Big Bang Theory

[Truth Matters]

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.

No. I mean YOUR attempt to create an epistemological distraction has no relevance THIS ONTOLOGY.

I'm not allowing you to divert from the relevant argument into irrelevant tangential questions.

I need to come to grips with science? That’s actually funny. The Big Bang model makes no claims that there were no energy, matter or physical laws prior to the Big Bang. It is a theory that attempts to explain what has happened since an initial expansion from an as of yet not understood singularity. It says spacetime as we understand it and a little bit later the physical laws that apply to the current universe began with the Big Bang not that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang. That there was nothing other than your immaterial, spaceless, timeless causal agent is an unsupported assertion posited by you. I’m merely pointing out there are alternatives to your unsupported hypothesis. These alternatives include a standard model that exists as part of a larger multiverse, and other models such as the Rost model which posits it is the universe itself that is eternal. One of these alternative is just as probable as your hypothesis.

You are speaking of the physics of the Big Bang. Yes, the physical science cannot speak to the conditions causally antecedent to the beginning of physics. It's beyond the scope of science.
However, it would be flatly incorrect to pretend the model doesn't recognize an absolute physical beginning occurred. It's been the standard model and has been mathematically proven.

These wildly speculative 'alternatives' are not scientific Theory (capital T). In fact they enjoy absolutely no basis in observational science, testing or other verification. They exist without a shred of confirmation or evidence. To put them on par with the highly confirmed scientifically validated Big Bang Theory is simply not justified. Quite frankly, they exist due to the Naturalistic metaphysical beliefs of the theoreticians who desperately want to give plausible deniability to the actual science. They understand well the Theistic implications of Big Bang and Fine Tuning confirmations.
Unfortunately, too many people don't know the difference between confirmed science and speculative stories told by 'scientists'

As far as Ontological versus Epistemological I don’t see it as irrelevant at all. Your profile says you are a Christian. As a Christian you don’t believe in just any god. You believe in a specific God. If you believe in the existence of a specific God and argue that the universe was created by god then it would be intellectually dishonest of you to argue for some god that is not yours. I’m just asking you to provide evidence that the God you believe in is the first cause you claim must exist.

a) I'm not arguing for some 'other God'. My Christian epistemology of God is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the scientific evidence. Can you provide any basis to claim otherwise?

b) Why would differing epistemologies of God matter? Differing epistemologies of God does not mean different (multiple) Gods (Ontology). Any epistemology of God is mutually exclusive with the Atheist Ontological position. Any monotheistic God fits well with the evidence.

---

@Truth Matters

So you use Penrose to vouch your position, but dismiss him as an atheist speculator when his views diverge from your own.

I trust Penrose as a scientist. I don't trust any Atheist to accurately represent to the metaphysical implications of the science. I am absolutely certain Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku prostitute their professional integrity to the services of Atheism.
Recently, Michio Kaku was on CNN claiming that Higgs Boson particles have some implications for cosmological origins, 'disproving God' was just naked lying of the highest order. He knows what he said is false. Lawrence Krauss claims a Universe 'from nothing' could happen via the quantum vacuum. Yet, any novice physicist knows vacuum energy is not Nothing. Hawking peddles a 'no boundaries' proposal hoping to give an illusion of an infinite Universe - absolutely irrelevant to the fact that our Universe has a proven finite past. Penrose steps on Hawking by proving that M-Theory universes would necessarily be much smaller than our Universe...
Their craziness and propaganda is not science.
The science is what matters

---

Why? I don't need to. We are discussing an ontological question.
I don't need to get distracted defending a narrow epistemological position that has no relevance to the ontological question.

I'de be happy to take up your questions separately, but not as a red-herring distraction away from the Ontology in question.

You are arguing for the existence of god, by extension... your particular brand of god.
It is not a distraction, it is relevant.

No, I'm not arguing for a 'brand of God'. I'm arguing for the necessary attributes of a monotheistic God.

Why do you insist we distract off into irrelevant epistemologies when you have failed to defeat my primary ontology?

I'm arguing that some car must have left the burnout marks in front of my house - probably my buddy's Chevelle. You deny that a car must have left those marks and offer no plausible explanation for how the skid marks got there. Instead, you demand I must prove it was a blue 1970 Chevelle SS that left those skid marks. Nonsense!