ATDTDA (5.1) - The Etienne-Louis Malus

[David Morris]

On 4/6/07, Daniel Harper <daniel_harper at earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Friday 06 April 2007 08:10, you wrote:
>
> > The funny thing about this current single Big Bang theory is that it implies (to me) that there was/is some Creator that started it all.  The previous expand contract cycle theory implied (to me) that "Nature" was eternal and needed no Creator.
> >
>
> This doesn't really make sense to me, although I've heard it before in many places. Why does a single Big Bang require a Creator, if a series of Big Bangs does not? Isn't the whole "system" of Big Bangs in an expand/contract universe just as needing of theological explanation as the single Big Bang? (Conversely, wouldn't a single Big Bang require as little Creative input as the eternal cycle of Big Bangs?) And doesn't the Creator, itself, require some sort of explanation as to how It got there?

I figured you'd respond this way.  I guess the idea is that
*something* has to be at the top of all things.  If the "creation" is
eternal, then it can be thought of as the first/top of all things.
But you're right:  how did the first thing get there...

David Morris