captainbryce
Active Member
I've already said that I was not intending to make an "argument" regarding the term supernatural. I am simply explaining to you what it means, and why (based on said definition) attempting to refute it with known science is futile.The word supernatural is a placeholder for things people don't understand. It's not an actual logically defined argument. It's like using the word "magic" for a missing variable in an argument.
That is the point I am making.You can link to laws if you want- the laws of physics break down at the moment of the Big Bang, and become no longer applicable, which is why nobody yet has an explanation.
It's not ME who says that, it's most astrophysicists who say that!So for you to say that the universe can't possibly have non-causal properties
It wasn't intended to be an argument. I am not attempting to prove anything to you. I'm simply explaining why (according to known science) the idea that the universe has a non-causal beginning is not logical, nor consistent with known science. The scientific explanation for how/why a supernatural entity can have a non-causal beginning is not required (because it's supernatural). But a scientific explanation for a natural phenomenon (e.g., The Big Bang) is required, otherwise it becomes MAGIC!but a supernatural being can have non-causal properties, is a non-argument.
No it isn't. It was an event! The effects of the Big Bang are the resulting continuation of it. But the Big Bang is not still happening! It happened (past test) 14 billion years ago.The Big Bang is more than an event- it is a continuation.
Correct, the Big Bang WAS the starting point of such expansion.Spacetime continues to expand, which can be observed. The Big Bang itself is merely the starting point of such expansion.
No, there are observations that support the theory that a Big Bang happened. And there are multiple, competing theories as to how it happened. But there is no theory that explains WHY it happened that is consistent with our understanding of physics.So like gravity, there are facts of observation, and a theory to explain it.
And pointing this fact out misses the point that the theory fails to answer the most basic question of "why it happened in the first place".Saying that it's "only a theory" misses the point that a theory is the highest level of certainty in science for such a complex thing.