(August 20, 2016 at 5:36 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:(August 20, 2016 at 4:01 am)fdesilva Wrote: Yes I should have made myself clear. In your definition of the term you are right. However in the normal use of the term the universe stand for the thing that seems to have originated with a Big Bang. Now for argument sake if there was something that is responsible for the creation for this Big Bang originating universe why would that something need to be a part of it? Like a tree A gives rise to a seed that give rise to a tree B. A is not a part of B. I agree you can define universe to mean everything and then all good. However having done that it would mean that we would still need to give a name to the creator of the Bid Bang universe if there be such a creator would you agree?
Here's the thing. I'm trusting scientists with my cosmological beliefs. As far as I know, there was no time before the Big Bang, nor is there evidence that there is anything out there other than everything that has originated with the Big Bang. So, I guess it comes down to how much you trust science when you encounter this argument. I trust it, and I came up with the argument myself while coincidentally debating a theist about the existence of God. You seem not to. That's fine. You can choose to disbelieve science in favor of your own fantasies. Good luck.
I meant while I was debating an atheist.
