Stop with the "who created God" argument it's bloody horrendous.

The reason why people think this can even count as an argument is because the majority of things around them, have been created - so they assume that the same must apply to The Creator. And yet this is just proof that there is an Eternal Creator as if this was the case everything you see would be created.

We know there must be an Eternal First Cause, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress, meaning that nothing at all would come to existence. Again I've explained above why the human mind might not think this could be possible.

I'm pretty sure it does.

Well, then you don't know the theory because it isn't actually meant to explain how the universe first came into being.

Well, then you don't know the theory because it isn't actually meant to explain how the universe first came into being.

The reason why people think this can even count as an argument is because the majority of things around them, have been created - so they assume that the same must apply to The Creator. And yet this is just proof that there is an Eternal Creator as if this was the case everything you see would be created.We know there must be an Eternal First Cause, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress, meaning that nothing at all would come to existence. Again I've explained above why the human mind might not think this could be possible.

Err, yes it is...

It describes the expansion of the singularity and the subsequent changes in atomic structure that ultimately gave rise to the universe. How is that not explaining how the universe was formed..?

I'm pretty sure it is.

It's not. Just simply how it formed.

Formed not coming into existence.

Doesn't Allah mean God in English? Correct me if I'm wrong

It is.

That is how our universe, in its current form, came into existence...

You're like all those confused atheists that think scientists actually think the Big Bang is the start of the universe. Also, the Big Bang couldn't be the first cause because all scientists believe there must have been something before. They believe before the Big Bang, all matter was condensed into one spot AKA a singularity. So, if there was something before - it can't be how everything started - just how the universe as we know it now began.

As I quote a strong atheis (Brian Greene):

"A common misconception is that the Big Bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The Big Bang is a theory … that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the Big Bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the Big Bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it really banged at all."

You're like all those confused atheists that think scientists actually think the Big Bang is the start of the universe. Also, the Big Bang couldn't be the first cause because all scientists believe there must have been something before. They believe before the Big Bang, all matter was condensed into one spot AKA a singularity. So, if there was something before - it can't be how everything started - just how the universe as we know it now began.

As I quote a strong atheis (Brian Greene):

"A common misconception is that the Big Bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The Big Bang is a theory … that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the Big Bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the Big Bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it really banged at all."

You're being pedantic. Yes, everyone knows that the Big Bang was the expansion of the singularity, no one believes the Big Bang came out of literal nothing, it was simply the inflation of the supercondensed state now referred to as he singularity. That is how the universe, in its current form, came about.

Ah yes, that famous atheist Brian Green, otherwise known as Mr Megan Fox.

I'll see your 'strong atheist' and raise you the elected representative of all religions in all the worlds, in all the galaxies, in all the universes. A man who now endorses the big bang theory, first pondered by the priest, Georges Lemaître.
Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for his royal highness, the conquerer of worlds, the master of disaster... THE POPE.

“The Big Bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it. The evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution pre-supposes the creation of beings which evolve.”

exactly, you both just disproved urself. because i was just trying to say the Big bang couldn't be the eternal first cause.

We did not disprove ourselves because there is no evidence whatsoever of an eternal first cause. The singularity could have been eternal for all we know.

Why can't the big bang be the eternal first cause?

This is what happens when you jump in to help people you don't even agree with. I was replying to what mentor said here: