The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[NoGodaloud ?]

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.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosop...s-t339.htm

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.

for example evolution. i guess you believe, (macro) evolution is a fact, right ? :

http://creationwiki.org/Argument_from_incredulity

We are talking about evolution, a theory that tries to tell us what happened in an unseen, unobservable, unrepeatable past. The fact that someone invents a natural "explanation" for something that is unseen, unobserved — and hence unscientific — does not mean that that explanation has any basis in reality. Without supporting evidence, it is a mere suggestion, a speculation. The fact that someone can devise a natural explanation in the context of this "theory", which makes unscientific claims about a hidden past, says nothing about the truth.

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.

Fine. Lets cite some literate scientists then.

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

"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." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time

"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University

"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." CalTech

"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University

"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan

"The present location and velocities of galaxies are a result of a primordial blast known as the BIG BANG. It marked: THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE BEGINNING OF TIME!" Terry Herter, Cornell University
"That radiation is residual heat from the Big Bang, the event that sparked the beginning of the universe some 13 billion years ago." Craig Hogan, University of Washington

"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." University of Illinois

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.

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

For example 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.)

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.

I've not said, it would be more simple. I said the only rational deduction is, if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

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

Its enough that he aknowledges that the universe had a beginning. The rest is his personal opinion. Nothing more.

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.

sprang into existence. What does that mean to you ?

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.

and how do you know, this clearly isnt the case anymore ???

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.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/intellig...ht=dualism

Dr. Ken Ring published a paper in the Journal of Near-Death Studies (Summer, 1993) concerning near-death experiencers who, while out of their bodies, witness real events that occur far away from their dead body. The important aspect to this phenomenon is that these events seen far away are later verified to be true. Experiencers not only witness events from great distances, but they have been documented to hear conversations between people at the same events. Conversations such as these have also verified to be true. An even more fascinating phenomenon occurs when the experiencer actually appears in spirit to someone, usually a loved one, during their NDE and it is verified to be true by the experiencer and the loved one. It is evidence such as this, if scientifically controlled, that can provide absolute scientific proof that consciousness can exist outside of the body. A scientifically controlled NDE that can be repeated which provides such evidence would be the scientific discovery of all time. However, science does not yet have the exact tools to accomplish this. But, science is coming very, very close. This kind of evidence and others provide very strong circumstantial evidence for the survival of consciousness.

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.

you can call evolution science. But macro evolution has not been proven true until today.....

http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_leaves...nexplained

has evolution adequately explained enough within its biological framework? The answers for many is no! Even if it could, does it make such stories that the evolutionists make factual? No! Because science cannot deal with the past outside human experience and there is no way of verifying what happened in that past. Without verification, we can speculate and give "explanations", but they have no truth value. The circumstantial evidence paraded as unambiguously pointing to evolution is not so unambiguous.
Also the things explained by evolution, a good number of them, if not all of them, can be explained from another framework other than the theory of evolution, i.e. research into creation science.

So you answer one false dilemmat.

Its up to you to show me, the dilemma presented is false. Can you ? If not, why do you not aknowledge i might be right, there are no more options ? are you being honest ?