What a bullshit reply. Why not address my statement. The big bang - is is consistent with Aquinas' view of Creation or not. At one point in history Catholics were scorned for believing something could be God and Man at once. (ask the gnostics and arians). Now we learn light has a dual nature... true or false?
Vhehn, there are very few times that I disagree with you and certainly not about the myth of God and the related cult figures, However, there are MANY gaps left in our knowledge. We are still infants in terms of 'knowledge'.
Jem, I'm curious: are you a Deist? The reason I ask is that some theists -- not accusing you of being one -- like to make the First Cause argument for God, which is pretty much where Deism begins and ends, but they also disingenuously pretend that First Cause provides "evidence" as well for the Grand Meddler of the traditional monotheisms. First Cause has plausibility; everything we see on earth has a beginning. All people come from mothers, all chickens come from eggs, all plants come from seeds. It was not illogical to suppose the earth had a beginning and later to suppose the entire universe had a beginning when it was discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe. But the First Cause of (most) theisms -- God -- is not the same as the (apparent) First Cause of science -- the Big Bang. Science does not assume the Big Bang had Intelligence and Purpose, which theisms confer on God, whether or not He (and how was masculinity established?) is also the Grand Meddler of post-creation theism. Furthermore, as stu pointed out, God the Creator still gets slashed by Occam's Razor: <s>GOD CREATED</s> THE UNIVERSE <s>GOD</s> JUST EXISTS
I'm not speaking for vhehn here but many physicists believe physics is close to completion. If a unifying theory (the Theory of Everything) can be found that combines both quantum mechanics and general relativity, then we will know basically everything about the universe except "details". Very important details to be sure remain to be discovered but knowing the fundamental basics of the physical world would be awesome.
If the universe just exists, then why has so much time and money been wasted on the big bang theory? It actually takes more energy to think there is a causeless universe than to think there is a cause of the universe, simply because everything we are able to actually see has a cause...
The history of science is scientists thinking they have it all figured out and that they are close to completion... They were all wrong of course... ...uhhhhhhh, but this time it is different? LOL!!!
Except the odds are about 10 to a few trillions powers against it . That indicates that Occam's Razor would disqualify it against the more plausible explanation of this Universe being intentionally put into process.
The history of science is full of fallible human beings. That is why science is not dependent on any one person or any particular group of persons. Amateur astronomers can make discoveries right along with professional astronomers. Science is a consensus, not a dictatorship. And what you utterly fail to realize is that science is a work in progress. It is never "finished", although certain areas may become considered finished for all practical purposes. A scientific theory starts out as a working theory and some are still in that basic state. String theory is such a theory. Just as Hollywood has working titles for movies in production that may not be the final title of the movie release, your hang-up on "the Big Bang theory" is not a problem for science, it is merely a problem for you.
Scientific consensus has a history of being wrong when scientific consensus is that they have it all figured out... Or scientists have a history of being wrong when they think they have it all figured out... ...but this time is different? "...awesome, totally awesome...alright Hamilton!"