It plainly implies it, if you run the BB backwards you come to a point with no dimensions, ie nothing.
No, it doesn't imply any such thing. If you run it backwards you have all of the mass and energy of the universe condensed into a very small area.
Nowhere in the big bang theory does it say this came from nothingness. That's a common misunderstanding of apologists who don't know what they're talking about. The only people who think the universe came from nothing are the Christians and members of other Abrahamic faiths.
We can trace it back to an infinitely dense point. What happened before then (or if before even makes sense to say, given that time as we know it started then) is unknown.
No, no other major religion teaches that nothing material or other universe existed prior to the beginning. Almost all other religions teach that the universe was created out of some pre-existing material or pre-existing universe. Sometimes out of some preexisting chaos like the Babylonians, or that the universe is just an illusion and is in fact, some type of ultimately impersonal being, like Hinduism and many other irrational beliefs.
You're simply wrong. However, even if you were right, so what?
He was not part of the BB, He caused it and created it. And only the Bible out of all the religious books actually taught the three main characteristics of the BB theory 3500 years before science confirmed it. It teaches that the universe had a definite beginning, is expanding, and is running down energetically. No other religious book teaches all three characteristics. Of course, the human writers at the time did not understand completely what they were writing, but nevertheless it fits the science amazingly well. This is strong evidence that the Christian God is the creator of this universe and inspired His word to reveal it.
If he caused and created it, then he was part of it.
I've already asked you to show where the bible says the universe is expanding and headed towards heat death. You have failed to do so thus far.
And if you think the bible fits science amazingly well, you clearly have a very low understanding of science.
Exactly that is why it had to be a metaphysical/supernatural event.
Really? Ok, run me through the logic of why it
had to be supernatural.
So far, it looks like you're making a run of the mill argument from ignorance. How do you know there are no other alternatives? How did you go about proving the supernatural?
No, QM requires an interval of time to occur, but there was no interval of time at t=0.
We don't know the conditions that were present then, however we do know that classical physics could not possibly have applied due to the density of matter that we're talking about.
It's hard to wrap your head around temporal issues when we're talking about existence without time. However, quantum mechanics is very weird, especially when it comes to temporal issues.
Yes, but they are referring to a point at t>0, at t=0 there was no matter and energy. Most cosmologists agree that matter and energy did not come into existence until after t=0.
No, that's a misunderstanding. I suggest you read a science book and pay less attention to apologists with no scientific education.
Yes, there is, see above for just a small amount of the evidence. There are multiple other threads of evidence. Besides science and philosophical evidence there is also historical evidence.
Nothing you have presented so far serves as evidence. You can't use any of it to demonstrate there is a god. You said yourself you can't prove that a god exists. If you have so much evidence, then why can't it be proven?
Sometimes popularity is correct. Most people believe that the earth is round, and that is correct. And combined with all the other evidence referenced above, makes it very likely that He exists. Hinduism has serious problems none of its writings teach anything that has been scientifically confirmed about the origin of the universe. For one thing it teaches an eternal universe which has been basically refuted by science. Also, it teaches that ultimately the origin of the universe is impersonal so there cannot be any purposes in the universe but science has confirmed that purposes exist in the universe, ie eyes are for seeing, ears are for hearing, and etc.
Sure, sometimes popular ideas are correct. However the fact they are popular has no bearing whatsoever on their truth value. So no, the fact a lot of people believe it doesn't make it any more likely that he exists at all.
In fact, given the ridiculous amount of conflicting opinions about what god is that does serve as evidence that "god" is something that person is imagining. If the same being was giving a consistent message to everyone, then there would be far less disparity in regards to a basic question of "what does god want?" or "what is god?"
And actually, the universe as we know it will exist eternally, however in its final condition it will be at a maximum state of entropy. The universe will still be here, it'll just be cold and dark.
Lastly, the "eyes are for seeing, ears are for hearing, therefore the universe has purpose" argument is laughably bad. Just because something does something, doesn't mean god created it with a specific purpose.
I have seen above, and your arguments aren't getting any better.
Yes, but the biblical evidence some of which is mentioned above points to the Christian God existing 13.8 bya. He knew what happened at the BB. Long before Hinduism.
The actual historical evidence leads us to believe that Yahweh was worshipped as a regional god in the polytheistic Canaanite pantheon starting somewhere roughly around 1,200BC - 1,000BC, give or take. Over time the Israelites became Monotheistic and the Yahweh that most people would recognize today came about around the time of the Babylonian Exile.
The reality is, the god of Judaism isn't nearly as old as the Pyramids are. That can be demonstrated. It's also plenty of reason to believe that humans invented him, and not the other way around.
The universe is a diversity within a unity which reflects the characteristics of its cause just like any artistic creation, ie the Triune Christian God. The Hindu god is a pure unity, ie the One. Therefore it is unlikely to have been the cause of this universe.
I don't see how either one makes it less likely or more likely that the god in question created the universe.
Exactly, that is my point, that is why the universe and life could only have been created by a conscious personal Being. Purpose exists in the universe, ie the purpose of eyes is for seeing and ears' purpose is to hear and etc.
