@mblmissionary: @MovingToMontana I think I c your point but where did matter come from?
Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/mblmissionary/statuses/1703450209
Without a good understanding of how the theory came to be universally accepted, as the best explanation we thus far have on how the universe began, it’s little wonder that deists continue to think about this according to the common use of the word theory, rather than the scientific definition of the word, meaning that which is yet to be falsified.
This also speaks volumes about the fixed world view we necessarily have about everything we can see, touch, feel, measure and experiment upon, because we can not escape the fact that the universe obeys the laws of nature which just happen to exist in our particular reality; the descriptions of natural phenomena we can explain in terms of the behaviours and characteristics which we denote between the fundamental particles, of which everything is made.
Differing quantities of different fundamental particles affect the make up of all matter. The stuff which bumps into other stuff and either repels it or attracts it, depending on the electromagnetic strength of its quantum mass. This ultimately determines the only real chemical differences between a dinosaur corpse, pressed into a black flammable liquid beneath the Iraqi desert and the crystalline structure of the carbon in Pope Benedict’s priceless jewellery.
It is these fundamental particles of energy which came into being in the singularity of the Big Bang—which is why understanding what happened AFTER the Big Bang is important to our understanding of the physical universe. Big Bang is NOT a description of the physics which are, by definition, beyond our ability to measure, since they occurred before our sphere of existence and that which Einstein called space-time came into being.
Postulating that a god of some description designed this process doesn’t answer the question of how She did this at all. It merely pushes back the line of demarkation between what you’re attempting to describe and understand and that which you arbitrarily assign to non-natural phenomena—hence the term ‘super-natural’.
Anything which can not be described by natural phenomena, whether we have so far achieved a focused set of laws to explain all naturally occurring phenomena yet or not, is of no concern to scientific methodology. Therefore god, as described by Judaeo-Christian and Islamic doctrine, behaves (by virtue of the fact She is undetectable and plays no part in the laws of nature) exactly like that which does not exist.
If the argument then goes that, precisely because Big Bang does not account for a supernatural causation to all natural processes, because God negated to mention how She created up and down quarks, “In the beginning”, then anyone who continues to assert this is proof not just of intentional design, but that the designer Herself is best described in a book written 2000 years before the birth of Sir Isaac Newton, they are welcome to their delusions.