I think the BB is primarily used as scientific support for a philosophical argument involving contingent vs. necessary existence. Tying it to the God of the Bible is usually done by extending the argument - given the universe had a beginning and thus a cause (is contingent), what can be the nature of that cause?

Then why are you advancing that as a rebuttal?

I think you're "For" argument fails, since you havent established that an omni-3 god has the property of being uncaused (which you implicitly claimed was true). Maybe I'm missing your point.
Yes - we have no clue what God would "need" in order to make the universe. What you term the "against argument" (which I labelled a premise) was an assertion that he could have done it in other, quicker ways, therefore is unlikely to have chosen this one. I don't think there is any evidence or reason to think this is true.
I'm saying it because I think the Big Bang is not evidence for or against God's existence - it's consistent with there being a god (who created some superdense matter in some 'spacetime' and then created some laws of physics which resulted in that appearing to have 'exploded' a couple of billion years later...) or with there being some other cause of the universe (which 'did' something similar).

I said neither because whether the universe had a beginning or is infinite is not empirical evidence for or against God, it has no bearing on the question.

Predictions that could be made from biblical creation stories:

A) the universe had a beginning.
B) the universe came from from nothing.

It seems the goat hearders got those two right.

Clearly a frog.

Clearly this.

Idk about the big bang but i would say the universe makes one less likely.



Not unless they think God is nothing and not something.

C) Plants appeared before the sun.

But not before light.

Plus, I don't think a day without sunlight will kill your tulips.

If you're going to mock the story, at least do so within its context.

Which light? he created lights a few times.

I dont think you want to ho with a day equals a 24 hour day because it will lead to more mocking.

Obviously I was referring to the universe being created by God out of nothing and not that God is nothing.

...whereas the omni-3 god makes regular public appearances?

If Gods a something then the universe came form that something and not out of nothing.

In the context of Genesis, anything other than a 24 hour day wouldn't make sense. (Yes, I can appreciate the irony of that statement with regard to your beliefs on the matter)

Both dont make sense to me, this probably isn't the thread though.

Yes....the statement "God created the universe out of nothing" does mean the universe comes from God who created it out of nothing.

Idk even a thought is kind of something. Maybe the universe came form Gods thought and that thought, that something created reality from itself.

Plus i dont even really know nothing is nothing, maybe noting is something in its own kind of way. Come to think of it if God could only create the universe out of noting then noting becomes a vary important part of creation. You could kind of say the infinite nothingness was a co-creator but it just had a more laid back attitude. I know im way out there and wrong...