So the Big bang is bullshit? Do you consider yourself more intelligent than Stephen Hawking, not to mention virtually every other Astronomer/Astrophysicist?

There are a couple theories that go beyond the big bang.... string theory and M-theory come to mind..

The big bang theory is not a viable logical theory for the beginning of everything. Here is why I say this.  The theory summarized is this. At the center of the universe a ball of mass formed and then exploded into the universe as we know it.  Problem, where did the mass come from. To say that it formed would be the same as to say that if you took a glass ball and vacuumed all air and matter out of it then given enough time a new mass would form in the middle of it and that mass would in time explode and create a universe.

Ya that makes a lot of since.

Yes but to say that there is anything that created life would then make the idea of atheism obsolete. So really the first logical thing to do would be to use this simple argument to make that obsolete. I don’t have to prove that one God is the real God if your argument is that there is no God then I simply have to bring doubt to that argument.

"Let's start with "whether or not one believes" If you believe there is a god, that is your prerogative. But, if you claim there is a god, then you have the burden of presenting evidence of your god. "

The fact that we don't YET have perfect scientific answers to the start of the universe doesn't mean Goddunnit.  People used to think that the reason the sun rose and set, that floods happened, that diseases came, that the stars hung in the sky etc etc was God(s)dunnit. But after only a few hundred years of dedicated enquiry by really only a few thousand people it's provable and predictable that these are natural phenomena.

Ideas like the big bang are just as counter-intuitive to us at this point in history as it would have been in previous times that mixing chemicals makes new materials, or that people could speak through wires, or that banging some atoms together would cause an explosion.  Let go of your fears in the unknown and read up some popular science material like Hawking and Dawkins.

 “Let go of your fears in the unknown and read up some popular science material like Hawking and Dawkins.” sorry dont have fears of the unknown ... everything i see shows that there must be some super intelligent behind this. its simple to complicated for random chance and luck. the complexity of the human eye to the complex workings of a single bacteria they are just to complex for random chance and luck.  a side note. why would a single celled organism want to combine with another to make a multiple celled one???

''sorry dont have fears of the unknown''

Then sorry you must just be lazy or have learning difficulites.  Answers to questions of 'complexity' in the eye or in bacteria are available in any good bookshop or library uner 'Biology'.  The evidence and answers are too involved to get into on a web forum.  Suggest you try Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.  Or are you afraid of what you may learn?

Let me assume that you mean the universe. The universe always existed.

no you misunderstand what im saying ... i understand the complexity of the eye and of the bacteria im more asking why and how would that have developed by random chance. why would a cell that’s perfectly comfortable working on its own. want to take on the problem of another cell. and why would they desire this connection so much that they would deny control and become a cell in the entirety of a organisms.

evolution....in the beginning there was matter unbound expanding across the vastness of space. that matter randomly connected (to say it is anything but random would say that there is a sort of logic behind it, something controlling it, and that gets really close to intelligent design don’t you think) with other matter to create worlds and on those life. (were not even going to get into the question of where the spark of life came from.) life started as single celled bacteria and in time randomly connected with and developed into more complex life forms until it came to the world as we know it today where it stopped. (we have seen no macroevolution in recorded history) (of course this dose bring up the problem of why this would have happened... each thing wanted to better it self???? if that’s the case how many things could still better there selves by continuing in this and if they can better themselves why are they not... or did they just forget how????) like is said this all make very little to no since to me and requires MUCH MORE FAITH THEN I HAVE !!!!!!!

"Wouldn't God be much, much more complex than an eye or a cell? So wouldn't something have had to have designed God then by your logic?"wow mattshizzle your being quite forgetful and digging quite a bit aren’t you...remember the point of this debate... the beginning and my opening statement.

"something most have existed for all time. " God or the universe"

thanks...so do you have a better way to put it??? i would have fun picking at that one too ... im really let down by the Christians on this website... almost no good argument out there. sad really. im worked and am working out my own faith and they are ... well it seams they have not gotten past what mommies and daddies told them. the worst thing to ever happen to Christianity is Christians.

