Does The Universe Have A Beggining

Anyone May Accept, the First round is for acceptance, and explaining the Rules.
Any Religious, Scientific and Philosophical texts or Articles may be used to Support your arguments.
P.S. Have fun- Alex.

I believe you and I accept. I thought it would be fun to argue against my own position. :)

The supporting evidence for there being a start to the universe is staggering. In the scientific department, The widely supported theory Cosmological theory "The Big Bang" in which "Our universe began with a hot big bang 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded and cooled ever since. It has evolved from a formless soup of elementary particles into the richly structured cosmos of today." The only strong Cosmological opposition within the last 50 years was "Steady State Theory" however "The steady-state theory began to wither in the 1960s. First, astronomers discovered quasars, the highly luminous cores of very distant galaxies. Because the vast majority of quasars lie exceedingly far away, their existence proves that the perfect cosmological principle cannot be true—the distant and therefore ancient universe is not the same as the younger universe nearby. The death knell for the theory sounded when radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background, the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. The steady-staters had no reasonable way to explain this radiation." Stephen Hawking went on to say that that discovery was "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory."

On the theological front the two most widely believed religions on the planet, Islam and Christianity both widely support that there was a beginning of the universe Genesis 1:1, American Standard Version."in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." "Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" Quran 7:54.

Sources: http://www.pbs.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://bible.cc...
http://islam.about.com...

Although, I do not have a physics degree, I am a physics major. Based on my knowledge of the Big Bang theory, which is still 'just a theory' in the philosophical sense it has many inconsistencies. It is a common hasty generalization of the priest's theory, that the Big Bang occurs in one place, an infinite density. In fact, the infinite density is supposed to be smeared out over an infinite and empty space-time. The Big Bang in fact occurred everywhere is what the theory entails. It is useless as to tell mankind the origins of the universe as it rests on the theory of a multiverse (more than one universe). This is what I interpret the meaning of my opponent's following claim to be: "The distant and therefore ancient universe is not the same as the younger universe nearby.

Permit this analogy: The Big Bang is like an alien in a nearby galaxy with very suspicious behavior. The Big Bang Alien is our first encounter of E.T. through telescopes. The fact that the Big Bang Alien is discovered in our neighboring galaxy is dangerous. We know nothing of the Alien race. They could be essentially Big. This is vague. In fact, the Alien race could be in the neighboring galaxy as much the same way a king goes out into the battle field to first talk politics with his opponent. Perhaps the Alien King we have discovered is in fact leading an army out of the far and past distant universe on all sides---attacking us out of the past essentially. The existence of the Big Bang is insufficient to disprove such a dangerous position and in fact presupposes it.

Indeed The Big Bang is "just a theory" in the philosophical sense, but you do not offer a better alternative theory or even an opposing theory what s ever either Scientific or Theological. Nor do you back up your any of your claims with a single supporting article.

as for what you said here:"The Big Bang in fact occurred everywhere is what the theory entails. It is useless as to tell mankind the origins of the universe as it rests on the theory of a multiverse (more than one universe). This is what I interpret the meaning of my opponent's following claim to be: "The distant and therefore ancient universe is not the same as the younger universe nearby."

I absolutely agree with you that the Big Bang is everywhere as it was the origin of the universe.
as for you discrediting Observations of 20th century Astronomers as Supported by http://www.pbs.org... , until you show me evidence that directly shows me those observation were never made, I will stand by that claim. Nor do you prove your claim of Multiverses with any supporting sources of any kind.

as for your "analogy"
I do not find one shred of Evidence within it, nor do I find it able to refute my claims about the "Big Bang Theory."

In Hoyle's view, if matter could be created out of nothing one time, then why not have it happen all the time? It is a Pagan wisdom.

The LORD's Bible contradicts this fact in stating the universe is essentially deterministic.

For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified; and those he justified he also glorified. ~ Romans 8:29-30

I may use this example for believing in determinism and assert the fact that nowhere in the Bible does it say the universe begins, but merely heavens and earth were created 'in the beginning' so as to imply the heavens and the earth are that beginning. If the universe is it's own beginning, as you have implied with that steady state theory, then it is also its own end, hence nullifying the entire beginning.