Again, I am not sure. I would think that somehow the human mind does need a way of explaining "unnatural" things / having a relief vent when stuff goes wrong so that they dont need to find a logical explaination / dont have to blame it on themselves. So some higher entity is being used to explain / take the blame.

Since I am no psychologist or somesuch, I cannot really be seen as an expert though.

Science is the how, God is the why. To understand science is to understand the mind of God.

do you know what is the "Large Hadron collider"?

1) Yes they do. If god is not a higher power then he is no god.

2) The goal of science is to find out the truth of how the world work so if that is the truth that science found in that theory then science, by definition, didn't fail. Just because you do not like the result does not mean that it failed.

And don't forget what I said in an earlier post: if god exist and is omnipotent then he could have created the world 5 minutes ago and make it look like the big ban happened without him and make it look like this thread existed before 5 minutes ago (including our memories of it).

Science tries to understand the world as we can discern it but it can never prove the nonexistence of any omnipotent god (whether abrahamic or from other religious tradition) as such an entity could create the world to look like was created a different way.

All science can do is try its best to explain how the world is. If it contradicts holy writ then it is up to the believer, individually, to judge if he believes in a literal interpretation of his holy text and disbelieve science, whether he believes that those parts of the holy texts which contradict our best understanding of how the world works are allegorical or metaphorical or whether he believes that they are wrong, thus casting a shadow on the other parts of the holy texts.

Science in itself cannot disprove faith for faith is things believed without physical proof. You wouldn't say that you have faith that gravity exists because you just need to jump to experience it.

BTW, if you follow Star Trek, science cannot prove the nonexistence of Q either.

Straw man alert. You define science to be something it is not and then claim it contradicts itself.

Science does not mean reasoning in a vacuum. Science uses reasoning to formulate its theories but these theories need to have a strong foundation of empirical data from repeatable experimentation before they are widely accepted. What you describe is more akin to philosophy.

And science doesn't say that there was nothing before the big bang; one of the theories postulates that there was no before before the big bang (like there is no north north of the north pole) while others postulate other things. Which theory is the most likely to be true? We do not know yet, which is why it is still an active field of research.

Note also that science cannot contradict itself as all it is is a (very) educated (by experiment) best guess explanation of how the world is. So if on one hand the world appear to have a conservation of mass behaviour and one the other hand it appears to create mass out of nothing (the big bang) then it is not because science contradict itself, but because the universe gives us contradictory data.

For example, in Newton's time science had two contradictory understanding of light. Newton's theory said that light was made of particles while huygens' theory said that light was made of waves. Centuries later we finally understood, thanks to the development of quantum mechanics, that light (and all of matter) is both a particle and a wave form. Incidentally, if you like video games, music or movies then you have used that scientific theory as it was instrumental in the creation of the laser used to read the CDs/DVDs/Blu-Rays commonly used by these medium.

So if science seems to contradict itself it doesn't mean that science, as a whole, is wrong, but it means that either one of the contradictory theories is wrong or that we do not understand the world well enough to create a theory explaining all the facts that the contradictory theories deal with.

It may be true but it is not moral as the christian god is claimed to be omniscient. In that case the moral thing to do would be for it to consider why you performed your good deeds. If you performed them for personal gain (whether on earth or to secure a place in heaven) then those were selfish acts and should not count. If you performed them because you thought it was the right thing to do then those were selfless acts and should count.

If a person that does the right things for the right reason does not get into heaven because they did not happen to believe in the divinity of jesus and thus did not accept him as lord and savior but another that did not do the right thing goes into heaven because they believed in jesus as their lord an savior (say, an abortion clininc bomber) then what you have is not a moral system that rewards those that deserve it and punishes those that don't but an amoral system that rewards people based on an arbitrary criteria.

We should all watch some Through the Wormhole, maybe that will clear things up.

The big bang isn't a who. With that minor quibble aside, I certainly think the big bang is the most credible explanation that currently exists. Its actually supported by data!

At least it doesnt sound arrogant and cocky

lolwat? really? 

This is very true and very important sentence to this discussion. Nicely put