Let's give it a try shall we?
Buz writes:
The above ontological example...
Refers to a previously given example that tries to explain the way things are.
Buz writes:
...models the zero premise to BB theory.
The example Buz refers to is a model including and proceeding from the singularity of the Big Bang.
Buz writes:
It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from...
The way this model tries to explain the way things are is by using (assuming) the relative uniformity (of something), I think he forgot some words here. That made the singularity happen.
Buz writes:
...the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order...
This is basically Buz's understanding of the standard Big Bang model that he butchered. So, in it's place we will simply put "Big Bang model".
Buz writes:
more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
Buz says it is more evidence for god than it is for "not god" basically.
Which leaves us with this:
What Buz menat to writes:
The previously mentioned example that tries to explain the way things are is the standard model of Big Bang theory. However, it is
assuming the relative uniformity of (something, again some forgotten words). The standard Big Bang model, even if this were the case, is actually evidence of god, not an argument against him.
Is this kinda correct, Buz?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
