Big Bang Theory

[Truth Matters]

I acknowlege that I dont know what started the Universe and that I cant know it currently. But! I have the option of aquireing that knowlege through scientific inquiry.

Must I paint the boy a colorfull picture to understand?

Then explain a plausible causal agency that fits the necessary criteria of any sufficient agency ( non-physical, timeless, spaceless, immaterial with enormous capacity) consistent with Atheism?

Explain exactly how physical science (empiricism) can explain the cause of physics?
The very notion is absurd. You may as well expect your metal detector to detect how to manufacture metal detectors.
Science is a very limited endeavor. Most truth cannot be accessed by science.

[fr0d0]

If an atheist asserts that no god created the universe then that is a claim that strayed into religious territory, and would need to justify itself. If an atheist took a non theistic stance (ie no need to declare atheism) to the problem and didn't invoke god, then no claim would be made.

[Truth Matters]

Big Bang explains nothing about the causally antecedent conditions prior to Big Bang. Science stops cold at the singularity boundary, but reason does not.

This is gibberish. The Big Bang says nothing about conditions prior to the Big Bang - and you're surprised at that? Are you aware that a calendar for, say, 2012 says nothing about the year 1911? Or that a map of Tokyo doesn't even mention the London Underground? Yet we don't throw away calendars and maps.

Material, time and space began to exist

With you so far.

Material, time and space cannot be it's own cause.

Bzzzzt! Why not? "Cannot" is a very strong word. Care to back it up with something other than opinion?

The fact that it BEGAN means it cannot self-exist (self-existence is rationally necessary)

Yes, we all know the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Or the Kalam Total Horseshit, to give it its proper name. Again, why not?

Where is that causal agency?

Let me guess: it's God, isn't it? I just bet you're gonna say God...

Any sufficient causal agency must have the necessary attributes of being Timeless, spaceless and immaterial - and capacity to create a contingent Universe. God fits the criteria perfectly. Materialism precludes that which is necessary for any sufficient causal agency.

The prophet strikes again! Ok, what do those buzzwords - timeless, spaceless, immaterial (actually I know that one) - even mean? If an entity is timeless, in the strictest definition of the word, there is no time within which it can operate. Hence, it is as powerless as any god; so you might actually be onto something.

Spaceless? Lacking in space, or outside space? If the former, it cannot exist in a Universe like ours. If the latter, it can have no influence in a Universe like ours. Either way, even if it does exist in reality, we can discard it simply because it can have no power. Especially if it's immaterial as well. It must really suck balls to be a god.

Capacity to create a contingent Universe? We got ourselves a tautology! The only entity capable of building a contingent Universe is one with the capacity to build contingent Universes. Congratulations, you might just have made William Lane "Two Citations" Craig look rational - and that takes some doing.

Why not? Because something cannot exist prior to it's own existence in order to cause itself into existence. This is patently obvious.
Now YOU EXPLAIN WHY SELF-CAUSATION IS POSSIBLE?

Timeless, spaceless and immaterial: Having no dimensionality of time, space or material. Pretending you can't understand is not an argument.

[Cyberman]

Why not? Because something cannot exist prior to it's own existence in order to cause itself into existence. This is patently obvious.
Now YOU EXPLAIN WHY SELF-CAUSATION IS POSSIBLE?

I never argued this. This is a point you raised. You explain why self-causation, if that's even the way it happened, is impossible.

Timeless, spaceless and immaterial: Having no dimensionality of time, space or material. Pretending you can't understand is not an argument.

I quite agree. This is probably the only truthful thing you've said so far.

Do you have a problem with science when it leads to things like computers, the internet, cars, aeroplanes, space travel, GPS satellites, telecom satellites, medicines, surgical procedures, gene therapy, materials technology, farming technology, food preservation, etc etc, or is it just when science pokes its nose into territory that is the traditional purview of holy books?

[Truth Matters]

No, I had a couple years of law in my background. I don't get fooled by Atheist rubbish on the burden of proof.
Both Theism and Atheism are proper belief positions. Both should justify on the basis of arguments and evidence. The burden is shared.

I just justified my belief. This only increases your burden.

I'de suggest you stop making excuses and start engaging the potent evidence of an absolute physical beginning. You need to justify your Atheist belief in light of the evidence - not despite it.

You poor, inept creature. I fire watermelons from my tits. God gave me their power. Prove me wrong.

You hit the wall

[Cyberman]

Yes, she can indeed hit the wall. I've seen the videos.

[jonb]

The absolute physical beginning is one of the powerful evidences for God.

Where is the absolute physical beginning? That is not the big bang

[Annik]

You hit the wall

You can't experience my power, it exists outside time and space. Also, I have a book describing my powers and when/how I can use them. But trust me, they're real. Prove me wrong.

[Truth Matters]

Why not? Because something cannot exist prior to it's own existence in order to cause itself into existence. This is patently obvious.
Now YOU EXPLAIN WHY SELF-CAUSATION IS POSSIBLE?

I never argued this. This is a point you raised. You explain why self-causation, if that's even the way it happened, is impossible.

Timeless, spaceless and immaterial: Having no dimensionality of time, space or material. Pretending you can't understand is not an argument.

I quite agree. This is probably the only truthful thing you've said so far.

Do you have a problem with science when it leads to things like computers, the internet, cars, aeroplanes, space travel, GPS satellites, telecom satellites, medicines, surgical procedures, gene therapy, materials technology, farming technology, food preservation, etc etc, or is it just when science pokes its nose into territory that is the traditional purview of holy books?

You protested my claim that self-causation is impossible.

I love science. Been immersed in science since I was a kid. I was just tutoring my daughter who also loves science. My father is a retired Nuclear Physicist. I properly delineate science from Naturalist philosophy.

Atheism is not science, nor is it scientific. Atheism is a belief position. When taken seriously in reason, Atheism undermines any reason to trust the rational order of mind that science rests upon.

[Cyberman]

First off, you argued against the Big Bang armed with nothing but the KCA. Now you're criticising atheism for not being science. Well done, I don't think there's anyone here who would disagree with you; but I do wish you wouldn't change the channels so quickly. Focus!