Big Bang Found

I have never understood this argument.Why does having a beginning point to a supernatural creator? Clouds have a beginning, and yet they form naturally. Rainbows have a beginning, yet they form naturally. Everything in nature that we see which has a beginning has a known or at least proposed natural process that produces it.So please explain why this argument makes any sense. 1. It could be a spontaneous formation out of something.2. The moving force does not need to be a supernatural deity.3. You could just be wrong.

For the biological sciences . . .First two years are split between lab work and course work. Last two years are mostly lab work with some TA'ing. At the end of 4 years you should have at least 3 peer reviewed publications based on the research you have done, and will be expected to defend those papers in front of a review panel of several PhD's in your field of work.

How do you go from "outside itself" to "supernatural deity"? No, it would simply become part of nature. At one time, the Earth and it's immediate surroundings were considered the entire extent of the natural world. Does this mean that the Andromeda galaxy is supernatural? No. If there is a process that creates universes that is as impersonal and non-sentient as the process that produces clouds, why wouldn't we call that a natural process?

Why can't that transcendent cause be a non-sentient process like the transcendent cause of rainbows or clouds?

At one time, the Earth was thought to be the complete expanse for the natural universe. When we discovered that nature operated outside of what we defined as the natural universe, did that make it supernatural? No. The Andromeda galaxy is not supernatural, even though it exists outside of what we once defined as Nature.The same would apply to a natural, non-sentient process that produces new universes. It would simply be added to what we consider Nature just as we have always done. This would make naturally occuring universes a deity, which they clearly aren't. The cause would become part of nature. That is how science has always worked. False. That would be a natural cause since it involves nature.

Then why can't we define the "natural world" as the universes and the non-sentient, mechanistic processes that produce universes?

If it does need a cause, how do you go from "needs a cause" to "a deity did it"?When has "a deity did it" ever turned out to be the right answer in cases where we did discover the cause for a phenomenon?

We use the scientific method to reconstruct the past using evidence we find in the present. In fact, it is done all of the time.

Using that as an analogy for the production of universes, if there are conditions under which universes can appear, then they just appear. No cause is needed other than the possibility that it can happen.

What they are saying is that given certain conditions, a certain outcome has a certain probability. If you think this is a valid definition of cause, then the cause of the universe shouldn't be a problem for you. If, as some claim, the instability of a vacuum (i.e. nothing) produces a probability that a universe will emerge, then you have your cause.