Atheist' I respect your search through science, but?

Question

I am with you on science and knowledge, like Darwin and other distinguished scientist, in their search for answers
We applaud them and need them,
But' I feel uncomfortable, that they can not explain the nature before the big bang.
Big Bang is explained as a theory, and I have no trouble and except that, But any scientist knows that matter electrons atoms what ever' can not invent itself, it can and will change but not
appear like a rabbit out of the hat,
Untill someone proves the answer to this unexplained mystery
I will believe in a supreme intelligence called GOD

Answer 1

he is correct people

if u read Holy Quran there are about 1000 lines about Science and all of them are now, after 1428 years being proved by science as true.

read it and you'll know that Allah (God) exist cuz Quran is the only unchanged religious book in the world

Answer 2

Science cannot answer questions about before the big Bang because that was *before* the physical universe. And science can only deal with the physical universe - so anything outside the universe (like God, or anything "before") is not open to scientific investigation.

>"any scientist knows that matter electrons atoms what ever' can not invent itself, it can and will change but not appear like a rabbit out of the hat"

I'm not certain what you're saying here, but matter and energy are interconvertable. So subatomic particles *can* be created and destroyed (look up "Hawking Radiation" for a bit more on this).

And science is not trying to tell you to not believe in God, or any other supreme intelligence. Like I said - science can only answer about the physical universe, not the supernatural.

Answer 3

At a quantum level mater has been observed popping in and out of the universe.

Just because it is not fully explained does not mean that it does not happen.


All you are doing is moving the question from one unknown to another unknown. The question shifts from "Where did the big bang come from?" to "Where did the supreme being come from?"

If the universe can not appear like a rabbit out of a hat, how come God can? Or if he can not, then who made God? And who made the God2 that made God? And who made the God3 that made God2? And who made the God4 that made God3? And so on.


All you are doing is trying to explain an unanswered question. But you are doing it based on a fantasy rather than on any hard information. That means that you are not really 'with me' on science and knowledge.

Answer 4

Lol "goddidit"

The big bang is simply the best and most supported explanation we currently have. We do not have anything invested in the big bang theory. If evidence surfaced which proved the big bang theory wrong I doubt you'd have different sects of scientists saying "I believe in the big bang just because that's what I believe, that's what my dad believed in and it's what he raised me to believe in, I've always believed in it and will always believe in it, end of story" That would be pretty absurd.

You're argument is based on the law of the conservation of mass. If you ask me that law disproves, if anything, creationism. It simply states "Matter cannot be created or destroyed...." It doesn't say "Matter cannot be created or destroyed, except with intervention by a supernatural being"

Answer 5

That is exactly how uneducated people form their belief systems - by believing what they're told until science proves otherwise.

Mankind used to think the Earth was flat and seizures and other ailments were caused by demons - we now know the Earth is round (or at least ovoid), that something in the brain causes seizures and bacteria/germs/virii cause illness and disease.

What if all the great minds who've learned the truth about all those things thought as you did and just followed the norm...we'd still be living in huts and wearing loin cloths.

Answer 6

I don't think your position is sensible.

On one hand you accept some parts of science and therefore, presumably, the scientific method.

In which case, how can you say that you accept the religious explanation of the beginning of the universe simply on faith?

In fact, how can you have a belief in god simply on faith?

You want scientific proof for 'before' the big bang, and yet you accept the god explanation with no reasonable evidence at all.

Answer 7

No scientists know what came before the big bang. But not knowing doesn't mean believing in God is the only option. Why not accept just that you don't know?

Answer 8

So someone called God must have done it then because the scientists don't have all the answers yet....mmmmmmmmmmm.
Of course you are entitled to your view but why do you think religion was created in the first place...to explain things man didn't understand ,before we had the scientific knowledge.

Answer 9

That's no different from someone saying "I don't understand lightning, it must be God".

The problem with your approach is that it seeks to explain something remarkable (the universe) by invoking something vastly more remarkable (an intelligent entity capable of creating a universe) as the answer... conveniently ignoring the fact that you now have a bigger problem, rather than a solution.

Answer 10

you believe in the big bang theory? which one there are several the original being proven wrong and the more recent ones which hve been put under that heading being fuller although their is a consensus that we can only really guess what happened before untill the correct answer is found and proven (no proof has been final on any).

Answer 11

"supreme intelligence" Religion in all it's well financed propaganda,it has never even attempted to show how one single piece of the natural world is explained better by "design" than by evolutionary competition.Instead,it dissolves into purile tautology.One of the creationists'"questionares"perports to be a yes/no interrogation of the following :
Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?
Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?
Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?
If you answered YES to any of the above,give details.
We know the answer in all cases:these were painstaking inventions (also by trial and error)of mankind,and were thework of many hands,and are still "evolving".