Big Bang Theory

[Truth Matters]

Responding to everything while answering nothing is not a refutation.
You need more than noise. You need an argument.

---

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

So you cherry pick,

This seems to be your consistent theme.
You interpret the bable to suit yourself,
You interpret terms to suit yourself.
You interpret science to suit yourself.
You use scientists views to suit yourself.
And no surprise,
You have a view that suits you.


Sorry kid your blinkers are not even pretty, you have nothing of interest to say.

No, I use my intellect. I understand the material. You don't. I draw proper distinctions. You don't. I justify my arguments. You don't. You fail to defeat my arguments. I defeat all the silly Atheist protests.
You fail to provide any arguments or evidence to justify your belief. You offer empty remarks. I offer evidence and arguments grounded in science and rational reason.
There's a real substantive difference. Atheism is impotent in the face of evidence and reason.

Now you remain faithful in that blind Atheist belief you can't defend.

---

Yes, the physical science cannot speak to the conditions causally antecedent to the beginning of physics. It's beyond the scope of science.

Cosmology is science, and part of cosmology deals with the origins of the uinverse and what was before it.

They understand well the Theistic implications of Big Bang and Fine Tuning confirmations.

Fine Tuning is a logical fallacy. It assumes that world was created for carbon-based life, when it's carbon-based life that adapts to the world.

I am absolutely certain Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku prostitute their professional integrity to the services of Atheism.

I'd love to see your scientific credentials.

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.

You seem to know what Michio Kaku thinks better than him. Do you have any supernatural powers?

Yet, any novice physicist knows vacuum energy is not Nothing.

That's because "nothingess" doesn't exist. The universe could have started via quantum vacuum. Krauss was using a metaphore to explain his theory in layman's terms.

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.

Our universe may not be all that exists.

My Christian epistemology of God is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the scientific evidence. Can you provide any basis to claim otherwise?

Your Christian epistemolgy claims that a dead body came back to life. This isn't consistent with scientific evidence.

Moreover, the unpredictable nature of quantum mechanics disproves the idea of a "design" behind the universe. It's impossible to implement a design in an universe that obeys to quantum mechanics.

You've gone from superficial responses to inane responses. Try to defend one. Pick one. You choose. They're all stupid - and irrelevant.