One small point for even god to consider (Creator, atheist)

[Bennu]

Who then knows whence it has arisen,
Whence this emanation hath arisen,
Whether God disposed it, or whether he did not, -
Only he who is overseer in highest heaven knows.
Or perhaps he does not know!

As for the OP, acceptance of the Big Bang theory is not mutually exclusive of a belief in the divine, or vice versa.

[Shadow Wolf]

Those who deny the big bang theory are hypocritical, they may ask how all matter and anti-matter began. Well how did god begin? When/how was god created?

Do you realise you killed your own argument? You are supporting the "How did the original energy/matter form," and you are asuming people who deny the big bang view god as being of physical energy.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by darkwaldo

While we must all go through life having faith in many different things, this is usually faith based on reason. I doubt many people can claim to have seen an electron; however, some have. Science is constantly testing itself, and while we still have large gaps in our knowledge of the universe, I believe it is more reasonable to have faith in science then in god. To me, it seems that believing god is jumping to a conculsion about why things are and how they came to be, when we really can't say for sure, one way or another.

This is nothing more than "Science of the Gaps". You seem to have a lot of FAITH that science will fill in holes it has never filled before. One would wonder if your faith in science exceeds even my own in God.

Just because you don't see God or understand my reasons for believing, does not make my faith without reason. You look at the same evidences as I do and draw a different conclusion.

[Ody]

Originally Posted by atheistthatsme

I make one small point.

Those who deny the big bang theory are hypocritical, they may ask how all matter and anti-matter began. Well how did god begin? When/how was god created?

When was the dense material needed for the big bang theory made?

[s2a]

Originally Posted by atheistthatsme

I make one small point.

Those who deny the big bang theory are hypocritical, they may ask how all matter and anti-matter began. Well how did god begin? When/how was god created?

Hello atheistthatsme. Welcome to RF.

As you are young in years and experience - yet favor critical thought and review - I shall attempt a kinder, gentler approach in reply.

Ever heard of the "Argument By Question" fallacy? Primarily, this entails asking a simplistic question that offers no "snappy" answer as rebuttal. (Trust me, I know. It's a favored - albeit lame - tactic of supporters of faith-based rationales).

"Which came first? The chicken, or the egg?", presents a lovely conundrum that is apparently insoluble (by any definitive measure); and while entertaining to ponder...is not a premised argument unto itself.

God belief is a matter of faith; not an issue of scientific inquiry, study, or estimable fact. It is not hypocritical for a faith-based rationale to claim a divine origin to the cosmos. The only inherent hypocrisy in such a rationale is to suggest that there is some extant scientific validation/support of such a claim.

It's not unfair to parry a "creationist" claim of, "Nothing can come from nothing!"; with a reasonably reflexive retort of, "If that's true, then how did God come into existence?" As you may expect from a faith-based perspective, the answer will typically prevail upon the suggestion/belief that: "God just is"; or, "God is existence"; or, "God is eternity", etc.. Note that these common "answers" are founded upon (some) personalized faith; not scientific theory or evidentiary fact. Such claims are not conducive to any reasoned debate. There is no mechanism in which to satisfactorily falsify a claim of supernatural cause/effect explanations. All you can do as a skeptic and budding atheist is challenge (or illustrate) the reasons why faith-based rationales/explanations are empirically unsupported, unmerited, and unworthy as being logically acceptance (as "true") beyond an imposed (and typically unmet) burden of reasonable doubt.

Atheism and/or skepticism is (amongst other things) a reverence of critical thinking and review; and neither are simply an exercise (in and of themselves) for debunking (or excoriating) claims of supernaturalistic, or faith-based beliefs.

Cosmological origins cut to the very core of many faith-based beliefs, and it's not unfair to observe that most adherents of divinely-instigated origins are unlikely to embrace scientific, and empirically-based, evidentiary predicated conclusions that are dogmatically counter to their own faith-based rationales. "God did it" is a "no-brainer" retort for those that believe in a supernaturalistic entity as original cause and effect of observable phenomena.

If you want others to value reasoned conclusions borne of critical thinking, review, and demonstrable fact; then you may be better served to instigate self-introspection amongst those that "believe", but don't know (or can't define) the "why" of what they believe (or proclaim) as "true", or "truth".

Even those that prefer or cling to faith-based rationales and explanations of the observable cosmos eventually must (somehow) justify their own faith in reasoned terms and humanistic qualifications. Without reason, any informed choice is impossible. Faith itself is an "informed" choice (of personalized perspective).

Instead of impugning the character of religious adherents (as being "hypocrites"), or questioning the sincerity or piety of their intrinsic faith-based beliefs...you may want to (instead) consider debating their reasoned motivations in accepting supernaturalistic claims as unequivocal fact.

Human "belief" is unimpeachable.

Human reason, is not.

Carry on. ;-)

[Runt]

It is pretty interesting to me that theists often (not always, but often) fail to apply the same logic to God as they do to the universe. People think, "Wow, this universe is so incredibly magnificent, something must have created it!" and "Reality could not have existed of its own accord. Something must have created it." Yet the same thoughts are not applied to God. A reality that has existed and always will exist is inconceivable, yet the notion that God has always been there seems to be accepted in many religions... The same thing with this idea that the order/beauty/magnificence/[enter adjective here] of the universe requires some consciousness to have shaped it, but the magnificence of God does not imply the same kind of purposeful creation...

[darkwaldo]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

This is nothing more than "Science of the Gaps". You seem to have a lot of FAITH that science will fill in holes it has never filled before. One would wonder if your faith in science exceeds even my own in God.

Just because you don't see God or understand my reasons for believing, does not make my faith without reason. You look at the same evidences as I do and draw a different conclusion.

I would like to look at the same evidence you see. There is still much that I don't know about both religion and science, which means no matter what belief I hold it will still be based on faith. I still feel I would be jumping the gun by believing in a creator, when there is still so little about the universe we have knowlege of.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

This is nothing more than "Science of the Gaps". You seem to have a lot of FAITH that science will fill in holes it has never filled before. One would wonder if your faith in science exceeds even my own in God.

Just because you don't see God or understand my reasons for believing, does not make my faith without reason. You look at the same evidences as I do and draw a different conclusion.

Ah, but science has been able to fill in the gaps before.

Take the sun, for example. people used to think that it was a chariot drawn across the sky with a god riding it. And yet now we can explain it by science.

There are countless examples of things which once were only explainable by the actions of a god, yet now we have accurate scientific explanations for them.

Science of the gaps has a proven track record.

The God of the gaps has never been shown to exist.

BTW, science does not depend on faith, because science gives us evidence to support its own existance. God relies on hearsay.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Ah, but science has been able to fill in the gaps before.

So has God.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Take the sun, for example. people used to think that it was a chariot drawn across the sky with a god riding it. And yet now we can explain it by science.

No we can't. We can POSTULATE what we think is going on... but our myths are just a bit more convoluted than the ancients. Our children's children will scoff at our feeble attempts to describe the sun.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

There are countless examples of things which once were only explainable by the actions of a god, yet now we have accurate scientific explanations for them.

Yet, no has come up with an accurate explanation of life or of sentience. There only has to be ONE thing that can not be explained by Science to indicate the presence of a greater being. Let me know when you get close to that.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Science of the gaps has a proven track record.

Again, I will ascribe to YOUR god as soon as he can account for life and sentience. My God has that one down pat.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

The God of the gaps has never been shown to exist.

The god of the Gaps exists and is name