You're asserting that because something happens to work that it was purposefully designed to do a task. There's simply no reason to believe that.
Let me turn around your example and put it another way... What's the purpose of cancer cells in children? They very effectively reproduce and spread, often killing the child.
Would you say god created childhood leukemia with the purpose of killing children in agony, or would you call it a product of nature that just does what it does? So what makes you think the other naturally occurring mechanisms in our body which allow us to see and hear are any different, apart from one is negative and the others are positive?
They are all things our body does. You have not demonstrated an outside source is required to bestow purpose on our various body parts in order for them to do things.
The only purpose I'm aware of is the purpose we give ourselves. And frankly, that's the only purpose worth worrying about.
It is the only way to guarantee that you reach your maximum potential. For example say some primitive human was transported to the future and found a car and decided cars are for sleeping in. But then the automaker finds him sleeping in the car and decides to tell him that cars can be driven 100 miles an hour and used to travel hundreds of miles so the primitive human can basically travel the world. Just imagine if he had never discovered the true purpose of a car his life would have been limited to just how far and fast he could travel on foot. So making your own purpose can be very limiting.
Except you haven't demonstrated that your example is analogous to the actual real world.
What happens if god doesn't actually exist? You could find yourself focusing on the purpose of some beat up old car, while people who have liberated themselves from that mindset will be focusing on the wonders of aircraft and spaceflight instead.
Yes, but according to Eisley and other historians of science they would have probably never have made those discoveries without believing in the Christian worldview. And modern science would probably never have come into existence if not for Christianity.
Nonsense. Those discoveries would have been made regardless. Even if you could make a plausible case that an atheist version of Isaac Newton wouldn't have created his laws of physics, somebody else would have figured it out.
If anything, Christianity has a long history of doing everything it can to stifle and prevent the progression of modern science. Right back from the days of Galileo up to modern day stem cell research.
No, most scientists agree that the laws of physics ARE an aspect of the universe. We just describe what those laws do.
Repeating the same wrong thing over and over again doesn't make it right. Pick up a science book sometime.
Yes, it does, because only intelligent personal beings can make things intelligible and orderly. Laws require a lawgiver, even Einstein said that. A naturally occurring universe is an impossibility as I demonstrated above.
Does god operate by certain laws? I would imagine you'd agree that god can't violate the laws of logic (for example he can't do things that are logically impossible), likewise I would imagine you'd agree it's impossible for god to be evil.
If so, who created those laws? It couldn't possibly be god because if the laws are self imposed then he could change those laws at will. There's nothing stopping him from saying he can now do things that are logically impossible, and committing unspeakable evil.
Therefore if the laws are self imposed, it's not impossible for him to do logically impossible things, or evil. He just decides to refrain from doing them. However, if those things are actually impossible for god to do, then that law must come from a higher source that god is subordinate to. What's that source?
Or, perhaps we go with a more reasonable and infinitely more justifiable solution that nature works the way that nature works. It's demonstrable that things can achieve natural order and symmetry without any intelligent interference, no god is required for that.
Either way, you haven't demonstrated that a naturally occurring universe is an impossibility. You've made the claim and backed it with some very dubious or outright fallacious arguments to back your case.
Yes, that is a possibility but as I state below, the most rational assumption given something that appears to be an objective reality when we look at it then there must be a correlation between the subject and the object which can most rationally be explained by a personal creator (a subject) creating objects.
There is literally no way to rationally make that connection without demonstrating that such a being even exists. You yourself have even stated that it's impossible to prove. Therefore you can't possibly call connecting everything to a being that can't even be demonstrated to exist rational at all. It's ludicrous.
Actually I can make a logical demonstration starting out with my own existence which is proven by Descartes statement "I think therefore I am". I will do it next post if you want me to.
Go for it
No, because you don't know if there is a correlation between what you are looking at and what is actually there. But Christians know there is a correlation as demonstrated above.
I have every good reason at my disposal to believe that I'm experiencing reality. Regardless, even if I am just a brain in a vat or living in the matrix, it doesn't matter. The world I experience right now is the only one I have access to, and will likely ever have access to. Therefore given the absence of evidence for the idea that this world isn't real, I am best served by living my life as if this is actual reality. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
As for Christians, you're in the same boat I am. If we are actually in the matrix you would also not know it. Your god, Jesus and everything to do with your religion is also a part of the matrix. You have no idea what would exist in the "real world" in that hypothetical scenario.
Simply believing that your god exists doesn't free you from that scenario if the world we experience isn't actually real. Your god would just be another aspect of a "false reality".
No, you need to logically demonstrate that that keyboard objectively exists, you cannot do that if God did not create this universe because there would be no subject-object correlation.
A universe created by Clyde the invisible universe creating dragon also contains objectively real keyboards. Without Clyde there's no subject-object correlation.
See, I can do it too. It doesn't make the argument any more valid by plugging in the name of any other hypothetical creator being.
Are you really trying to claim that without the existence of your particular god that my keyboard isn't really a keyboard? I have to give you points for coming up with a unique argument, but it's one of the worst I've ever had presented to me. It simply makes no sense at all.
