RE: Big Bang Theory
November 9, 2012 at 9:11 pm
(This post was last modified: November 9, 2012 at 9:16 pm by Truth Matters.)
(November 9, 2012 at 8:32 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:(November 9, 2012 at 3:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: You don't think the rational necessity of an immaterial, spaceless, timeless causal agency with the capacity to bring about a contingent Universe is evidence for God?
Atheists ignoring evidence is not a lack of evidence.
I don’t accept your premise of an immaterial, spaceless, timeless causal agent. I don’t accept it because your first cause could just as easily be a material causal agent operating under natural laws in a cosmological model that includes a multiverse/bubbleverse version of the standard model or even just an infinite aged universe model such as some variation of the Rost model. All you have done here is assert that we don’t know therefore god did it. When in reality the correct answer stops at we don’t know.
In any case your answer completely avoided my original question which was what is the evidence that your god, the god of Abraham, is your first cause?
It doesn't matter whether you accept logical fact. It's still logical fact.
How can a physical cause exist before physics begins - in order to cause physics into existence? The notion is obviously absurd.
How can some infinitely dense zero-sized pellet simply exist out 'there' where 'there' doesn't yet exist? THERE IS NO SPACE.
You need to come to grips with the actual science and mathematical proofs.
You are appealing to wild speculations of Atheist Materialists wishing to explain around proven science. The absolute physical beginning is mathematically proven beyond all mathematical doubt.
You have no evidence or justification whatsoever to believe that physics explains the beginning of the existence of physics.
Per your unanswered question:
I don't need to prove a specific epistemology of God to demonstrate that the common attributes of God are necessary and in evidence to sufficiently explain the Ontology of a physical Universe that began to exist.
In other words, your Epitemological 'question' is an irrelevant red-herring meant to distract from the important Ontological question in contention.