The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[NoGodaloud ?]

Okay, NoGodAloud. To prove your case, first show that something cannot come from nothing, without merely asserting it or pointing to our experience, for our experience is irrelevant outside the universe.

First of all, i am not here to prove something. Secondly, what difference does it make, if the question about, if something can arise from nothing, is from inside, or outside our universe ? absolutely nothing has no properties at all, and can therefore not make something appear. Thats worse tha the rabbit out of the magicians hat. Its utmost irrational to believe, something like this could happen.

Then, show that it is impossible for the universe to have existed in some form forever, or as an infinite series of universes.

there is more than one reason to show why this is not a very convincing hypotheses.

First because of the second law of thermodynamics.

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

Science supports Einstein's claim that the universe is a closed system. That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

...if the universe...is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed--one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before--in order for the present day to arrive. But this exactly parallels the problem of an infinite task. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point--for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point--or any point before it.

So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite...1
That's why the universe can't be infinite: if time is infinite, then sequential events cannot occur. So option one is not an option, after all.

---

And secondly, its not wrong to cite authorities, when they are specialists in their fiels. What Hawking undoubtly is.

It wouldn't be wrong if he were talking about physics. His views on God, however, are irrelevant, for two people can have the same scientific facts and come to a different conclusion. God's existence still requires philosophical demonstration based on the scientific facts.

the issue here, is, if the universe had a beginning , or not. So Hawking is the right person to cite as authority.

---

And secondly, its not wrong to cite authorities, when they are specialists in their fiels. What Hawking undoubtly is.

It is when you use that authority to somehow make a statement of truth on something. It doesn't matter if the authority is a specialist in the field they are talking about; it is a fallacy to say "because X says Y, and X is an authority on Y, Y is true".

It might be more likely to be true, but you cannot use it in an absolute sense.

Hawking writes about the Big Bang. An issue, he certainly would have a excellent understanding, faced the fact who he is.