: It's quite simplistic really. First we have to take into : account, one theory and a law of nature: The law of conservation and : the "Big Bang" theory. Once you take these to things into account, : the question arises, how did all this matter come into being? : Well, either it was always here or it was created. In saying matter has : always been here, we go arwy from the Big Bang theory. In saying : that it was created in this massive explosion that started : the Universe, we go awry from the Law of Conservation. : Therefor, if the Big Bang theory is correct, then it is : in fact, a proof of the existance of something beyond : our natural laws. Something had to "Create." : Now, is that "Somthing" the traditional Judo-Cristian "God"? : Well, i don't know for sure about that. But it was "Something" that : operated outside our natural laws. Hence, "supernatural".

: Please post your comments,

: thanks, : Hyperiongate. ************************ You're right. And I am not a physicist, but I know a little. No one can begin to postulate a universe before the big bang (before is inaccurate because there is no time before the big bang - time is a dimention created as a result of the big bang). Thus, a universe without dimensions isn't really a universe at all, and any/all physicall laws would not apply. Not even conservation laws. Not even causual laws (the cause and effect relationship we observe in the universe). If the law of causality were not in effect, the universe coming into existence by itself is plausible (in fact more plausible than postulating that a God came into existence, and then created the universe).

One must remember, physical laws by human classification are human constructs. These laws are not infallible. They have just been proven with such certainty by experimentation that they can be considered true ie. more experimental replication means more accurate results. Of course when comparing it to some event like the big bang, we can allow some possible errors. If our science was ever capable of creating a mechanism for the big bang, then it could not be called supernatural.

Also, as Phil said, it's possible that the universe could have occured in cycles of big bang (expands and collapses cyclically) and the universe is not a closed system.

And as you pointed out, this "cause" of the big bang does not imply christianity. It might just be some other undiscovered physical phenomenon.

P.S. By now it's pathetically clear that physics isn't my subject. Aw well. Gave it me best shot!

• RE: Logically disprove? Disprove what? - Ader - March 16, 2000 - 02:13 UTC
  • RE: RE: Logically disprove? Disprove what? - tomswintermail@yahoo.com - May 11, 2000 - 20:59 UTC