Does the Big Bang suggest a creator?

Hi, Ned.I was thinking mainly of something appearing in our already existing universe without cause.If we are discussing the universe itself, then I suppose a better phrasing (using colloquial language) is to ask "why" the universe exists -- by "why" I don't mean a telelogical reason for the universe exists, but the explanation for the fact that the universe exists. I can imagine that the universe exists for no reason at all -- no explanation for the universe, it simply exists. (Of course, that might not be correct -- there may be an explanation for its existence -- I am simply trying to explain to robin that I find no problems with this idea.)

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

That's different, and I suspect that whatever is appearing is not without cause. We just don't know what the cause is.

But evos still reject the whole concept of ID a priori despite the fact that things like the Big Bang do indeed strongly indicate a Creator.

Hi, randman.a priori: before analysis or considerationTo encounter the idea and subsequently to reject it--even to speedily reject it--is not to "reject the whole concept of ID a priori."ID has been considered and analyzed at great length here and elsewhere.The only a priori response to ID that I can identify is the eager acceptance of it by those who feel it works as a proof of God's existence without even acquiring the knowledge required to analyze it.

Perhaps the cause is in one universe, and the effect is in (or creates) another.

The question I have is, is there any reason to prefer one option over the other?

quote:

---

(1)Either the universe--in some form--has always existed or (2) it was created by a Being that has existed forever

​

The question I have is, is there any reason to prefer one option over the other?

---

There is no need to choose. We can wait until more evidence is available. Better to accept it as an unresolved question than to jump to conclusions not supported by the evidence.

As far as I understand it, right at the moment of the big bang all we know is it was really hot and very, very weird. Beyond that who knows? It is dishonest to try and hold any notion we might conceive as actual fact. All the big bang hypothesis shows is things were hot and weird. Inferring a creator from that is just wishful thinking.

My wife says I was the same way in my own youth Though I agree with you, ohnhai, I do sympathize with those who chafe at the limits of knowledge and understanding.

I was just wondering which explanation was more plausible or whether they were equally plausible.

cavediver, as you seem to be a physics expert (or at least I get that impression) how do we define that which is not of this universe... (I assume that is what we really mean by "nothing")....Could we say that the set A is defined by our universe and all events that have ever occurred in our universe (from t=0). "Nothing" would then either be the set "not A" or an element in the set "not A".Sound somewhat reasonable?

That is of course, from the persepctive of the universe.One of the ways Steven Hawkings was able to clear up some of the mathatmatics is to introduce 'imaginary time'.

If that 'something' is not intelligent, did not have a specific purpose in mind, why call it god?

At this point, the best answer would be 'I don't know', and continue to look for the answer.

I agree. But if that something is intellegent and purposefull, is it a GOD?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion