5 Questions...

I hope you will not find my reply too unsatisfactory. I haven't contributed to the forum before so I thought I would address a couple of issues your questions raise.1. Explain the origin of all matter in the universe, and don't use the Big Bang. That is only what dispersed it.I don't think you should answer a question which seeks to restrict your response in this way. One may as well ask, "Explain who Christ was, but don't mention God, He's just a metaphor."Of course, there are cosmological theories as explained in other posts, but if neither you nor your questioner are experts in the field, you may find the debate sterile.If you were questoning your creationist friend on the doctrine of the trinity (if they are trinitarian), would it be fair to expect them to be able to parse obscure hebrew verbs, interpret the rather difficult greek paleography of some fragments of John, balance historical interpretations of the Talmud or the Septuagint, or tackle the intricacies of the council of Nicea? And were you to consult experts, would the debate between you be fruitful or just a tennis match of quotations - with all the problems of misunderstanding and misquotation that would ensue?In such we rely on authority - the teaching of pastor or church in theological matters, the teaching of scientists in scientific. Do not be abashed to say "The science is too difficult for me". There can be no harm in the position that we respect and believe the teachings and systematics of scientists and theologians alike because we can see the application of their work revealing palpable truth in other areas.But perhaps the other questions are more fruitful for non-specialist debate, if not in their ecological and biological details, then in their principles.2. Explain how a venus fly-trap evolved. "The trap required an idea."This type of question presupposes a direction (in both senses) to the development of the fly-trap. By direction in both senses, I mean: directed by someone/thing and leading towards some state already defined as an end point before it is actually reached. Scientists of all varieties are prone to the latter use.The confusion is simply because we take an anthropocentric view of the created world (or uncreated, if you prefer) and assume that means and ends are related as we would relate them.I like the polar bear example: "the purpose of the bear's white fur is to camouflage it" is a handy anthropocentric shorthand for "bears with white fur survive when bears with coloured fur do not."So the purpose of the fly-trap is to trap flies? No - the fly-trap just survives better.

It's interesting that your question is specifically aimed at scientists - "What was before the Big Bang?" But phrase it another way - "What was before the creation of the universe?" - and this has been a source of wonder and deep discussion for theologians, too. It troubled and occupied the attention of some of the earliest doctors of the church and has continued to be subject of Christian thought. Not that it troubled their faith - that's not the point I'm making - it roubled them philosophically. They weren't content just to shrug their shoulders and say "supernatural." They wanted to understand God and His purpose - not just to follow blindly.And their conclusion was the same as that given by modern physics. Let me emphasise that - the conclusion of theologians over thousands of years has been the same as that of the modern physicists you are questioning.The difficulty is in the word "before". The "big bang", the "act of creation" - whether we talk naturalistically or in terms of God's act of creation - is the beginning of time. There is no "before" because "before" is a word describing time succession. But the creation of the universe is the point you cannot go beyond. There is not "before" it.To say "BEFORE" the beginning of time is like saying "NORTH of the north pole."Do bear in mind, it is not wise to ASSUME a supernatural agency for that which cannot be explained. The spread and cause of diseases was a mystery beyond understanding for many thousands of years. Man had neither the tools or concepts to attempt a consistent and thorough explanation, though there were some insights and some remarkably accurate, if ill-supported, guesses.How much unmitigated suffering would the world have known if Christian and atheist scientists alike had simply said "We don't know, perhaps we cannot know. It must just be supernatural?"For the Christian, the Big Bang, whether it is a true account or just our first quantum fumbling towards an answer, need not in any way diminish the wonder of God's creative spirit.

I don't want to labour the point, but I do think you are revealing the root of two very intersting issues.You still say "you always have to conceive of what was before that" and "There has to be something that just existed without anything else before it."But look, you're still using that word "before." My point was that whether one is Christian or atheist, the term is meaningless when applied to the creation of time. Similarly you use the word "always" - another term which can only have meaning in time.The Scottish Liturgy uses the formulation "He is the Word existing beyond Time, both source and final purpose." This preserves the infinite nature of God which, by use of time-scoped words you were inadvertently mitigating.But there is another interesting philosophical nugget in this. In what sense can "God" have an identity without any contrasting thing that is "not God"?So let me pose an impish paradox: did God create the universe in order to exist?