Oh, dear. Somewhat lenghty rebuttal follows, just hoping this works for the best.
We cant NEVER know the nature of nature before big bang, because there was no nature in the Big Bang. The nature itself was created in Big Bang. And you cant use physics to prove it happend because the laws of phyiscs (of this universe, at least) were also created in Big Bang.
This means very little because you mix up "nature" (what do you mean by that?) , "laws of physics" and space-time, that is what all big bang theories are about. The passage you quoted is as badly fuzzy as your own words. While we don't know at what point the laws of physics as we know them today and in our local conditions would break up or be superceded by yet unknown generalizations in those extreme conditions of energy density, there is no reason for vague and absolute statements such as "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics".
But there is a known scientific law that states that anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang.
Nonsense. You take Newton's first law of dynamics and pervert it into a vague philosphical principle, whereas it has a very definite mathematical meaning (and btw those laws are not even strictly true in all conditions, as we now work with Einstein's general relativity).
Let's say that there's a bomb in empty space. No external forces are applied. The bomb explodes, shards go everywhere, but the center of mass of the resulting cloud of matter and energy stays stationary. Newton's first law is respected, but you got an expanding cloud of matter and energy.
WHO or WHAT is blowing the ballon so that the dots are moving away from eachother because of the expansion of the ballon????? What kind of creature (entity) has that kind of power to move away whole galaxies and expand and ''organise'' the universe like a 2 dollars ballon???
Nonsense. Cosmological theories for expanding space-time metrics require no continuous application of "power". Since you're fond of Newton's laws, think of the second one: in a vacuum a moving body does not need "power" to keep moving, it perseveres in its linear, uniform motion. In the same way you can find solution to Einstein's equations that describe collapsing, expanding or fluctuating metrics of space-time, affected only by the matter and energy "inside" that space-time continuum and requiring no continuous "power" or "force".
spaceless because it created space
timeless because it created time
immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?)
Nonsense. You generate a very small gravitational field with your own body. That distorts space and time, so you're creating space and time (and bending it, and crushing it) in this very moment.
As for matter, we create it every day by very material means in our particle accelerators in the form of particle-antiparticle couples. We've been doing this hundreds of thousands of times a day for several scores of years.
intellegent because the creation event and the universe was precisely deisgned. (you cant really look at the beuty of the universe and Earth itself, and say that all of that beuty happend ''by an accident'')
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but surely the universe does not seem to be "precisely designed". It certainly shows a great complexity that we only begin to unravel with our rational means, but "precisely designed" would imply that it has a goal and that it could not be different from what it is, neither of which is suggested, much less proved, by our observations.
However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes.
So does Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, a medieval Satan and the flying spaghetti monster. Putting together a fictional character that sums up fuzzy explanations about what we still don't understand is very easy, could even satisfy some of your needs, but has nothing to do with logic.The same gods were once used as justification for lightning, illness, tides and apparent sun movement, and yet I'm pretty sure you'll trust scientists for an explanation of those phenomena over the religious one, even if you don't know or understand the details of atmospheric ionization or DNA replication.
You're entitled your opinions, but I suggest that if you want to pull physics in the debate in an attempt to justify them, you should first of all document yourself and not trust some of the pseudo-rational drivel that you're exposed to.
In the end your opinion might differ entirely from mine, and you could find your reasons for belief in the nooks and crannies of science and philosophy, but you should at least feel the need to make that an informed opinion.
