Puppyroach said:
I don't have to claim that it doesn't exist, I can assume it doesn't since there is no proof for it. Likewise, I can assume there is no god that created the big bang since there is no proof of it. I can assume however, that there is a scientific explanation since it has shown to be an excellent method of explaining the world around us. This is a completely other matter than knowing what that explanation is. For example, the earths rotation around the sun. If we would have had this conversation a thousand years ago, I would claim that we can assume a scientific explanation for its rotation around the sun, even if I didnt know what that explanation is. There is no need for a hypothesis of a god in that case, since science has shown to be quite adequate. |
You're trying to imply that science is opposed to God? Do you even know what science is? Science could very well prove the existence of God. You're only saying that you know there is a reason. What if God created it and it was simple as that? Science is knowing and proving something. If it can't be proved it is not science; therefore, there is no scientific explanation for the Big Bang. Also for the Sun example, you would have made a blind guess. One intellectual actually hypothesized this, but the SCIENTIFIC community ignored him because he had no proof.
