The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[NoGodaloud ?]

Awesome. If you can prove the universe had a causation to its beginning, then there's several teams of astrophysicists who would really like the empirical data you have to back that up.

this argument does not stand on scientific ground , but philosophical, based on inductive reasoning.

In the sense that we understand the universe as it is, this does seem to have 'begun' at some point in time in the past. However, that doesn't mean that I agree on any of the other premises or that the universe 'began' in the sense that all of the matter and energy that exists in the universe now didn't exist prior to the singularity or the big bang.
The entire premise of the 'first cause' idea is entirely based on nothing substantial. It's merely filling in gaps in scientific knowledge with whatever it wants.

how comes it then, that a big portion of the scientific community agrees on that matter ?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

and those are two things that don't exist. Our phyiscal body is the only thing we really have that we can prove and it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt where our heritage lies.

how do you explain then outside body experiences ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/the-bibl...ht=dualism

"During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."

That is an excellent question. I've chosen to believe that the best manner in which to explain our existence is by the things that I and/or others can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I've chosen to reject explainations that depend on things people have said or written without the benefit of knowledge or study.
That's why I believe science over religion. Science has proof and they're still studying these things based on what we know and what we can prove and it's done a lot more in terms of explaining our existance better than any other method ever devised. I'm satisfied with that.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosop...m-t274.htm

you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time. Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.
You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.
(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

A eternal universe, never created
or a finite universe, which had no cause, since you exclude God.


You've created a false dilemma. You've deliberately only given two answers where the only reasonable one is the one you prefer and neither one will lead to an honest answer because there is no answer right now.

You have only the two alternative options. This is indeed not a false dilemma, but a true one. Aloud yourself to think a littlebit, and proof me wrong.

Isn't that the default creationist position in this arguement?

Of course not. God is not nothing. God is God.