Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

Heh, a little off there.1) It's "brane", not "membrane"
2) Brane theory is simply a way to explain why the big bang occured, not to replace it. There is little doubt in science that the big bang occurred; we can even use telescopes to look back in time toward the big bang. The big bang theory allowed us to predict the cosmic microwave background radiation and its distrubution well before it was discovered. Etc. Observations of the universe just doesn't make sense without it.One can say certainly say that God created the big bang, but to deny the big bang without coming up with an alternative explanation for all extant astronomical observations (apart from "God wanted to trick us into thinking that the big bang occurred!"), is irresponsible.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Again, by definition, there must be a cause!

---

Not when you're talking about the fundamentals of the universe. You're arguing for a universe with no absolute base - some kind of infinite levels of depth worth of physics.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Nothing caused God. God has always been.

---

Ok. To sum up:1) We're not supposed to believe in a basic set of fundamental rules which "just are". However
2) We *are* supposed to believe in an infinitely more complex - to the point of sentience - being that "just is".Thank you for clearing that up.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Sorry to bother, General, but can I get a response on this post? Is my perception of your stance correct? Does this actually seem reasonable to you (and others)?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

We are to believe in a basic set of fundamental rules which "just are" because that is how God set them up.

---

No, that would be a cause: God causing the rules to exist. I'm stating that, from your stance, we're not supposed to believe in a basic set of rules that "just are" - I.e., without a cause, but just as a fundamental basis of reality.So, once again, if I'm understanding you correctly:1) We're not supposed to believe in a small, basic set of rules that "just are" (i.e., without a cause)
2) We *are* supposed to believe in an infinitely more complex (to the point of being sentient) being that "just is" (i.e., without a cause)How on earth does this seem like a logical argument to you?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

What is illogical about it?

---

You have to ask what is illogical about arguing that quantum fluctuations can't "just exist" and that they must have a cause, but then arguing that God "just exists" and doesn't have a cause?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."