there are only 2 possibilities.
Here's your first problem. You're framing this as a false dilemma almost immediately because you don't really understand that there could be other options and you're trying to pose the false dilemma in order to prove your point.
1. it was always there
if this is true, then something had to have set it off. nothing inside of the hyper dense"ball" could have done it. thats the nature of infinity.
There are some interesting theories which state that nothing
had to actively "set it off", merely that probabilistically it was inevitable. There are a number of other theories which deal with this sort of thing but they're mostly speculative and untestable - such is the nature of talking about concepts we don't yet understand fully. Of course we're facing anthropocentrism here in that we are assuming that there had to be a cause in the first place, or that time is even a meaningful concept before the existence of a universe. Of course you are again making an argument from ignorance in that you are suggesting that because you can't conceive of an autocatalysing universe it can't happen.
2. it was there for only a limited time and it was made somehow.
it is this part that is really the most troublesome, and there are many hypothises regarding it. i will list some of he ones that i can think of.
a. the universe is in a constant state of flux/reflux. I.E. it is constantly growing , then at a certain point, it shrinks back to the hyper dense ball (what i will hereby call singularity) only to start the process over.
the problem with this hypothesis is that the phenomenon can't be explained by the "laws of nature." is is not that it hasn't been explained yet by something undiscovered by man. but that it is categorically against the laws of nature. since any change in velocity has to come about by a force, and there is no force that is being exerted, as a matter of fact some scientists believe that the galaxies are accelerating not slowing down. so if this hypothesis is true, then something, must be causing it, something that is able to defy the laws of nature.
b. ok so actually that is the only hypothesis that i can think of off the top of my head. i can think of other hypothesis that use a model different from the big bang to explain the creation of the universe, but that is not the point of my argument.
if you can come up with another hypothesis then please let me know and i will include it.
It's quite a popular hypothesis, but your criticism of it is entirely unfounded because it is clear that you don't understand physics or astronomy. You are making assertions that you are pulling out of thin air. Why exactly is it "against" the laws of nature? Why must there be a force exerted? Why must there have been no force? It's quite conceivable that a previous Big Crunch directly triggered the next Big Bang of a cyclical universe. Simply because it doesn't fit with your (unfortunately limited) understanding of the laws of physics does not make it untrue. Similarly I don't think you understand what you are talking about when you mention the galaxies being observed slowing their expansion. There are many mathematical and physical models of the universe which make various predictions about evidence which we are still measuring. For example, something that might be slowing the rate of expansion of galaxies (if this were to be measured) might be gravity. A perfectly explainable natural cause.
again, the point is not to prove that the universe was created in the big bang, or that god exists because the big bang is true. the point is that if the big bang theory is true then, when you couple it with the "laws of nature" you have to assume intelligent design. its part and parcel.
But you've not proved in any way that such an assumption needs to be made. There is nothing in the universe yet discovered which is substantial evidence for design. I have yet to see a single argument ever made by someone arguing for the existence of a designer not fall at the stumbling block of anthropocentrism.
furthermore: since some people like syllogistic arguments here is a simple one.
premise: hawkins set out to prove that the big bang theory didn't start with singularity
premise: hawkins is atheistic
conclusion: the big bang theory is not atheistic in nature, it is started by theists.
That conclusion does not follow from its premises. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)) That one person worked on a theory does not say anything about what those that previously worked on the theory believed. It also says nothing about the nature of the theory itself.
On top of that, the conclusion says absolutely nothing about the existence or otherwise of God because the opinions of theorists don't matter.
also, one of the first people to describe the universe as being dynamic (in constant motion) was Einstein, and he believed that this pointed to intelligent design. that little tid-bit is for the people that somehow think that highly intelligent people are primarily atheistic.
Everyone wants Einstein on their side, eh? As if Appeal to Authority isn't a logical fallacy in itself. Actually Einstein rejected the idea of a personal God, and was very much atheistic for the most part. Fundamentally he talks about the humility that knowledge brings and a sense of amazement at the universe more than anything else.
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. [...] I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
ID supporters have quote mined him to this particular quote:
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systemic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, insofar as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
And have taken the word "intelligence" to mean that he believes in an intelligent creator who designed everything, even though the quote does not support that position. In fact, the quote in context reads as such -
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/einstein_religion.html - where the preceding 11 paragraphs rubbish organised religion and the church. It's a fundamentally dishonest argument from ID supporters. Why doesn't that surprise me?
I really do encourage you to read that page if you have the time. It is very interesting.
