The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[NoGodaloud ?]

And this particular god is a "necessary being" merely because some theologians have defined this unseen entity as such. How convenient.

No, because it makes more sense to believe, the universe had a cause, than it had no cause at all. From absolutely nothing, nothing can derive.

---

It could be. After all, true nothing would have no physical laws. Therefore, there would be no constraint on something's coming from noting, as any constraint would constitute a physical law.

That makes no sense at all, since absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing.

No, because an event is something that happens within a temporal context. Only something that happens within a temporal context has a cause.

thats why the cause of the universe created time , space and matter, all at onces.

Pure assertion. Yes, that's the case in our experience (though some interpretations of quantum mechanics put that principle in doubt), but we cannot make that judgement of things outside the universe.

absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing, therefore from absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

[The Omnissiunt One]

You're repeating yourself. You're repeating yourself. You're repeating yourself. You're repeating yourself. You're repeating yourself. You're repeating yourself. You're repeating yourself. Without adding anything of any value.

See how annoying it is?

[everythingafter]

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.”

Furthermore. . . . .

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. 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. Nothing save that which is outside Nature can operate independently of the system as a whole. Nothing except for mankind with his freewill which enables him to act independently of the system as a whole. Freewill cannot emerge from this system because it is independence in a system of total interdependence. 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.

Hmm...sounds like some William Lane Craig reasoning.

First:

Where does this "unlimited, unchanging, necessary being" notion come from? Why do we have the need to bring him/her/it into the picture? Just because everything that we know needs a cause doesn't suggest that we should introduce an unlimited and unchanging being into the equation. That would seem to complicate the situation (Occam's Razor).

Second:

That "infinity, that without beginning or end, cannot exist within Nature itself but rather must exist beyond Nature" is an assumption on the idea of the nature of the universe. We don't know whether it's finite or not. My guess, based on what we know of Earth, is that in its greatness, it is finite, even though our minds might not be able to grasp the length, breadth and height to which the universe extends. It seems to me that to say the universe is infinite would be to compare it to an infinite loop or perhaps an equation with a non-definitive value, like pi.

I've only gotten through the first part. lol. I'll try to address the rest of it tomorrow.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

thats not true. The argument stands, based on the fact, that most probably our universe had a beginning, and must therefore have a cause.

Awesome. If you can prove the universe had a causation to its beginning, then there's several teams of astrophysicists who would really like the empirical data you have to back that up.

that means, you don't oppose nr.2 of the kalaam argument : that our universe most probably had a beginning.

In the sense that we understand the universe as it is, this does seem to have 'begun' at some point in time in the past. However, that doesn't mean that I agree on any of the other premises or that the universe 'began' in the sense that all of the matter and energy that exists in the universe now didn't exist prior to the singularity or the big bang.
The entire premise of the 'first cause' idea is entirely based on nothing substantial. It's merely filling in gaps in scientific knowledge with whatever it wants.

our physical body is not distinct. But our spirit and soul, are distinct.

and those are two things that don't exist. Our phyiscal body is the only thing we really have that we can prove and it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt where our heritage lies.

In fact, its not provable. Thats why the right question should be : how can we best explain our existence ?

That is an excellent question. I've chosen to believe that the best manner in which to explain our existence is by the things that I and/or others can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I've chosen to reject explainations that depend on things people have said or written without the benefit of knowledge or study.
That's why I believe science over religion. Science has proof and they're still studying these things based on what we know and what we can prove and it's done a lot more in terms of explaining our existance better than any other method ever devised. I'm satisfied with that.

what is your belief in this regard ? If not God, you have two choices.

A eternal universe, never created
or a finite universe, which had no cause, since you exclude God.

So you stick to the idea, the universe could have caused itself ? sounds reasonable ?

You've created a false dilemma. You've deliberately only given two answers where the only reasonable one is the one you prefer and neither one will lead to an honest answer because there is no answer right now.

excuse me ? that means, you believe things can pop up out of absolutely nothing ( which is the absence of any thing ? )

Isn't that the default creationist position in this arguement?

[Welsh cake]

Nope, its not. Since the universe most probably had a absolute beginning, it must have had a cause.

The problem here is causality and that you're arguing that god doesn't require a cause (you're a fan of Aristotle's work I take it?) which is special pleading bull-crap. You arrive at the conclusion the universe requires a cause through inductive reasoning, however though causality applies from our experience on Earth via observing the known cosmos it does not necessarily apply to the universe in its entirety. We don't know exactly how the current universe as we know it today formed; while that doesn't stop discussion it does however prevent us from asserting anything and leaves everything else open to speculation as we enter into the realm of theoretical physics; we've no concrete evidence only various theories (Big Bang) and other appealing hypothesises. We do know a good deal regarding the laws of thermodynamics in that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, merely changed which would suggest they may possibly be eternal, as unfathomable as that may be to you. You've not even glanced at string theory or other studies within cosmology and fallen headlong into the trap of making invalid causal loops and chains.

God however dwells in a timeless eternal dimension, without beginning, and without a end, and therefore does not need a cause.

And you know all of this, how exactly? You're just pulling stuff out of your hat right now. It would be far more intellectually honest for you to say "Without evidence, I don't know for certain".

In fact I can trump that - The Invisible Pink Unicorn dwells in a truly timeless eternal dimension that makes God look finite by comparison, for she alone is truly without beginning, and truly without a end, and therefore does not need a cause. Yeah. Go me.

[Minimalist]

No, because it makes more sense to believe,

Only to believers. And they can be conned endlessly.

[DR7164]

The Big Bang isn't evidence for anything because the big bang is just a theory. Just sayin

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The Big Bang isn't evidence for anything because the big bang is just a theory. Just sayin

Of course, a theory in scientitific terms means it has such enormous evidence in support of it that it is extremely unlikely that anything else could have possibly happened. Just like the theory of evolution, the theory of gravitation, the theory of a heliocentric solar system, the meteor impact dinosaur exintction theory, the moon-genesis collision theory (in which the moon was formed by the earth getting hit by a mars-sized planetoid), etc. etc. etc...

[NoGodaloud ?]

Nope, its not. Since the universe most probably had a absolute beginning, it must have had a cause.

The problem here is causality and that you're arguing that god doesn't require a cause (you're a fan of Aristotle's work I take it?) which is special pleading bull-crap.

Thats quit funny. Until the Big Bang theory was not proeminent, the scientific community was postulating a eternal universe, without beginning, and without cause. Nobody then had the idea to call this special pleading. Now, suddenly , saing, God was eternal, should be ?

You arrive at the conclusion the universe requires a cause through inductive reasoning, however though causality applies from our experience on Earth via observing the known cosmos it does not necessarily apply to the universe in its entirety.

Sure. YOu beleave the Universe had the quit strange ability to create itself ? How does that make sense to you ? i thought atheists use to consider themself more reasonable thinking than theists ?

We don't know exactly how the current universe as we know it today formed; while that doesn't stop discussion it does however prevent us from asserting anything and leaves everything else open to speculation as we enter into the realm of theoretical physics; we've no concrete evidence only various theories (Big Bang) and other appealing hypothesises.

So why avoid the idea of a cause of our universe, even at the cost of reason , if this is what makes most sense to believe ?

We do know a good deal regarding the laws of thermodynamics in that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, merely changed which would suggest they may possibly be eternal, as unfathomable as that may be to you.

Then you run into the problem of the second law of thermodynamics. But i give you a hint. The physical law got into place at creation, not beyond. At the beginning of the universe, these laws were not existing . They were created together with matter, space, and time.

You've not even glanced at string theory or other studies within cosmology and fallen headlong into the trap of making invalid causal loops and chains.

there is not much evidence for such theories. It would be far more intellectually honest for you to say "Without evidence, I don't know for certain".

The evidence of the Big Bang is not enough ?

In fact I can trump that - The Invisible Pink Unicorn dwells in a truly timeless eternal dimension that makes God look finite by comparison, for she alone is truly without beginning, and truly without a end, and therefore does not need a cause. Yeah. Go me.

the kalaam cosmological argument does not make any prediction of WHICH God might have created the universe. So to stick to a maccarroni monster with banana sauce does make perfectly sense, if you have other evidence for such being.

[downbeatplumb]

the kalaam cosmological argument does not make any prediction of WHICH God might have created the universe. So to stick to a maccarroni monster with banana sauce does make perfectly sense, if you have other evidence for such being.

Of course, unlike the mounds of evidence for your god.

No wait....