lolwat? really? 

Science usually provides actual proof for what it states, and there's actual scientific proof that backs up the Big Bang theory. I know what you tried to do, but your lack of understanding of the difference between cultural creations such as religion, and science (which actually tries to form a connection with the real world, though culture does tend to set it back), led to you failing miserably.

its just one of many theories

Sri Lumpa said:

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.

but we really can't est it.

we can test modern day science as we have its proof right there

big bang happened a long time a ago,now there are just assumptions

i believe science.

its just that i am questioning the beginning and ending points

we do know whats the outside of religion but we have never actually really know it,that is only known by really high authorities like POPE and other people

its like if we today find the proof of existence by science,its beginning and ending point and afterlife and then we nuke ourselves,2000 years from now the new generations would never understand what we did.only some people carrying knowledge would everybody else would be calling it just a theory

for this you really have to know both the sides,we know science's side as its open to the world but not really the religious side

I keep asking you, what is this ''proof'' that doesnt allow one to have faith in God. You seem to act like there is some divine reason and proof that makes all faith in God irrelevant. Keep in mind that absence of proof is no proof of absence. You also seem to think that faith is belief in something that is wrong based on evidence, when every person even slighlty educated will tell you that faith is when you believe in something you do not know based on evidence exists/will happen, but something inside you tells you so. And you'd be suprized how big of a role faith plays in modern science

No. It really isn't.