The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[LastPoet]

The short answer to your question is "no." That's because their Big Book of Bullshit tells them that their sky-daddy made the world especially for them.

Really, when you think about it, a person has to be a grade-A moron to believe such nonsense.

They like to think that, however, I think its the other way around: We tuned (not that fine, really) ourselves trough means of evolutionary processes to this planet.

Its probably the biggest problem creationists have with evolution, their holy book says the world was made for them, while evolution says the world already existed, we were the ones that had to evolve to fit in the world.

[annatar]

The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural....
This is why I am fascinated with theists! They can turn lack of knowledge into evidence! Its just miraculous.. we cant explain this with another word! (Well I have a word in my mind but I rather keep it..)

[Xyster]

Well after reading the first couple post.... I stopped It all looked like it was gonna be rehacking old crap all over again... Using god of the gaps argument to prove god is getting old... Great.. OK JUST for arguments sake the big bang is evedence of a god, you still couldent prove WHICH god or if this entity is still here or if it burnt its self out in the proscess. But asserting "god did it" where the honest answer is "I don't know" dose not prove a damn thing.

[Frammo]

Instead of saying an infinite God created the universe why can't you just miss a step and say the universe is infinite. If you use the 'you can't get something out of nothing' argument then where did God come from. What was God doing before he made the universe?

Also remember, this universe may not be the very beginning. There may be a whole complex of universes, a multiverse. Maybe this universe was created from a dying universe? And where did that universe come from? You could go on forever.

Also remember, energy and mass are interchangeable. The 'mass' of our universe may not have existed forever, but its energy equivilent, which ever way you look at it must be infinite. Energy such as this which exists across different dimensions and universes cannot be simply be dismissed as being finite as it won't comply with the laws of physics of this universe or anything our minds can comprehend.

[theVOID]

I have often heard creationists say that everything in existence must have been caused by something else thus leading to a chain of causes all the way to God Himself. To which atheists respond, “Then what caused God to be in existence?” But this passage from a prominent Christian theologian refutes this common atheist counter to creationism.”

“For instance, it is a mistake to view everything as needing a cause, for in this case there would be an infinity of causes and even God would need a cause. Only limited, changing, contingent things need causes. Once one arrives at an unlimited, unchanging, necessary being, there is no longer any need for a cause. The finite must be caused, but the infinite being would be uncaused.”

This is Craig correct? This is easily shot down.

1. We do know of events whereby some limited, changing and contingent things are created, even though the event has no perceivable cause. One example is radioactive decay, each particle has a chance of decaying into it's constituents and the decay event seems intrinsically random, there was no cause to the decay event, only a likelihood of the decay happening on average a certain percent of the time. While there may be a cause for this phenomenon since the person arguing against it cannot show that this is necessarily false it follows that the assertion that there is no acausal thing that is limited, changing and contingent becomes a bare assertion fallacy, as such it adequately refutes the notion that only unlimited unchanging and necessary beings can be acausal.

2. Even if 1) is shown to be false, ruling out the existence of something acausal that is also "limited, changing and contingent" does imply that it must therefore be unchanging, unlimited and non-contingent, but it does not at all necessitate that it be a being. This is simply thrown in there on the hope that someone like yourself will overlook it, it's entirely fallacious.

Since the Big Bang definitely demonstrates the beginning of all time for Nature, that is (the universe, the closed box/system of everything). And being that time began because of a definite beginning (The Big Bang) therefore infinity, that without beginning or end, cannot exist within Nature itself but rather must exist beyond Nature.

This shows you don't understand the concept of the singularity. Einsteins theory points to something known as a relativistic singularity which is essentially because relativity depends on frames of reference in spacetime, thus when considering the universe before the apparent emergence of spacetime relativity comes out with a unified event. This does not mean there was no nature, only that it was not in a form that can be adequately described by relativity. It seems that it must be contingent upon the theory of the very small, Quantum Mechanics, to explain a dimensionless state of existence.

Subsequently, there is absolutely no necessity that this event must have a cause outside nature, such a suggestion is plainly an argument from person incredulity.

Within Nature everything is in relation to everything else, everything is interdependent, nothing is independent of the system as a whole, nothing can be truly added or taken away. Therefore within Nature things must exist as spontaneously regenerating patterns and designs, including life.

Your concept of spontaneity is flawed. Life is not a spontaneous event, in fact in most natural models involving an algorithmic universe you at most need one spontaneous event to set everything off, and some concepts seem to work without the need for one.

Nothing save that which is outside Nature can operate independently of the system as a whole.

And it is equally true that therefore anything that can operate completely independently of nature cannot have a relational influence on it either, for something to be "unlimited, unchanging and non-contingent" means that it either necessarily has a relationship with nature, or it does not. Being unchanging your conceptual God cannot be one thing and then the other, therefore he could not have been before the universe and independent of it and then caused it. And since you believe that the universe necessarily had a cause, God being acausal would necessarily have to have been existent as an "unchanging, unlimited and non-contingent" being prior to the universe, he could not have changed from an independent to a relational status in regards to the universe and therefore either that God could not have created the universe or the universe did not being to exist.

If he is does not have a relationship with nature then he necessarily isn't unlimited as he is unable to change from non relational status to relational status.

Nothing except for mankind with his freewill which enables him to act independently of the system as a whole.

But we are limited, changing and contingent!

Freewill cannot emerge from this system because it is independence in a system of total interdependence.

I totally agree, I don't believe in Free will. It's not an important type of freedom either. Being "free from" freedoms are much more valuable.

Therefore, freewill, like the causation of time and Nature, is beyond time and Nature, it is not Natural but supernatural. Since mankind has freewill which is supernatural, he is therefore at least partly supernatural. Mankind is therefore both Natural and supernatural, the body and the spirit.

I've utterly debunked your argument, it follows that your conclusion is false. NEXT!