Big Bang?

[jbor at bigpond.com]

>> Ah yes, this is the crux of the issue, right here: human Science 
>> can't explain how the universe came to be any more than human 
>> Religion can explain how its various "Gods" came to be. The logic of 
>> both requires an enormous leap of faith on the part of the true 
>> believer.

On 27/09/2005 ioannissevastianos wrote:

> Of course scientists can't explain how the universe came to be: they 
> don't have enough data to go on. All they can do is formulate the most 
> plausible hypothesis based on the available amount of data. That's 
> what science does; it's an honest procedure and requires no faith. As 
> soon as new data come along which refute the hypothesis, then it is 
> abandoned and something else is put together in its place.

I don't see much if any difference between a priest-caste of scientists 
fantasising, with no proof or logical explanation, that the universe 
magically appeared from nothing, and another group of equally 
reasonable and intelligent men and women positing the existence of a 
Divine Creator. They're equally implausible hypotheses, in my opinion, 
with no reason to justify the imposition of either the one or the other 
worldview as gospel.

best

>
> Religion, on the other hand, doesn't give a rat's ass (I always wanted 
> to use that expression, thanks for the opportunity) what the data say. 
> The Bible says so, so it's so. And you need tons of faith to buy that.