I will now prove atheists are illogical!

Believe? Either it happened or it didn't. The evidence shows that it did, but it's possible that it is all wrong. Atheists don't "believe" in the Big Bang but accept it as the most credible theory until something else disproves it or perhaps sheds more light on it. On the other hand, many of the religious believe that some being, who was not created, created everything and that the book about that creation is unchangeable, irrefutable evidence.

 

Where have any of us said that? We specifically DO NOT KNOW what came prior to the Big Bang.

We can't make repeat the Big Bang in a lab because we don't have access to enough energy to do it. The largest manmade release of energy was the Tsar Bomba at 2.1 X 10 to the 17th power Joules (210,000,000,000,000,000 joules).

The Big Bang released 3.0 X 10 to the 69th power joules (3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules).

Now, where exactly are scientists supposed to get that much energy?

More importantly, where has anyone claimed of making something out of nothing execpt for you?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Now go play along.

 

To be fair, much of Quantum foam hasn't even reached theory level verifiability yet.

 

Eh, I would go that far.

Particles pop in and out of existence, coming from nothing.

 

The coming from nothing part has yet to be quantifiably proven. It could be a trick of quantum entanglement or they may be coming from another yet-undiscovered dimension/universe.

For that matter, it could be a monitoring error.

 

There is no evidence to suggest such.

 

There isn't very much evidence to strongly confirm that they come from nowhere either.

That's the reason why it's still part of the hypothesis-heavy Quantum Theory umbrella.

 

There is more evidence to suggest that is it true than otherwise.

 

I thought law was a higher level. Granted, the requirements to reach that level would be insurmountable for the practically all theories.

From what I understand BBT is the theory that describes how it is believed that the universe came into being. It is a description of what happened rather than what caused it to happen.

 

A Law is an observation of a phenomenon that is always observed to be true.

 

Laws are the same as theory.

For example:
Einstein's theory of relativity is more accurate than Newton's law of gravity.

 

The same observations are made for theories as well.

Law and theory are essentially the same.

 

Yes and no. Laws describe a phenomenon. Theories say how that phenomenon works.

That's a very crude definition but it works.

 

There is more evidence for the bbt than any alternate explanation. In particular, light that has reached us from long ago appears to have come from a more dense universe. Observations that the universe is expanding are consistent with a big bang. The theory certainly hasn't been "proven," but the main distinction between science and faith (which the op refers to as atheism and faith, although doubtless not all atheists believe in the big bang) is reason. That is to say, in light of new evidence or a better explanation of some kind, rational people will change their beliefs. By contrast, people of faith (such as the op) believe in a "creator" on the basis of faith alone, which fits the definition of the term "irrational" nicely. I'm not sure what relevance the creation of individual particles you are discussing has. It is a scientific point either way. The possibility (or not) of particles popping into being, wile fascinating to the theoretical physics crowd, has absolutely no relationship to the question of the existence of some sort of creator...

 

I dare you to make a god out of nothing....

why do some think it would be easier for a god to poof into existence then it would be for energy to do the same thing

 

Simple, place ones self as God ... now nothing is God but you, and you aren't even claiming you are God. So its nothing that is God, but you remain God. Arbitor, Sole judger, decider, moral persuant, etc.

It happens ALL the time.

 

Well, an airplane experiencing less time than a body at rest is not described as a law. The phenomenon is described in the context of theory by the usage of relativity.

 

I will prove that you don't know what atheism means.

It's not yet they do not believe in a creator, that's what atheism is. It is not a belief in the big bang.

Go away and learn something before you come back and embarrass yourself even more.

 

I am assuming that you still talking about BBT. One of the keys to physics is that energy is neither gained or lost; it is converted into other forms. This energy had to come from somewhere. From where did it come?

Who knows. Maybe this universe came about from the successful creation of a singularity by a higher being.

 

If Noah had not taken a Kangaroo from Australia, a Spectacled bear from South America, and a Polar Bear from way up north .. we would not have these species in existence today.

A kangaroo does not evolve from a pig or something over a couple of thousand years.

Did God recreate these animals after the Flood ? He would have had to otherwise they would not exist !

If God was going to recreate animals then why on earth did he bother telling Noah to take a bunch of animals with him ?

Now that is illogical. Is God illogical ?

 

Thank you for this post. I do try to avoid tarring all Christians with the same brush, but not every atheist is so forgiving. It's nice to have posts like this to remind the more fervent nonbelievers that not every Christian is a rabid biblical literalist.

 

Another logical fail. There are numerous alternate explanations.

The Big Bang is just one theory.

 

Proof of close mindedness.

It isn't called the rule of two. What YOU propose is called a false dichotomy.

 

"Creator" = Intelligent being with intent and personality.

Universe = No known intelligence other than humans (and possibly computers, depending on your definition of intelligence).