first the big bang is considered the first action in the history of this universe and is very very relevant to creation as for it to occur out of nothing breaks numerous laws thus is a repugnant theory with no designer.
I already told you the Big Bang Theory is not about the origin of the universe but rather its development with time. You are creating your own definition of the theory and attacking it. This is known as a strawman fallacy.
also, the tetraneutrons wether short lived or not should still not break physics laws etc no matter how short lived, also what is the mechanism, again just grasping at straws.
We're not even sure if tetraneutrons exist! Scientists have not been able to duplicate the results since then. Furthermore, there are loopholes in particle physics that would allow them to violate Pauli's exclusion principle. Look up the Casimir effect.
here is the ultimate problem with non-designer thinking. for one the violation of laws for matter to exist under normal circumstances should but absurd to a scientific person ie me. also, the big bang was an explosion that some how created crazy amounts of perfect co-ordination in which thousands of variables if any changed slightly would not suffice to maintain the universe.
The Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space-time; it was not a fiery explosion like a bomb. It cannot violate the 1st law of thermodynamics b/c the theory is not about the origin of the univese. It did not create order like you say. The theory states the entropy of the early universe was extremely low. Entropy does not mean the same as disorder. Your last sentence about the "perfect co-ordination" of variables is pointless since we have nothing to compare to. For all we know, this may be the 1,000th reincarnation of the universe b/c all the others could not sustain themselves.
also, what explosion in history caused perfect order and balance-none. also, did the laws make themselves after the big bang because the couldn't have exsisted whilst in the big bang per se. also, you said the universe is a open system, this is wrong show me one shred of evidence that this is so.
The Big Bang was not an explosion but rather an expansion of space-time. The universe's laws would appear to have taken effect after the Big Bang. I never said the universe is an open system. If you read my posts carefully, you would notice I said life is an open system b/c we recieve energy from the sun. The universe is a closed system.
answer these questions using logic and you'll arrive at the conclusion i did, there is a supernatural explanation. remember once all the possiblities are considered the truth no matter how ridiculous is the truth.
I don't see the logical connection between a lack of evidence and "god must have done it."
ok if you refuse to use the big bang as a creation point explain how the matter got there in the first place and how something comes from nothing. i mean why would something come from nothing, it doesn't make sense and logic would imply something supernatural because using our laws and logic and anything you want to you cant explain it.
We simply don't know yet. Maybe this universe spawned from another with different laws than our own. Perhaps matter has always existed. Or we could be in the matrix. I don't see how you jump to the conclusion that god(s) created the universe.
also, dont use the old it hasn't been found yet etc argument because using or laws which we use for everything in this world and to explain every stimuli they still fail.
Even if I don't have the answer, it doesn't disprove the Big Bang Theory.
