I've read it, discussed it, watched many scientists debate it...it doesn't answer the question of why. I won't even begin to debate the absurdity of using one theory to prove another theory, but when I heard an interview where the scientist said, in regard to "strings", just beacuse we can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there, I literally laughed out loud. Kinda' like that whole God thing, eh? My position is this. There is no absolute certainty when we debate the creation of our universe! So when the bible thumper comes to my door and claims to know it all for certain, I tell him he's full of shit. When the brainiac with the PHD tells me he knows it all for certain, he's full of shit too. ALL theories leave many unanswered questions. My original point was, if those that propose the Big Bang theory of creation can dismiss the tough questions, then so can those that support the theory of a God creating the Universe. Why did the Big Bang happen? Don't know, next question. Who or what created God? Don't know, next question.
The use other theories to answer/prove/validate other theories is perfectly reasonable. Think gravity. (Which is funny because you LOL'd at "strings" yet you can't see gravity but it's there nonetheless. Sure, you'll say, "but I can prove gravity exists!" To which I'll reply, "by all means. You will have a Noble Prize waiting for you when you're done." ) But there's a big difference between what a theist claims and what science postulates. They are not on even footing by a long shot. The theist's claims are not only extraordinary (big difference here), but come from a position of absolutes. Sure, you'd like to be able to say the same of scientists but time and discovery doesn't afford them that luxury. With new information comes modification to existing theories or its abandonment in favor of a new theory. You won't find that among theists. The best they can do is curve fit new evidence and discoveries with new interpretations. Though some theologies do get modified or created. As an example, open theists, realizing the paradox of an omniscient God co-existing with human free will, have abandoned the notion of God possessing omniscience. A foolish maneuver of course since it not only opens up other theological problems, but philosophical and ontological ones. Their source is after all, written in stone. What's more, a "tough" question of who or what created God is nonsensical considering the near universal definition of God (having no beginning) as being eternal and a first cause. The only theists who wrestle with that question are those who reject the first cause argument. And they are few and far in between. Those persons, rather than considering a God in the classical sense, consider a more advanced alien as creator. Eventually, they will have to postulate the alien of aliens. The one or ones that started it all. But they can't do that without broaching the subject of first cause. So for them it's "turtles all the way down." So to the question of what started the Big Bang and the answer being, "the theory doesn't concern itself with that" is an entirely honest and appropriate answer. And that's the difference between science and theology. The big bang addresses the evidence that indicates its occurrence. String and M-Theory addresses evidence found in particle physics to explain what gives observed particles their flavor, charge, mass and spin. And since nothing in nature has ever demonstrated a first cause attribute, the only reasonable postulations that exist are those that omit such philosophical metaphysics. Certainly more pleasing than a god-of-the-gaps, well god-did-it model. As to full-of-shit, at least with the scientific method you have a chance in your lifetime to ascertain whether or not something actually is. With religion, you have to wait until you're dead or for the revelation and manifestation of the theist claim. Whichever comes first.
Why the continual lie about something out of nothing? The Big Bang theory never said "something out of nothing" yet duplicitous theists insist on spreading that lie, possibly because creationism is basically something out of nothing. Science doesn't go where evidence doesn't exist, and speculating what happened before the Big Bang is not scientific. It's not "convenient", it's just being honest.
" Science doesn't go where evidence doesn't exist, and speculating what happened before the Big Bang is not scientific. It's not "convenient", it's just being honest." Therefore, anyone speculating that God did not exist before a so called Big Bang is not being scientific. Been saying this all along...
Personally the Big Bang has been explained sufficiently that I am satisfied. Big Bangs are common, happen all the time. Its just two membranes colliding (touching). When they collide there is a big bang and a closed universe is created. The comforting part, for me, is that when our universe goes cold and dark it isn't the end of things (or life). Universes are being created constantly. The number of membranes is infinite so the number of universes that exist is also infinite. Some small fraction of those universes will develop life. A small fraction of infinity is infinity so there are an infinite number of life harbouring universes. It beats the alternative view that our stars just consume their fuel and go dark all the while hurtling away from each other. The stars in our night sky will simply begin to dissapear. Once our sun begins to run out of fuel it will expand greatly and the earth will be a scorched cinder. I never liked that idea. These days the math models work right up to the singularity and right back through to before the Big Bang. Now its known for sure that time existed before the big bang. Its no big deal anymore. And thats all I have to say about that.
Precisely. If one is going to hold up the primacy of five-sense evidence then one should be an agnostic, not an atheist.
Anyone speculating that God did exist before the Big Bang is not being scientific. Anyone speculating anything at all about a so-called actual God is not being scientific. I bet you haven't been saying *that* all along.
Why should I be any more agnostic about your god than I should be about unicorns and leprecauns? Sooner or later you have to take a stand: believe or not believe.