pizzahut451 said:
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. According to Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's So Great about Christianity "If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the tern, a miracle." He emphasizes, "It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics...If the universe was produced outside of the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle.
On the second bolded part: 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. The conclusion remains that God was the first cause. Think about it. You used the ballon as an example, but i ask you: 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??? And even if the existing matter created the Big Bang, that kind of matter would have to be (copied it from the article): spaceless because it created space timeless because it created time immaterial because it created matter ( see the problem now?) powerfull becasue it created Big Bang out of nothing 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'') And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes. Right now, AT THIS MOMENT, the thought of God being the creator of the universe is IMO AT THIS MOMENT the most logical one, until our scientists discorver evidence that debunks it. Who knows what scinece will discover in 100 or 200 years, just look how much progress they made in last 60 years. But for now, MY OPINNION is that the God is the creator of the universe. |
First off, we can know the nature of the big bang using physics because physics began at the point of the big bang. You keep labouring at the fallacy that we can't prove the big bang occurred because we can't prove what came before it. We can prove it happened because we can prove what happened from the point it happened and what has happened since.
To use an analogy. You're saying that I can't read a book because I can't read it before the author has wrote i, even though it has already been written. It's wrong. I can read the book from the day it is written to the present.
Like the book, I can "read" the big bang, because it has already happened. It is perfectly provable through physics.
(I would also like to note at this point. Why do creationists seem to insist that quotes from a biased source are proof for a topic like this? They are not. 1 1=2 is proof, "Billy says that 1 1=2" is not)
...
I believe the law is Newtons first law of motion, and guess what, we've moved on a little since then. We now know that no object can ever be at an absolute rest and that all objects are in motion relative to something else. At this point I should really stop arguing physics because you have demonstrated a lack of understanding even basic physics.
You then argue that something higher than us must have created the Universe, but wait a minute...
I thought you said that you can't prove what happened before the big bang? Now you're saying that you know the nature of existence before the big bang? That does not compute.
The thing is you keep using this ID tactic of "I can't explain it, therefore God did it", proof needs to be a little more set than arbitrarily reaching a conclusion through what you determine to be unexplainable. What's sad is that most of the things you have claimed are unexplainable are actually explainable, you just need to read about them in a book (an unbiased one I may add).
Either way, the main thing that I'm concerned with is that you have in essence acknowledged the big bang exists, a theory you called retarded. You did this by admitting two things, that the Universe is expanding, and that the Universe has existed for a finite time.
Given these two facts only one real conclusion can be reached, at some point the big bang had to have occurred. Whether you believe it was a God that caused it or not is irrelevant. The point is that you accept two pieces of evidence that show to any reasonable person that the Universe must have been a singularity at some point in history, and thus the big bang occurred.
...
I also want address the fallacy of "It's beautiful, therefore God did it". The thing is, the Earth isn't beautiful. For example animals in the wild live from day to day as scared individuals, who haven't got enough food and water and are frightened from prey. Is this part of your beautiful Earth? Is this what you would deem as beautiful?
You cant just say "this is nice, and only God can create nice things" without acknowledging all the Horrible things like children with terminal illnesses. It doesn't work like that I'm afraid.
And if you want a more detailed explanation on the whole "fine tuned planet" argument, then I suggest you look into the posts I made in this thread (I believe) about the anthropic principle and how also different types of life can exist in different forms of nature. I'm not repeating them, so you'll have to find them I'm afraid.
