The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

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 ?

Science is the best method of explaining our existence and that is based on proof. You can't answer the question at all in any manner that is meaningful without testable and repeatable evidence.

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.

Because no reputable scientist is saying that the universe began in the same sense that you are. They acknowledge that we only really know about the big bang to a point and if you're literate with astronomy and I'm talking about the papers, books, and speeches done by physicists who are literate in this topic and not about a group of religious people who think that their belief if something is the same thing as knowing something.

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.

That's nice. If he makes a peer reviewed paper that's accepted by the scientific community at large on that topic, then let me know. Until then, his claims are quite unsubstantiated and not too indiscreetly tainted with theology, which is itself an exercise in imagination and not science.

The Beginning of Time

And in that same paper, Hawking mentions the following:

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past. One suggestion was to modify the law of gravity, so that it became repulsive. This could lead to the graph of the separation between two galaxies, being a curve that approached zero, but didn't actually pass through it, at any finite time in the past. Instead, the idea was that, as the galaxies moved apart, new galaxies were formed in between, from matter that was supposed to be continually created. This was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle.

Note that Hawking makes several direct statements about what was before the big bang in the sense that he is not stating that the universe was created at the big bang, but rather the universe as we understand it began at the big bang.
As I recall, I've said this exact thing before, the universe began in the manner to which we understand it at the big bang, which is to say nothing of anything prior to this event. You have postulated based on nothing that not only did the universe begin from nothing, but a hyper-intelligence that is capable of creating vast amounts of energy from literally nothing is more simple than a singularity. Bullhokey.

Hawking even specifically refutes the notion that an outside influence had any direct effect on the universe.

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

And how credible is this answer supposed to be? Why did you even bring it up because whoever made that answer disagrees with you.
In the answer states: According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure.
Emphasis mine.

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.

I don't know where you got what was stated above, but this clearly isn't the case anymore, if it even was to begin with.

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

You've missed the point - science has proven that a cluster of neurons can be stimulated to give an out-of-body experience. Just because the experiment had a direct stimulation of that cluster in one manner or another doesn't mean they can't be stimulated naturally.
My point of even bringing up those papers is to prove that those anecdotes you keep bringing up are far more likely to be explained by that cluster of neurons being stimulated in a natural manner (in other words, the brain, trauma, or some other method) instead of a neurologist poking around in someone's skull being a necessary component for that or some supernatural explaination.

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.

There are many kinds of sciences but I have no idea what on earth you're talking about.

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.

Controversey on creation v evolution? Controversey amongst whom? Evolution has been science for as long as it's been around. Creationism is a belief held on by superstitious people who choose to reject evidence to the contrary despite no evidence supporting creationism at all.

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.

They aren't allowed because they're not scientific. Science has never been redefined to exclude supernaturalism at any point in time beyond an attempt to explain ignorance rationally by people who prefer an explaination instead of an honest answer.

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

I prefer to acknowledge things that exist rather than whatever methodology that allows people to make up answers and accept them as science.

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

So you answer one false dilemma by presenting another? If I can't provide a specific answer you want I'm automatically wrong and I agree with you?
If it makes you feel better, you can assert whatever you want. It doesn't make you right.

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.

This is assinine. A thinking entity is not simple at all - it's a complex process that humans barely understand as it is and yet a conciousness far more powerful than ours is supposed to be simpler than a dense point of energy? Bullhockey.
This is entirely an attempt by theists to redefine what intelligence, conciousness, god, and whatever in order to fit this specific arguement, which is itself a logical fallacy called 'moving the goalposts'.