The big bang is far from well-substantiated or proven, and yes I have looked at a LOT of 'evidence' that claims the big bang actually happened ( my stepfather is a theologian, pastor and studied philosophy, we had tons of discussions about this subject ).
If you don't want to accept the BBT evidence that many, many scientists (physicists, astronomers, etc) around the world, using the most advanced equipment humans have yet developed, have put together to test the theory, then I'm not going to exhaust myself trying to present it to you. I am of course no scientist, but I'm an intelligent critical thinker, and I have read up on much of the evidence, discoveries, and methods, and I am convinced that this is humanity's best model so far explaining the universe as we can observe it today.
Don't you think that discussing things with your father who is a theologian and pastor would introduce a degree of confirmation bias into the conclusions you draw? To balance that you will need to discuss the subject with scientists who support the big bang theory.
I will further suggest that the scientific validity of the BBT isn't the realm of theology or philosophy, and being a proponent of a particular religion doesn't lend credence to arguments against scientific theories that undermine its tenets. As far as science is concerned, the BBT has nothing to do with whether or not a god exists.
It would be wrong to call it anything more than a hypothesis, since it's only a suggested explanation.
I reject that statement, as there is a large body of observable collected data in support of mathematical and physical models for the universe - this goes beyond mere suggestion.
Of course there is a lack of evidence that such a divine deity exists, just like there is a lack of evidence that the earth is 13 billion years old.
I think you have your numbers mixed up. The Earth is placed at around 4.5-billion years - this is a lower limit for the age of the Earth based on tests. The universe post big-bang is placed at 13.5-billion years. I reject your claim that there is no evidence to support the age of the Earth - there's quite a bit actually. There are several radiometric dating methods used to test Earth sediment samples and test meteorites of varying materials that have landed on Earth. Scientists can plot the data gathered and demonstrate how it correlates to an Earth of around 4.5-billion years old.
Logically it doesn't make sense that something came out of nothing...
I agree with you, and no scientist has ever claimed that, and if an atheist claimed it, then he is incorrect. BBT is not describing how the universe came into existence, it is describing how it is expanding. The 'bang' in BBT might be an unfortunate misnomer as people tend to think of bangs as having been caused by some sort of explosion. BBT is not about an explosion of matter from nothing ('nothing' is a pretty ludicrous concept in itself when used to describe an absolute state).
...that something has to be created by something or somebody else.
I'm not going to argue against this follow-on assertion because it is circular, as I explained before.
That is where atheism falls short, and has no base whatsoever.
I don't know how you can state this. I gave the definition of atheism, and its "base": the rejection of the claim that a deity exists because there is a lack of evidence to prove that one exists. The things you have said above do not change this position.
From the study of the universe, both by atheist and christian scientists, everything comes to the conclusion that the universe is finely tuned to an incomprehensible precision to support life. Aka designed.
From what have observed, the universe is largely devoid of life - Earth is the only example we have of a planet supporting life. As far as optimal design goes, it seems rather wasteful. I reject the notion that any competent scientist (physics, astronomy, etc) would suggest that the universe as we know is a 'finely tuned machine' for supporting life. Beyond our own solar system, we have no way of verifying that life exists.
If you are talking about the Earth as an example of life-supporting planet with good conditions to support that form of life as we know it, then yes, we got rather lucky on that one. It rather fits with a mathematical model of "randomness" that if you iterate a core set of variables enough times (i.e. near infinite) you will get an anomalous occurrence such as a planet that supports a form of life, and life forming in those conditions.
Don't tell me that the universe randomly started expanding and the energy was converted into atomic particles, and then formed elements. Something like this happening by random, don't think so.
Aside from being inaccurate, that description is also far too simplistic. You seem determined to reject the scientific models that have been developed and simply rely on your own opinion. The random nature of the universe is observable. Galaxies collide, stars collapse or explode, quasars blast star-stuff out into the void; on a smaller scale, meteors careen around solar systems, trapped in gravitational tides, until they inevitably collide with a planet, and closer to home, causing mass extinction events. Is this all random or 'by design"? It is certainly observable and measurable (to the best of our current abilities).
There are of course many logical flaws to that faith-based approach as well, but logic gets thrown out the window on matters of faith.
- I clarified my statement here by updating my earlier post. It seems in the interim you quoted my earlier version but were addressing the part about throwing out logic.
So does it when it comes to atheism. As I said, there is no base.
The assertion is that atheism "throws out all logic". I reject that assertion. The logic is simple - it's binary: A) there is no scientific evidence that god exists -or- B) there is scientific evidence god exists.
When you accept that the answer the answer is A, you are an atheist. Those who accept B are misguided on the supposed evidence. The rest form a special category outside of that binary logic: C) There's no scientific evidence that god exists but I choose to believe god exists despite that (based on a whole range of other supposed reasons').
Science cannot prove that a god doesn't exist, neither can it prove that he does exist. So far science has only presented the alternatives to religion ( such as the big bang and the theory of evolution [ I do believe in evolution to a certain extent, people as well as animals evolve every day ] ) . Science has never discredited the existence of a omnipotent deity, since it's impossible.
The default position is that something does not exist/isn't true until there is sufficient evidence to support it. The burden of proof is with the claimant making the extraordinary claim. Further, the claim that a god exists is an unfalsifiable theory, meaning it cannot be proven by scientific methods because it does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory - most notably, at least one observable instance or previously measured evidence of similar circumstances. Demanding that science prove that something does not exist is absurd.
God is formless. Out of formless came form. Form is temporal. Trying to prove formlessness through science which deals with form in time is impossible.
This is a classic example of 'begging the question' - a proposition demanding proof is assumed without proof, and used as a premise for a statement. In this case your assumptive premise is that god exists, which then leads on to all these other claims about the nature of god. However, I can agree with the second part of the statement, as discussed above: "Trying to prove formlessness through science which deals with form in time is impossible."
The universe is everything, without the universe there is nothing. So for the universe to be created there must have been something before it, a creator. It goes against all logic to deny that nothing has created the universe.
This is loaded with logical flaws.
First you take the scientific model of the universe (moments ago we agreed scientific models cannot be used to prove the existence of a formless god so why use it as a base to argue that god exists);
Then you assume an absolute state of nothing (whatever that would be - science has made no claims) is the opposite of the scientific model of the universe;
Then you make the leap to "for the universe to be created", which presupposes it was indeed "created" out of nothing, by a creator who is apparently "something" (which undermines the claim of absolute nothing, unless he is exempt from logic as a special case) not subjected to the physical laws of the universe as we currently understand them.
Somehow this is meant to prove the existence of a creator god?
According to the big bang 'theory' the universe had zero volume and infinite density before the big bang : zero volume = nothing. Now they claim that energy was converted into subatoms, aka the protons , neutrons and electrons. How the fk can energy come out of nothing?
I think I adequately, albeit briefly addressed the BBT earlier in this post. Your understanding of it is wholly incorrect, you should go read more about it before you argue against it.
