[exmarine]

Just because you can produce a natural explanation for an event, does not mean you have ruled out God's intervention in that event. No explanation of a natural phenomenon can ever be proved to be the only explanation.

Under the law of cause and effect, you can only go back so far with that argument. At the earliest point, you run out of natural scenarios. What do you do then? At the earliest point, either God caused it, or....what? Besides, you and I both know that the naturalists who came up with the BB theory presuppose the non-existence of God. The Genesis account just doesn't wash for a naturalist, you see, one must come up with an alternative. Thus, the BB.

[BMCDA]

But the big bang theory is very consistent with what we observe and the theory made also predictions which have been confirmed lately.
With the Genesis account this is not the case.

[donh]

Under the law of cause and effect

What, pray tell, is the law of cause and effect?

, you can only go back so far with that argument. At the earliest point, you run out of natural scenarios. What do you do then? At the earliest point, either God caused it, or....what?

At no point in time, however, do you run out of immaterial scenarios. For aught anyone will likely ever be able to prove, God's plan guides each sperm to it's pre-chosen egg.

Besides, you and I both know that the naturalists who came up with the BB theory presuppose the non-existence of God.

I don't know any such thing, and neither does the subject of this thread.

The Genesis account just doesn't wash for a naturalist, you see, one must come up with an alternative. Thus, the BB.

Another conspiracy theory of history. The big bang was a direct and obvious response to the galactic red shift observations of Hubble.