The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

Ah, a classic modus ponens argument:P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore the universe has a cause.I'll pick at a few points.The first step is to establish the argument as deductively valid. The difference between "begins" in premise 1 and "began" in premise 2 makes this a problem. One is present-tense; the other is past tense. Saying that something is presently universally true does not imply that it always has been universally true. I'll allow, however, that it can probably be patched.A bigger problem is that the argument contains one of two fallacies: either circular reasoning or equivocation.Assume first that the word "begin" is defined to mean "to come into existence from nothing". Then I submit that the only thing that has ever done this is the universe. Everything since has simply been a rearrangement of already-existing matter, not a "beginning" of new matter from nothing. So since the one and only thing that has "come into existence from nothing" is the universe, the sole piece of evidence that could be used in support of P1 is stated as the conclusion. Hence circular reasoning.On the other hand, assume "begin" is defined in some other way, so that events other than the advent of the universe fit the definition in P1. Then I submit that P2 commits the fallacy of equivocation. Whatever the definition used in P1 must be changed to include as an essential aspect "to come into existence from nothing" in P2.Kalam is an interesting argument, though some of its infinity arguments contain some rather glaring mathematical errors.

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.

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.

I'll give it a shot, although cavediver is better qualified to answer than I am.First, neutrinos aren't "attached" to electrons. They're just a similar type of particle. The biggest difference is that electrons have an electromagnetic charge, whereas neutrinos do not. This is why neutrinos so rarely interact with other matter, passing right through the Earth most of the time.Your idea of space sort of sounds like the "luminiferous ether" that was popular at the end of the 19th century. It was known at the time that light behaved like a wave; common sense held that for waves to exist there must be a medium through which they propagate. Ocean waves propagate through water, after all, and sound waves propagate through air. Therefore a medium that permeates space was postulated, through which light propagates, and was coined the "luminiferous ether".Attempts to measure this ether failed, however, the most famous being the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that light moves at the same speed in all directions, even while the Earth itself was rotating on its axis and revolving around the Sun. Therefore something was flawed with the notion of a fixed ether, since a rotating and revolving Earth could hardly be stationary relative to the ether.The Theory of Relativity pretty much did away with the idea of an ether. In fact, it did away with the notion of movement through space entirely. Instead, movement is only defined by a change of position relative to something else. Saying that a single object is "moving through space" is meaningless; movement only has meaning in reference to other objects.This message has been edited by Posit, 03-31-2006 01:14 AM

It's because neutrons interact via the strong force, and neutrinos do not. Neutrons are also way more massive.