The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

two concise models of the Big Bang:1) the standard theory can be represented by a cone with a sharp edge, a beginning point.2) another model proposed by Stephen Hawking is like a cone except it doesn't come to a point but rather is rounded (looks like a badminton birdie )and has no mathematical singularity.the problem with Hawking's theory which is an attempt to erase the singularity and have a universe that has always been around is that he uses imaginary numbers and not real ones. So now there are two finite universes with no explanation of how the beginning point even came to exist.Because of this singularity (that it has a beginning point)in both models one must consider the kalam argument: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.So science can account for everything after the proposed beginning but the Big Bang fails to adhere to a materialistic, finite universe. Even the notion of the Big Bang is not scientific.

except that when imaginary numbers are used, as computational devices, to grease the equations and get the result the mathematicion wants. Hawking himself recognizes that this is not a realistic description of the universe or its origin, just a mathematical way modeling the universe so a singularity doesn't appear. (William Craig, Ph.D, Th.D)the idea of imaginary numbers, and infinity, is just conceptual, but not not descriptive of what can happen in the real world.if there is singularity present then there is no naturalistic explanation to account for an eternity of nothingness before the "expansion", something had to bring the universe into existence and that something (i.e. God) must be uncaused, timeless, personal being with free will, and enormous power.This message has been edited by CCXC, 03-29-2006 10:15 AM

be·gin
. To come into being: when life (or universe ) began.I'll go with the dictionary on the definition.If something comes into being then it must have a cause, how is it rational to assume otherwise? if a you hear a loud bang then something probably caused it. it wouldn't make sense to say that the bang came from nothing. if it is necessary for their to be a cause of the small bang then it is necessary for their to be a cause for the Big Bang. quite inescapable.

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.

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?

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

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.