the theory unfalsifiable. PRO rebuts by providing his own expert quote that explains predictions of cosmic inflation. PRO also claims that a scientific theory being updated multiple times doesn't disprove its validity. I fully buy this. I also buy PRO's argument that the theory of the universe being hotter and denser in the past made a reliable prediction of the universe's temperature. I don't think PRO fully overcame the argument of inflation being a pseudoscience. CON's argument that inflation is too flexible to be truly falsified is an impactful one and also supported by the fact that inflation has been changed multiple times -- weakening PRO's argument from its successful predictions. PRO did not provide a specific method of falsification of inflation, apart from his 5 predictions. Having said that, PRO's argument for science becoming more specific as time goes on does redeem inflation. I also don't think that PRO needed specific quotes or evidence to support his claim that inflation is the simplest and best model.

The resolution states that the Big Bang probably happened. PRO's definition of the Big Bang Theory is simple enough to not require the details which CON attacks. While CON successfully disproves PRO's claim of the big bang theory being a theory of the highest standards, I don't think he disproved the resolution. The current expansion of the universe, even if it was used to predict the big bang and not vice versa, would still be one major argument for the big bang as defined by PRO. Furthermore, PRO shows us why the theory is valid despite being refined and changed multiple times.

Arguments: PRO.
PRO successfully defends the resolution. Despite losing a lot from his initial claim of the highest scientific rigour, he still holds on to the crucial idea of the universe previously being hotter and denser. Unfortunately for CON, his valiant effort didn't cut it to win this uphill battle against established science. The results were pretty close though. CON successfully defeats any claim of the big bang theory being of "highest scientific rigour". He shows why rather it's a patched up and modified theory that must constantly be updated to fit new data. However, PRO does not disprove the resolution.

Sources: CON.
Cutting it close, just as with arguments. Sources from both sides were reliable. I give this point based on two factors.
(1): CON won at least two major sources battles. He defeated PRO's claim of the big bang theory predicting the Hubble constant, and also showed why inflation is unfalsifiable. Both of these points were won by CON using sources more effectively. Voter bias also forced CON to use sources to support his points where PRO sometimes could rely on voters agreeing.
(2): With voter bias, it doesn't make sense to give PRO arguments point based on slight advantage and not give CON the sources point based on slight advantage

Not part of the vote:

PRO's most impactful argument was the crime-detective example. You could nitpick on his calculations of where the shooter stood, but the holes in the wall clearly prove that a shooting occurred. I don't need specific predictions beyond a hole in the wall to accept a theory of a shooting.

CON's most impactful argument was the spring example. Inflation, which is necessary for the big bang to make sense, simply assumes that energy was contracted and able to cause inflation. Unfortunately for PRO, any explanation for the big bang would simply assume something: whether it be the existence of God or a multiverse or infinite expansion, any theory would face the same issue. CON's argument thus doesn't convince me.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector
@Sum1hugme

Revote (clearer):

**Hubble's Law**: Pro claims that Galaxies moving far proves the expansion, and therefore the Big Bang [Missing a connection!]
> CON: "Has it *always* been expanding?" -- Lemaitre only proposed until 1931
--> COUNTER: Hubble observed in 1929, the earliest confirmation [Mitigate]
> CLARIFY: Big Bang wasn't "meaningfully proposed until AFTER the discovery of an expanding universe"
--> SOLIDIFY: Georges 1927 solved general relativity to predict Hubble's law, which is from the singularity
> CRYSTALLIZE: Big Bang not used to predict expansion, especially with Lemaitre timeline

I am not sure whose argument to buy here. Both kind of talk over each other and Pro has a lot of mitigation of Con's logical arguments work well enough to do okay despite Con's crystallize, but I'm generally confused due to round 1 failure to establish the crucial connection. Pro's argument is under a lot of problems here. I would say Con is actually arguably slightly winning.

