when the faithful want to use their superstitions(faith) to overturn what science knows through observation we cant leave it alone. it is after all a battle for the minds of men. when faced with something he does not understand a man of faith says, it must be god. the scientist looks for real answers.
Much of what science knows through "observation" when it comes to cosmology, is not really observation....now is it? Many so called scientists looks for scientific guesses that they can neither falsify nor prove, then smugly claim they know... The truth is that the big bang is a fable of scientists, that some embrace with full faith, as much faith as theists embrace their own belief systems.
So you don't know if the Universe has an end, or if there are boundaries, or how old it is....but you know it has a beginning from some fabled big bang? LOL!
do you even understand how peer review keeps science honest? i will wait a few weeks while you publish your research proving the big bang theory false.
This first part was already properly quoted during our previous discussion. -- Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger "multiverse," each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves.8 Luck has no place in science, since all events must be probable (on the basis of all possible events) in order to actually occur. Atheists' solution - untestable "science"What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Therefore this belief is, and always will be, based solely upon blind faith (sounds like a new religion to me)! Why are some cosmologists "uncomfortable" with the idea that the cosmological constant (lambda) is so finely tuned? Simply because such fine tuning suggests design and (oh no!) a Designer. A hypothetical, untestable, complicated model of a super universe is the only alternative to belief in God. Such belief is not based upon science, since science requires that hypotheses be testable, but is based solely on the "hope" (i.e., belief) that there is no personal God to Whom we will be personally accountable. -------------------------- peer review is starting to state that this infinite universe stuff is not "scientific". Which leaves rational people with the understanding that based on our current knowledge the universe is "too designed" to be random. To comprehend my statement you must research this lambda concept and realize how much faith it takes to argue that our universe is random. It is the height of irony, almost comedy, to see some of the very best minds in physics promoting untestable, fantasy to avoid the one rational conclusion we should make based on current sceintific knowlege.
the argument of complexity is an argument from ignorance. the theist is saying i dont understand how that happened so it had to be god. many things were at one time thought to be too complex to understand. germs,atoms genes were all at one time too complex to understand. one thing is for sure. there has never been a scientific finding that pointed to a god in the process. a little study on the subject of id might be in order. start here: Mark Perakh 2003 Unintelligent Design New York: Prometheus Press Niall Shanks and Richard Dawkins 2004 God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory Oxford University Press Robert T. Pennock (Editor) 2001 Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives MIT Press Matt Young, Tanner Edis (Editors), 2004 Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism Rutgers University Press Barbara Carroll Forrest, Paul R. Gross 2004 Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design Oxford University Press