I never mentioned the cause of the big bang. Re-read my previous comment, this is what I said.<quoted text>
There is no empirical evidence for a natural cause for the Big Bang.
"There is empirical evidence supporting the big bang."
IMHO no one knows for sure what caused it. Scientists admit they cannot be sure of the cause. People like you make absolute claims based on dogma and superstition. BTW Keltec, I think we have done this dance before
Are you an expert in these areas? In fact do you know anything at all about them? No? Neither do I. So AFAIAC discussing them is utterly pointless.<quoted text>
There is absolutely no empirical evidence for Hawkings' M theory. There is no empirical evidence for spontaneous creation of life from non living matter.
Thank you, imitation is the highest form of flattery.<quoted text>
It's something superstitious people invoke to explain things they do not understand and does not explain anything.
How does accepting something on the basis of religious faith help our understanding of the world around us?<quoted text>
As far as the proper instrument, a head without the blinders of naturalism might be a good start.
"One of the main centres of resistance to Fr Georges Lemaître's scientifically rational theory was Cambridge. There were two reasons why the cosmologists at Cambridge University seemed to recoil at Lemaître's proposition - namely the fact that they happened to prefer the "steady state" theory and also because they appeared determined to hold onto the atheistic "eternal universe" concept.