**Universe Temperature**: Prove uniform temperature distribution [Missing a connection!]
**CMBr**: Argues that 1958, 1965 observed the afterglow of radiation to prove Big Bang
--> COUNTER: Prediction was observed already (repeated from before)

> CON: Horizon Problem raised (CMB shouldn't be isotropic)
> CON: Flatness problem (requirement for fine-tuning)
--> COUNTER: Surface only "appears" flat; regions could be in contact prior to inflation
> REBUT: CMB data didn't support the predictions
> SUPPORT: Inflation made no new predictions (a flexible framework), it is unfalsifiable, reliant on assumptions (doesn't explain big bang)
--> SUPPORT: There are six generic predictions made, with most data assisted by evidence, and solves problem of big bang model.
> CRYSTALLIZE: The uniform temperature still makes Big Bang impossible without cosmic inflation
> FINALIZE: No citation for predictions, neither examples in inflation [weak!], and still unfalsifiable

This argument is ambiguous and hard to decide, just as I decided before. While Con has a lot of flaws within Univ. Temp. and CMBR, Pro has a lot of empirical evidence. I'd argue that it is leaning pro at best.

As pro won one argument but lost the other one, I maintain that this debate is... very pretty much a tie. It's leaning Con in terms of doubt, but Pro bypasses a lot of Con's arguments because he has many logical explanations for the CMBr + Universe temperature.

More explanation would definitely help. I actually know next to nothing about evidence for and against the big Bang, despite my scientific background. So it's very hard to weigh arguments and even harder to judge if Pro developed enough proof and explanation to prove it.

Vote bump

Vote bump

-->
@Undefeatable

Thank you for voting

Note: I will re-read and re-vote on this with higher standards later. It's a tie at first read/glance. I have to compare arguments to see who did better.

Sum1 opens up with his burden with the ideas behind the Big Bang, supporting with the Hubble Law, the universe temperature, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and standard evidence for the big bang. Pretty normal stuff.

Con counters about the Hubble Law expansion rate, especially since mere expansion doesn’t prove the big bang. The 1931 year timeline seems too soon to accept this. He adds on the horizon problem which highlights theories not supported by evidence. Next, the flatness problem also presents issues with the requirement of incredible coincidence.

Pro responds by moving forth to 1979, addressing Flatness using con’s own source to explain the inflation curve idea. Pro confirms Hubble was in 1929 and Lemaitre gained the same equations. He also furthers that he doesn’t need stronger empirical theory, using the observational ideas and predictions.

Fruit continues to counter that the real publication only occurred in 1931, with the (paraphrased) “earliest form of model not meaningfully proposed until after discovery”. Con continues tackling that the universe may not be currently expanding. He then turns it around in that the expanding universe predicted the big bang, not the other way around. Con continues that the Big Bang model vs the CMB wasn’t entirely fitting. He asserts that cosmic inflation is necessary, but has no novel predictions and is unfalsifiable. The reliance of assumptions makes pro’s ideas unclear. (I recommend using less quotes next time)

Pro concludes that Georges solved the relativity for the universe, and tried to prove the singularity point. He notes that the new model better builds upon the past model. He also highlights that the CMBr was predicted, matching the Big Bang theory ideas. He also points out the six generic predictions were mostly confirmed, especially with fluctuations.

Con repeats the rebuttals to hubble law, noting that Pro lacks a clear citation on current studies. However, the last conclusion is confusing, since he states it’s a hypothesis to explain the expanding, rather than predicting. It’s a bit arbitrary what impact this has on the overall big bang idea. He also continues that CMB doesn’t solve the big bang, especially that cosmic inflation is still necessary. He also points out that CMB was the only observation, but returns to his previous argument to try to negate. Finally, he repeats the problems in inflation. I buy the lack of prediction, but I don’t buy the unfalsifiable, as I don’t think Pro has to be more specific than “contrary data”.

Decision

Pro provides a good foundation, but lacks current information that is likely more powerful and would be able to prove his case better. In addition, the Hubble problem was largely unaddressed to me. Interpreting the resolution as “more likely than not”, it’s unclear whether there’s enough evidence from here for pro to win. Hence, I tied the debate.

Feel free to ask any questions and for clarification, I voted this while slightly distracted so it’s not the best vote possible.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector
@Sum1hugme

I'm heavily biased towards pro position, but I'll try to tabula rosa for this debate.

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

-->
@Sum1hugme

I was honestly just thinking the same thing haha at least three rounds is easier on the voters

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Part of me wishes I had made it four rounds

-->
@Sum1hugme

Yeah I couldn't decide what approach to take. The irony of course being that it took the full two weeks to decide on the short and simple approach

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Cuttin' it close lol

-->
@Sum1hugme

Excellent opening statement.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

No problem

-->
@Sum1hugme

This one should be fun to dig into as a formal debate. Thanks for making the argument time two weeks