Gravity- a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10³⁹ times weaker than the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gravity what in this definition would say that this law would cause things to combine together to form something?????  Pressure- : the application of force to something by something else in direct contact with ita : the action of a force against an opposing force b : the force or thrust exerted over a surface divided by its area: the pressure exerted in every direction by the weight of the atmospherehttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pressure and this????  Here let me help you … the only way gravity would have done something is a larger mass (that we still don’t know where the mass come from to begin with ) pulled smaller masses to it… how ever this would cause one to strike the other… this causes destruction not creation…. Or pressure… the pressure of one thing against the other causes things to break apart once again distraction not creation…. Use better laws next time. Thanks.  Yes what you said was true I’m not stupid I know that everything has building blocks … I have said that earlier on this forum … and if I did not I’m saying it now… however the point still reminds about random; that the connection of the building blocks was random and that a large amount of time is needed for the one that worked to grow to a controlling amount… and you still did not say anything as to why these would change to something more completed. (by the way congratulations you used servile of the fittest. Good law… its logical and founded on something)  (Sadly you totally destroy the creatable things that you say by not know what the difference between microevolution is and macroevolution is…. ) (Once again let me help you)  Microevolution. - comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Microevolution. Sound like what you where talking about there????  “Eg the rapid lizard adaptation of the University of California at Davis experiment in the Exumas. There's a separate, new species of mosquito now in the London underground system” The adaptation of a species …  Macroevolution- evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/macroevolution what I was talking about … the formation of a new species.  And just to clear up any confusion….  Adaptation- : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environmenthttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/adaptation formationan act of giving form or shape to something or of taking formhttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/formationformto take form : come into existence http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/formeddevelopmentthe act, process, or result of developing <development of new ideas>

Actually, the theory states that the universe itself (time and space) that was compressed into an incredibly small point. All of space was very dense with energy. I suppose that technically it was in the center of itself.

It probably doesn't make much "since" because you don't have enough information about the theory.

-Triften 

this would be easier to read if you used quotes.

then please tell me how to do quotes in an easier way. every time i start a new paragraph it takes away the break when i go to post it. (i don’t have the time right now to mess around with this to get it to do what i want it to do)

Time would have began then as well. Under the big bang theory, there was no time before the big bang.

Your claim that there is not "enough" time is argument by incredulity.

 ----

Macroevolution is a strawman term. To claim that creatures adapt but can't change too much is like saying that you can't walk a mile because each step is so small. How many changes are necessary to go from one item to another? No one expects a rat to be born with wings, but if you take a look at flying squirrels and compare them with bats, you could come up with a few possible intermediate steps to go from one to the next.

----

One more thing, no one HAS to take one stance or the other on the age of the universe. People are allowed to say "I don't know."

-Triften 

 I have to question you 'looking' for this evidence. You are merely holding to your own presupposition and attempting to support that stance without considering evidence that contradicts your current premise. Inflation Theory is one that supports an eternal universe. Inflation Theory helps resolve many issues with the big bang and with it also supports the idea of a universe with no beginning. Moreover it is not the only theory of a universe without a beginning. 

 Using your logic, aslong as such theories with a high degree of probability exist then it gives credibility to an atheistic worldview. 

As I see it, all possibilities lead to the conclusion that something must have "always existed". From there, we develop three major theories: 1) infinite causality, 2) intelligent creation, 3) Big Bang and evolution; and with your permission I will take on all three of them.

1) infinite causality - quite obvious: everything has a cause that precedes it, and that goes on in the past to infinite; the problem always remains, in this case, what has happened to all those gazillion years before us, and what will happen to the same after us? This hypotheses is especially accepted amongst mathematicians, since working with infinite series or graphs is part of the job description

2) intelligent creation - someone that has the generic name "God", and that is necessarily a sentient, intelligent being, has generated and organized everything; that "God" is presumed to have "always existed"; the only problem is what did this "God" do before generating the Universe? Why did it generate the Universe? etc. - typical hypotheses for theists and theologians

3) Big Bang+evolution - also involves something that has "always existed", yet it doesn't define it in terms understandable by a simple, untrained human mind, generically called "singularity"; it expanded vey quickly (check definition of "explosion&quot and, through a natural process, evolved into today's Universe; life evolved through a natural proces; its lato sensu hypotheses make time and space infinite, thus allowing the possibility of some advanced concepts, like Dirac's Ocean; many consider falsely that the Big Bang doesn't involve something "always existing" (thus, "seekingfacts", you are wrong in your last sentence), and "always existing" means here that whatever was the state of the singularity before the Big Bang, we do not know and we will possibly never know; also, this hypotheses, again taken lato sensu, doesn't necessarily rule out other possible entities than our singularity, thus doesn't rule out the possibility of "other universes"

Please note that 1 and 3 are not mutually exclusive (3 being more like "the physical way 1 happened&quot, as are 1 and 2, or 2 and 3.

seekingfact,

seeking facts?

Here are some facts taht you may have been seeking;

Common Cosmological Misconceptions

todangst would have discovere dthis eventually and replied, and since this is a subject he knows about, I figured I'd post what he's written in the past.

Yes, this is a subject we've dealt with numerous times in the past.  As non-believers, we get used to answering the same questions from people who think their challenge is new.  We realize that theists don't realize this, but sometimes it gets under our skin.  We're not perfect; we're human, all too human, perhaps. 

 Shaun