The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[NoGodaloud ?]

Of course it doesn't. That's why it's unacceptable as proof of anything except an overactive imagination.

Any debate about proofs is senseless, since there are no proofs in regard of these issues. I say it over and over again. Stop asking for proves. Instead , make the right philosphical question : how can we best explain our existence ?

You provided me with a link to a site that does not provide a scientific paper. I've read numerous books and papers on the subject by the phyiscists who actually study this sort of thing.

Why are you asking for a scientific paper ? Why shall science provide all answers , even to questions, which are beyond the realm of science ? Why do you not accept, what is accepted by most scientists, namely, the universe had a absolute beginning with the Big Bang ? proably, because it does not fit your preconceived bias, no God shall exist, and since a beginning of the Universe is a hint of causation, you avoid this hypotheses. To believe, the universe had a absolute beginning, stands perfectly on rational ground , and is supported by many secular scientists, as already shown.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronom...g-t199.htm

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

There are some disquieting issues with this theory, at least to the non-Physicists. First, the singularity did not appear in space. Space did not exist before the big Bang and in fact, had to begin inside the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed. So, where did it come from and why? We don’t know. All we do know is that we exist within space and at one time it did not exist and neither did we.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/bigquestions/s460625.htm

Beyond the point is nothing. The balloon – space – has simply disappeared. Play this scenario in forward time and it represents the coming-into-being of a universe from literally nothing, with space itself appearing. So it’s not an explosion in a pre-existing space. Space itself appears. And so, for that matter, does time.

The Beginning of Time

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/62

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition.

I will state that they do state with however much frequency that the universe began at the big bang. I do not disagree with this assertion and I've mentioned this earlier in this discussion. However, they do not assert that the universe was created at the big bang in the sense that there was no matter and energy prior to the big bang and there was huge energy after. Instead, they assert that the universe as we understand it now had begun at the big bang and it will end at another point in the past.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big_Ban..._come_from

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

...those out of body experiences are thanks to a part of the brain you can stimulate.

the example , i have shown , no stimulus made that person have this out of body experience, Indeed, following explanation shows this :

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."

Table 3 shows relations between demographic, medical, pharmacological, and psychological factors and the frequency and depth of NDE. [b]No medical, pharmacological, or psychological factor affected the frequency of the experience.[/b]

Scientific laws are based on empirical and testable evidence, not solely on reasoning.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosop...9.htm#1201

It must be noted the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins or historical science. Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.

Two, faith is something completely different.

When it comes to historical sciences, what we can do, are , as shown above, educated guesses. In that sense, we can believe, aka faith, a supernatural explanation fits best the evidence, or a natural explanation. Thats the controversy about creation x evolution. Both positions are in the end based on guess and faith.

Three, Science is not based on philosophy or any predetermined assumptions that cannot be scientifiically proven.

Outside the scientific circle, there is always a philosophical circle.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosop...w-t335.htm

Science has been redefined to include only naturalistic explanations. All observed and hypothesized processes in the universe must be the result of natural causes. No supernatural explanations are allowed.

"Naturalistic science" points to naturalism, whether philosophical or methodological, both of which are essentially the same. Neither of which will allow the supernatural as a cause for anything in this world, even if logical. Natural causes must account for everything. So if scientific findings shows limits in natural causes, it doesn't matter because natural causes must have done everything. This shows that it is not the science that is important, but the reigning philosophy of naturalism. By definition, it will exclude any other possible explanation, whether presuppositional or logical or even rational, including the possibility of the supernatural, so it is true that naturalistic "science", or rather the naturalistic interpretation of scientific evidence will always miss a supernatural explanation. Whatever the supernatural is, the naturalistic mind will not accept it. That's why it is true that research today is not about finding real answers, but only confirming a naturalistic philosophy.

If that were the case, then it would not be called science because it would most certainly be something else.

Again. You need to make a distinction between operational and historical science.

You have only the two alternative options. This is indeed not a false dilemma, but a true one.

That is exactly what a false dilemma is - presenting two options that you state are the only options when it is readily apparent that they are not necessarily the only options.

I have asked you to present more options. Do you have any ? If you don't , you agree automatically with my assertion.

The very arguement itself is a logical fallacy because it is argued that nothing existed prior to the big bang except god and god created the universe.

Nothing physical existed, not absolutely nothing.

There is no evidence of this at all and current phyiscal laws dispute many aspects of this -ranging from the first law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or destroyed) to the fact that things become more complex over time and begin in a more simple manner (god himself is extremely complex as a pre-existing eternal omnipotent and omnicient hyper-intelligence).
Ergo, scientifically speaking, the god answer is far less likely a possibility than other theories on how the singularity universe came to be.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god...t79-15.htm

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News...le&id=5493

As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/

According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. Besides lacking spatial and temporal parts, God is free of matter/form composition, potency/act composition, and existence/essence composition. There is also no real distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his attributes. God is thus in a sense requiring clarification identical to each of his attributes, which implies that each attribute is identical to every other one. God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has. As identical to each of his attributes, God is identical to his nature. And since his nature or essence is identical to his existence, God is identical to his existence. This is the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS). It is to be understood as an affirmation of God's absolute transcendence of creatures. God is not only radically non-anthropomorphic, but radically non-creaturomorphic, not only in respect of the properties he possesses, but in his manner of possessing them. God, we could say, differs in his very ontology from any and all created beings.