Nothing really "banged", but the singularity expanded in to the universe we see today. I dont understand what you mean you mean "big bang not be a property of the singularity"? Elaborate on that for me.
Sure. Let's start with this:
There was no law to govern the singularity before Planck time.
Planck time is a unit of measurement. This particular unit of measurement can be used for many things, but is especially famous in that it relates to where our understanding of the structure, nature, physics, etc., of the universe all break down. In these first "moments" (the initial 10^-43 "second" of the universe), there is no longer a singularity, but a universe which has none of the properties our universe does. Spacetime, which is the "fabric" in which all physical reality exists, was not a property of these first moments of our universe. The singularity is what we get when we use the properties of the universe together with measurements (expansion, homogeneity and isotropy, the hubble parameter, cosmic background radiation, etc.) and run the system (in this case the universe) in reverse. In other words, instead of the expansion of celestial bodies we see governed by the laws we discover, we "un-expand" the universe by reversing how these laws made it expand. At a certain point, however, all the mass/energy in the universe is contained in something termed the singularity (or a singularity), which is before the big bang. But after the expansion starts, after the "bang", there is an intial time period in which the universe exists, but in which spacetime, physics, etc., does not (at least not in any way we know of or can know of). After that, things are better understood but still unclear and still not the universe with the properties we know. In fact, the same evidence which initially led to the "standard model" has also created theories which have no singularity but in which the "time" is extended perhaps infinitely.
The point, however, is that the properties of matter, the laws of physics, and the way we understand spacetime (or "time" or "space" as we experience them), as well as things like what is or isn't possible, don't exist either in the standard model or any other model of physics in the earliest moments of the universe. And they certainly don't describe the properties of what we call the singularity.
You state that God exists (or did exist) in such a way that s/he (it?) has a property capable enabling God to make a choice to act in a particular way. How do you know that a property of the singularity wasn't that it could exist without space or time but was in some atemporal reality in which one of its properties was that it would alter in a particular way and the result would be the "big bang"?
There was no natural law, PERIOD. That is why as you agreed before, physics break down if you go back in time to the singularity.
What I said was they break down after that. See above.
It makes absolutely no sense for a singularity to be out there for past eternity with no pre-causal conditions
Why? After the universe was already here, nothing which "makes sense" in terms of how you experience reality existed. Nothing of what you understand about cause existed then either (for you or me to "cause" something we must interact with it in some local spatio-temporal sense, such that my action takes place before the "effect" of my action, and that what I do is located spatially near it, e.g, I can't kick a soccerball from three miles away).
not to mention the finely tuned steps
Which are?
Well, since we have been discussing this stuff, you've asked me to explain at least three things....the history of the big bang......causation....and spacetime.....and no, I am not going to explain any of that stuff. I will gladly converse with you about either one, no problem. But as far as explaining.....no....this is a diversion, a stalling mechanism.
Not at all. You are making claims about what is and isn't possible, or what does and does not make sense, in terms of reality, probabilty, and the nature of the universe. Yet you are doing so in ways that indicate you do not understand most of these (that is, probability, physics, and cosmology). How can you make a claim founded upon things which you do not understand?
Now, regardless of whether or not you have these things explained to you, the big bang theory remains the most empirically observed and tested models of cosmology that we have, and it has been for the last 75 years.
It isn't "observed". What we observe are certain properties and laws which we can run in reverse, but at a certain point, even after the "big bang", these laws and properties used to create the theory do not hold. The "big bang theory" doesn't remain as the standard model because it is widely accepted within the physics community, but because none of the alternate proposals have gained consensus, and so even though we know the standard model isn't complete, or is otherwise flawed, it's all we have at the moment.
And because of this scientific findings, Christian Apologists like myself can now use science to confirm what we have already knew all along, that the universe began to exist.
In the standard model, after the universe "began to exist", we still didn't have time or space or physical laws or any properties of the universe we are familiar with.
So far, you have yet to correct me on anything that I've said in error
Apart from the above, I've already stated your description of probability is in inaccurate.
Regardless, what I have said thus far that you can say that is incorrect?? Nothing. The universe began to exist and it therefore requires a cause. It isn't rocket science here, is it?
It is (in part) literally rocket science, in that it is the use of astronomy and astronomical devices (such as rockets) which provide is with an understanding about the universe. Additionally, applying an reduced Aristotelian model of causality along with a disregarded understanding of time, space, and physics, hardly makes your assertion justified.
You just incorrectly stated that physics break down after the universe exists, but it in fact breaks down before the universe existed.
You are aware it is possible for both to be true? And in fact the standard model, and every single other model, says that both are true?
Scientists know what happened after the big bang, but we dont know what happened BEFORE the big bang.
Perhaps you can quote one who can tell us what the state of the universe was during the first 10^-43 second interval of what we would inaptly term "time"?
Right, so before you had the urge to eat, you already somehow miraculously developed the organ and mechanisms to help you break the food down that you didn't have the urge to eat in the first place.
Cells have "organs" and mechanisms to do break down "food". So do plants. Do they have urges?
