Intellegent Design

[Auronhart]

No, each big bang basically restarts the universe. As it says in the Hawking article you referenced (that you said you agreed with) the big bang, aka, beginning of time and of this universe, would not rely on anything that happened prior to the singularity state. This means that the state of complete disorder, or however the universe was before the big crunch leading to the singularity doesn't matter. When it becomes a singularity... think of having a universe of playdoh. A singularity is like mashing everything together into a tiny ball, which lets you create new things again, when before, since all the doh was used up, you couldn't. Bad analogy, I know, but hopefully you get the idea. I suggest you reread the article, because it says exactly what I'm saying in it. Well, not that it indicates an osccilating universe, but about being a singularity and such.

So you are saying it breaks the second law of thermodynamics. (the disorder would still exist unless it broke the second law) No, I didn't say I necessarily agreed with all the points of the article, I just referenced it so you could find what he said about the beginning. We are also becoming more certain that the mass of the universe is not enough to stop the expanding of the universe. (plus we have found that the rate the universe is expanding at is increasing)

Indeed, one might suppose that the universe had oscillated, though that still wouldn't solve the problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: one would expect that the universe would become more disordered each oscillation. It is therefore difficult to see how the universe could have been oscillating for an infinite time.

In Hawking's own words. I think this is the same article, but if you want to find this quote in it http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html.

"There is a god if Hawking's theory is true" is what you were saying, and it's not supported by science. that's what I was referring too.

And Hawking's theory is true if Einstein's General Relativity is true, you have to finish the statement. More and more tests which support General Relativity are being done.

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data.

Just a comment about this, when creationists speak about evolution, they are talking about macro-evolution, which is in no way a fact.

No, I mean I don't think any of the other theories fully explain observed phenomena, or are supported as well. yes, god explains everything in a neat little package, but unfortunately there's no proof (by which I mean no acceptable proof to me, personally, I'm not saying this is universal).

You believe a dying theory is more supported than anything else?

Only as Hawking said, that it could be interpretted to mean a supernatrual being. To conclude this, however, is a jump.

I'm willing to hear other possibilities.