it's a very logical reasoning and I respect it. But it's no different than a theist believing that a creator started it all. You even said yourself that in the beginning physicist don't know what was in singularity; which is about as empirical as the bible saying God created the universe.
I don't disagree. I put my faith in science, and that means that I can only believe as far as science can explain. right now, science has a pretty good grasp on what happened after .000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,43 seconds post big bang. before that, I don't know. Before that, I don't think anyone knows. Difference is, the religious person will insert their own deity into that instance. Now I could be wrong, and perhaps scientists have a better understanding than I give them credit for, but I am not aware of that information so I can only rely on what I know.
nope, they still have no clue at this point. only speculative theories with no means to test. key is they generally don't pretend to know what the big bang was, unlike theists.
this is an odd yearning for a theist to have. if god is responsible for the origin of the universe it would have to be through means that are intrinsically beyond our ability to comprehend - it would seem like magic to us no matter how we though about it. this is because if it were to have happened through physical processes within our ability to comprehend, the universe could always be responsible for its own existence and god would not be necessary. mags, you seem to be a closet agnostic
if by creation you mean the big bang and related subjects such as quantum gravity, they are currently among the most studied subjects in all of science.
This has got to be a joke. Every single atheist I have ever talked to would love to know exactly how everything began. For the most part, the religious don't give a fuck, cause they already have their made up answer. I don't know how you believe the things you type, it's ridiculous.
Made up? And what empirical evidence do you have that supports its made up? As for creation; they would just assume to say "I don't know, therefor I leave it at that". They may want to know about creation; but if it comes with god being the author; they would rather ignore it.
That's what I mean. I have a deep level of respect for cosmology. I think it's important for the future to discover everything they can about the past. And then you have the wannabe's that think plasma is not matter or energy isn't matter.
not sure what you're saying, but if there was any evidence for an intelligent creator scientists certainly would not ignore it. on the contrary many would be all over it since proving ID would mean certain nobel prizes.
i don't think the particulars of your exchange with denny are important, since the point you were trying to make reduces to "something can't come from nothing", and you are correct that the big bang, whatever it was, was something. what is important is that scientists generally don't agree with your assertion that the big bang, or the multiverse, or "the matter/energy that exists" (or whatever you want to specify) must necessarily have had a beginning and necessarily be finite.
You really think atheists would rather be wrong than admit that God really did create everything? I guess I've met a few atheists like that. But that's pretty rare. Most of them (my wife included) seem to just want the no-bullshit answer. They don't find "god did it because so-and-so 3000 years ago said so" very convincing. And for pretty good reason. There's a pretty remarkable track record of those people 3000 years ago (and the countless interpretations of them ever since) being wrong.
I have a vague memory from high school, learning about the Big Bang, and the teacher saying we have a good understanding after the first two seconds. Now we have a good understanding up to the tiniest fraction of a second. Never has so much effort been made by so many brilliant people to understand less than two seconds. Of course athiests are interested in how it all began, but can only go so far as science takes us, or if we really want to stretch it, as far as logic can take us. But where science and logic break down, we can't just make stuff up. However, I do think that if you are going to be religious, it is best if the beliefs don't contradict nature. You saying that god exists where there is no time or space, and set the Big Bang ablaze is not something that I see any evidence for, but at least it could possibly be true. So this is the best possible version of religion in my mind, one that can harmonize with science.
I don't need to prove something is made up unless it has proof it's not made up. You have absolutely no idea what atheists want to know, because we want to know everything that can be known. Again, not one single atheist I have ever met would ignore evidence for an intelligent creator. Not one single atheist I have ever known has voiced anything to the tune of "I don't want God to exist." In fact, many say they hope he does. I fear the opinions you have of atheists are the ones driven at society by the religious.
The religious constantly change their beliefs as they become incompatible with science.. Just so their beliefs could possibly be true. It's not good to encourage.
I've had this exact debate on here recently. My only question to you is, if we could get all the religious people to adjust their beliefs to pair with science, do you think the world would be better off?
I'm not disagreeing with you ( fucking smurfs ) but all I'm saying is that there is not all the baggage with that belief as there is with creationism or other strict religious beliefs that don't allow for the freedom of science to search, explore and grow. Bad shit comes from zealots, denial of science bad policy with all its consequences, but if someone believes a smurf kicked this house party into effect, no bad consequences as long as they don't deny what science demonstrates.
