Summations Only

I'm curious for your response to Son: He/she showed (with maths) Message 33 that there does not need to be a designer.Could you show where his/her maths is wrong? This seems to unconnected with you assertation That is to say, Davies says nothing of the sort. Again, this assertion does not follow from what Davies wrote.Davies said as time did not exist at his specified point it is inappropriate to think of causality. That's all he said. You are deciding this means more than he is saying. Do you know what a 'quote mine' is? I assure you everyone here does. The prediction of a Designer theory is based on religion.

My prediction is that this thread will die when either Cavediver arrives or the OP addresses Son's post.I smell someone not expecting the expertise this site attracts.

This is special pleading.You say in Message 49 that you and Davies both agree. So Davies says speculation is out of place but here you are speculating a cause. Davies states in this part of his book that there is no causative agency.You say there is one: your god who does not obey the laws of physics.So you claim Davies is agreeing with you (when he is not). You then go on to do the very thing he claims is inappropriate.You are in direct opposition to what you wrote Davies states.Therefor you cannot use Message 49 to support your points.What you are doing is saying is, in essence "look at how I think the laws of physics make my god the only answer to the question about the origin of the big bang, but for this to work my god must break these laws of physics"This is the logical fallacy called 'special pleading' with a liberal dose of 'god of the gaps'.You need to do better than quote mining (and getting it wrong) and logical fallacies to get any traction for your ideas here.

No it isn't. It's called cognitive dissonace and PaulK is not guilty of it in this situation.He caught you in a contradiction.

No doubt.The kind of people I turn to answers for are people who start by saying: "I'm no scientist, but...."

The position of the OP relies only on special pleading and an a priori assumption.It is stated that everything needs a cause: except, except, the OPs god who is assumed to exist and break causality in a way that was ruled impossible at the outset.This means the rationale used to imply the OPs god's existence is cast aside when it has served it's purpose.And of course, the myriad of quote mines and leaps of faith described above.If the aim was to show that the big bang is compatible with the xian god I'm left with thought that any universe is compatible with a creator that can do anything.If the aim was show that the evidence supports the OP's god then I remain unpersuaded.