(March 12, 2014 at 12:09 am)Avodaiah Wrote:To clarify my point: looking at Kalam's model, I don't see why we could not use "the Big Bang" as the "cause." If your answer is that further elaboration is required, that's fine, and it may help us to eliminate some possibilities for a cause. What do you believe the cause to be?Tonus Wrote:The argument simply indicates that something must have caused the universe to exist. Why wouldn't that something be "the big bang"?Let me answer your question with a question: Forget about why the universe's cause had to be outside of time, why do causes propagate inside of time?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
