No, absolutely and categorically wrong. That is your interpretation. And a wildly inaccurate one. Show me one example where I think it's illogical for you to examine my statements. You, and others, have been examining and questions this entire thread. And I have address every single issue over and over again.
Repeating yourself isn't "addressing" an issue.
But I don't think you have to be an expert in quantum physics to believe that because there was a Big Bang there had to be something that caused it. A Creator.
Look, it's simple: you prefer to posit a creator. You obviously believe in one passionately. More power to you, I guess, but don't pretend that your position is rational and grounded in logic, especially when you claim that a Creator is necessary because everything needs a cause and you then turn around and claim that the Creator is causeless.
I prefer to simply say that our current cosmological model and understanding of the Universe prevents us from answering the "what came before and caused the Big Bang" question - a question that, as asked, makes little sense anyways.
Show me one example where I did that.
You continue to use causality, despite being shown that causality is not a fundamental property of nature at the quantum level. You continue to use "before the Big Bang" as if time and temporal ordering make sense outside of the context of the Universe.
How many times have I told you that "before" is a term that has great meaning to me and I have no issue thinking of a "before" outside the universe.
You can tell me a million times, it won't change anything. You may have no issue thinking of a "before" outside the Universe, but the rest of us, which like to use words in a way that makes sense do. If you wish to communicate with others, then you should probably use words correctly.
Many seem to have trouble comprehending this. It's like saying that no numbers can exist before zero. And from a certain point of view I can understand that. Zero is nothing. How can we have less than nothing?
I'm happy to discuss number theory. In mathematics we have the "Natural numbers" (denoted by
N) and the "Integers" (denoted by
Z). The difference between them is that
Z contains the negative whole numbers, whereas
N does not. Counterintuitively, both have the same cardinality (that is, they're both the same size).
But thinking of it terms of "less than nothing" is wrong. A negative acceleration isn't "less than nothing" for example.
Causality, as I use it, presupposes a temporal total order. There is order in the universe. God has a plan.
You and I aren't using the term "order" in the same way. And as for God, before we talk about his plan, it'd help if you'd define what you mean by the term "God".
I don't whine. I make a genuine and serious attempt to answer all questions and comments. Don't personally insult me.
If you made a genuine and serious attempt to answer all questions and comments you wouldn't continue using "before" in a meaningless way, nor would you repeat the same thing over and over again, ignoring the criticisms that others have made. If pointing that out insults you, then so be it.
Don't threaten me and don't insult me.
Threaten you?
I tell you what, here's my decision, tough guy, pat yourself on the back and declare victory and leave with your nose in the air and the hubris by those of your ilk.
My musculature is too well-developed for me to be able to pat myself on the back. Best I can do is tap myself on the traps.
You have put words in my mouth -- just made it up. You insult those that don't agree with you as "challenged". You accuse me of trying to force my views down your throat. You just insulted me personally and now you threaten me.
I didn't accuse you of trying to force any views down my throat - you're misrepresenting my post which is ironic considering that you're complaining about how I put words in your mouth.