[Blaaaaaaaah]

Before I make my post:

Before we ask the question "Does God exist?" we first have to deal with our philosophical predispositions. If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless.

- http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm

That is where you are wrong. I don't start off with a presupposition. I start off with a blank slate, view the avaliable evidence, and then draw conclusions based off of that evidence. That is one of the fundamental flaws of having conclusions made before you seek evidence. I see the universe and am awed and amazed by it. I want to learn about it. I don't write off the currently unexplained by saying "Oh, I don't know, so God did it." That's just intellectually lazy.

I disagree that people who came up with the belief that God "created" the world are "intellectually lazy". I am not religious myself, but I do imagine how some people may find that offensive.

I am more of a neutral when it comes to Big Bang theory/God's existence. At the moment, I side with the Big Bang theory, but if one day we realise that God may perhaps exist (perhaps science may tell us?) then I am more than happy to accept it.

As for now, I don't believe in God's existence, but I can see what Manzcar is getting to. In the maths I do for science, many of the problems we were required complete were to have started with "Assume etcetc" and we work out the problem like that.

Sometimes I wonder myself what happens if our assumptions were wrong. If our assumptions are wrong, that means our solution is wrong altogether.

In the article you posted, assumptions were made (as Manzcar said) for the theory to be proposed. Yes, "this assumption is being tested continuously as we actually observe the distribution of galaxies on ever larger scales", but if it's still an assumption then it means there are not enough concrete evidence for it to become a fact.

Also from the same site:

The Big Bang model is based on the Cosmological Principle which assumes that matter in the universe is uniformly distributed on all scales - large and small.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo.html


-----------------



http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

I can quote things from there but there are way too many quotes so I'll let people read it themselves.

Point of that article: it clearly explains the theory and all the strong evidence, but it does make an emphasis on the fact that assumptions were made. They even have a bit at the bottom about whether God exists. It links to the first site at the beginning of my post as well.

To me, if you want to think from a "science" perspective, believing in one and only one possibly theory for the beginning of the universe is rather pointless. I believe it's kind of silly to only put our faith into one theory, which hasn't even been proven yet. It's often nice to think outside the box. I'm not saying we should believe in all theories, but it's always good to have a small part of ourselves to have a bit of faith in the other theories out there.

Of course, I respect if anyone only wants to believe in the Big Bang theory, or only believe the idea of God creating the universe. Their beliefs, their faith, their life. If it makes them happy believing what they wanna, then so be it, just as long as they don't look down on me for my views as I wouldn't look down on them for theirs.