Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[Undeceived]

Actually the evidence that the universe actually had a beginning started via observations made by astronomers (particular those of Edwin Hubble) in the 1930's. Prior to that it was believed that the universe was infinity old and was basically eternal.

The universe having a beginning does not suggest the Big Bang any more than it does God. The theory used to be that matter always existed, and then they came up with the Big Bang as a response to new boundaries. I repeat to everyone who's slighting this, the Big Bang has no conclusive evidence, just responses. There has been nothing to confirm the theory after they made it. They just conformed the Big Bang to whatever they discovered. That is not evidence, my friends. That is cleaning up a mistake when you find out you were wrong.

Before you can apply Occam's Razon to theories you must have at least two theories to apply it to.

Two theories: God and evolution. Neither has been observed, tested or demonstrated directly. And evolution can still not explain new info in genomes, or the required tendency for organisms to increase their info. Evolution (or its partnering studies) has to prove that from nothing--not even a vacuum—comes order and thinking. A creation that not only moves and functions, but can consider how it moves and functions. It is improbable that anything could come from nothing for no reason at all, even less probable that it would come into living, breathing existence, even less probable that it could reproduce, even less probable that the organisms would gain unique personalities, and even less probable that it could consider God. We have to consider God because it is so unlikely that we should be able to. Before you can construct "response theories" (a theory molded to fit the evidence instead of confirmed by the evidence) like evolution, you still face the challenge of the origin of existence. Whatever convoluted explanations you use with the Big Bang, it will still have no more proof than God, because it has none. And which is simpler: that the Big Bang banged itself? Or that God, who's nature is larger than earthly understanding (as any creator's would be to the created) made the universe? Remember, eternity, immaterialism, and absence of space exist. Before our universe came to be, there was no time or space, yet the understanding of that lack of time or space is crucial towards figuring out how (if) the Big Bang happened. You have to admit there is a part of existence (or nonexistence) that we do not understand nor can probably ever understand. Well, you’ve just described God. He is eternal, non-material, and can never be fully understood by us. He made nature to accomplish everything he wishes to accomplish, so he shouldn't have to interrupt nature to get our attention.