The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

But those things that will come into being will probably have a cause. The cure for cancer hasn't come into being yet but if it does (or when it does) it will probably be caused (discovered by scientists, or chemists, or whoever). This is a pretty consistent pattern if not a standard for the way things come to exist.

In what way does the usefulness of imaginary numbers as tools demonstrate that they are not "real"? Does he? Are you sure? Not what I have heard him say. It is certainly not realistic in that the model is very simplifed, but that is not the point... How do you know? Explain to me the role of imaginary numbers in quantum mechanics demonstrating that they are just a tool, and not a fundemental property of our universe.You might find this reference helpfulComplex Numbers, Quantum Mechanics and the Beginning of Time
G.W. Gibbons, H.J. Pohle
Nucl.Phys. B410 (1993) 117-142
available as preprint here

quote:

---

But those things that will come into being will probably have a cause.

---

I don't think you really mean this. Probably is not certainly. By using the word "probably" you are acknowledging doubt, and so you are acknowledging the unsoundness of any argument that includes "everything that exists has a cause" as a premise.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

You find a place I've used the word "explosion" in a positive context related to the Big Bang and I will give 100 to the charity of your choice Now, where's that list of posts and the edit button...

The dictionary is only a starting place for definitions, as evidenced by the fact that different dictionaries have different definitions. Again, this is equivocation. A loud bang is "caused" by prior interaction of matter and energy. Since no matter or energy existed prior to the origin of the universe, any definition of a "cause" of that matter coming into being is essentially a different use of the word.

There are events that do not appearently have causes. QM describes a number of them.

All the responses I'm hearing are just picking at words, and examples that don't negate that the Big Bang has a beginning point...so, maybe I can get a clearer understanding if someone will just answer yes and no question and explain why.Did the Big Bang have a beginning? Yes or No?And the loud bang was probably caused by someone lighting a firework or some other explosive agent. key word: someonesome being set the universe into motion.And apologize. my language may be equivocal, unintentionally, because I'm a mere dabbler in this issue, i don't have a degree to back up my assertions but I'm trying to employ simple logic...If the universe has a beginning then how did that beginning come to be?

quote:

---

If the universe has a beginning then how did that beginning come to be?

---

Who knows? Maybe it just did.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

it just did? from nothing? how can everything come from nothing?

quote:

---

how can everything come from nothing?

---

If the universe has no cause, then this question cannot be answered. "How can" implies a cause.Let me ask a different question: why couldn't the universe have no cause?

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

I'm not going to reinforce the points Posit was putting forward, but I will point out an issue with your logic in that it goes from 'the universe had a cause' to 'it was caused by a being' with no reason; it appears to be non sequitur.If the universe had a cause, it could be some entity that can't be described as being a 'being'. That is, it is not some kind of sentience or intelligence. It could be some kind of reality envisioned by M-Theory with colliding 11 dimensional objects being the 'cause' of our 4 dimensional space-time. It might be that this underlying reality has no 'beginning' or 'cause' or perhaps it does, I don't know. I have enough difficulty getting my head around a universe with four dimensions let alone an 11 dimensional hyper-reality.IANAC, YMMV

Because the universe can't come from nothing. Can you explain how this would be possible? Can any scientific theory how the whole universe could come from nothing?

I think Ockham's Razor can be applied here as a scientific principle to not multiply causes beyond what's necessary to explain the effect. One being or intelligent creator is sufficient to explain how the universe came to exist.

An infinite intelligent deity always represents more unneccesary entities than any finite number of natural laws or natural phenomena. Don't get caught up on that word "one". One infinity is always more than any finite amount.

What you call "picking at words" isn't just playing games with semantics. Its an attempt to point out that the universe "having a cause" and events within the universe "having a cause" are fundamentally different concepts. Again, how do you define beginning? Everyday notions of the word fail when applied to the universe as a whole. I would agree that present evidence indicates that the Big Bang occurred, although this has its own definitional issues. The word "begin" is irreconcilably self-referential when applied to the beginning of time itself. Self-reference is a good way to guarantee logical paradoxes.