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. |
You've already got a couple of great answers, but I'll try yet another approach.
I'll supposed everything you say is right.
You start off saying that pshysics and nature only came to be with the big bang. Then you start talking about "before the big bang". But time is a part of nature and physics. So if time only came to be with the big bang, talking about "before the big bang" equates to talking about "before time". Which makes as much sense as talking about "outside of space".
There's no before without time and there's no outside without space because by definition there's no time if there's no time and there's no space if there's no space.
You then apply the laws of science to before the big bang. But wait, didn't you just say nature and physics itself didn't exist before the big bang? So how come you're applying them to that environment?
Your argument has no internal logic.
And it goes on, you say:
"And as far as i know, no such matter is possible. However an abrahamic God has ALL of the above atrubutes."
Other Gods and explanations have already been mentioned, but have you ever heard about the concept of the God of the Gaps? That's what you're doing. "I don't know how that could work, so that must have been God".
