Hello Michel,
You said:
>"No one is asking for proof - I think we all know that neither side will be able to prove their case."<
From your perspective or experience, that may be true...but I assure I have encountered *many* theists that demand unequivocal "proof" of various scientific theories (evolution and "Big Bang" just being two of the most notable). Lacking any statements/conclusions of proclaimed 100% scientific certitude, the typical theist's (doubter/contrarian) response is "Science's guesswork/assumptions are no better than my faith/belief. If you can't "prove" your "theory", then I'm (we're) right." (or things similar in nature of reply). Obviously, this is both fallacious rationale and quite self-serving, but frequently encountered in my personal experience.
[Aside: I have often put of non-accepting theists to detail or outline just what (specifically) evidence or proof they would require to accept scientific theories like evolution or Big Bang as being the "best" available explanation of these multifaceted and well-studied phenomena, and you'd be surprised at how many candidly state "You can't present/There isn't...*any* evidence or proof that would cause me to accept such an explanation, or otherwise (in so doing) reject my own faith-based conclusion/belief(s)." Yet these same people demand "proof" that they themselves can not define as being satisfactory. Odd. The few that actually *do* propose what would constitute convincing evidence/proof offer scenarios/instances that can not be supported (or even tested) by means of sound scientific methodology.]
>"I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I think the point behind my original question was that (it seems to me) non-theist say "Why should I believe in God ? - prove that he exists" - and go forth, at great length, to show how science indicates that the 'whole thing' started with the big bang."<
Hmmm. I suppose some younger, intemperate, and inexperienced "non-theists" would indulge such facile/superficial rationale, but within my own recent personal experience, self-assured "non-theists" wouldn't even bother with such argument. Non-belief (re: supernaturalism, theism) is certainly not requisite in order to accept presented scientific theories as sound and veritable beyond a reasonable doubt. This forum stands as testimony to that view.
>"The trouble with that argument (I fully accept the scientific evidence of what took place), is that the Scientist (IMO) will never be able to find an answer as to how the right conditions came about for the appearance of the material needed for birth of a Universe; just as a theist cannot explain the 'appearance' of G-d (he has always been....etc)."<
I do not share your pessimism regarding the inevitable inability ("impossibility"?) of "science" (that monolithic, all-encompassing "thing") to not discover and produce definitive and naturally explained cosmological origins (though perhaps not within our lifetimes). Even today, cosmologists (quantum, particle, and standard)/physicists/mathematicians *think* they have "creation" boiled down to the first few milliseconds of existence (about: 10 to minus 43rd power seconds to about 10 to minus 11th power seconds for "quantum", and "up to" about 1/100th of a second after the big bang for "standard" cosmology). It's only those first initial milliseconds that remain "scientifically" unresolved.
Who knows? Maybe the recent "Deep Impact" experiment engineered to collide (successfully!) with the comet "Tempel 1" will finally reveal some secrets regarding the very origins of our solar system (and perhaps life itself). Theoretical cosmologists/physicists and mathematicians are still hammering away at the unresolved aspects of a Grand Unifying Theory (aka, the "Theory of Everything"), that would reconcile the apparent dichotomous natures of small-scale and large-scale physics, and in so doing, might very well uncover the very nature and "essence" of existence itself (not philosophically, but naturally).
Again, I am optimistic that such revelations will indeed be unveiled, if not necessarily within my mortal stretch of years. Just THINK of the incredible explosion of scientific understanding that has transpired and accrued over the last two hundred years. Over the last 50. In the last 25.
In 1805, there were no cars. No airplanes. No penicillin. No major organ transplant surgery. No submarines (no scuba). No radar. No air conditioning. No home electricity. Planets Neptune and Pluto were yet undiscovered. No genetic science. No dinosaur fossil had been identified.
In 1955, man had yet to launch a satellite successfully into space. Sending men to the moon was a mere pipe dream, and perhaps "impossible". Heart transplants were unheard of, as were "Cat" scans. Insulin had only been FDA approved for 16 years at that point. The first industrial-use microwave oven was only a year old (another 12 years before you could buy one for your home). Color TV was four years old (and almost no one had one). Videotaping was still on the drawing boards.
In 1980, "personal computers" were unheard of (much less a working public "internet"). No nation-wide (much less world-wide) cellular phone network. No DNA testing of forensic evidence. No camcorders. No digital cameras. No DVDs (CD's were a brand new medium). No Hubble telescope. No Space Shuttle. No Lasic eye surgery. No botox. Ms. Pacman was state-of-the-art video gaming at 25¢ a play (geez, no home video game units!).
And yet, through the years of scientific discovery, evolution, and revolution, and the remarkable ("impossible"?) "magic" that science indispensably provides us every day (with little thought or involvement), few if any "theists" doubt or question the underlying chemistry, math, physics, etc. that make these inventions/discoveries factually evident and real. The *exact same* science and methodology that that is employed in support of theories like the Big Bang.
Most "theists" don't question the science that makes their microwave oven or cell phone work, but they retain impenetrable convictions and doubts of the very same science that strongly suggest Big Bang models, or evolution? I mean...D'OH! It's the VERY SAME (understanding of) microwave technology that allows for cell phones and microwave ovens...that also *confirms* (in observance and measurement of cosmic background radiation) the strong validity of Big Bang theory.
I wonder...if present cosmological origin theories are somehow "false"...will that mean that I can no longer "nuke" a burrito...or drive erratically while eating that burrito in my hybrid car whilst talking on the wireless phone?
>"The conclusion that I am coming to is that there is no proof positive for either the theist or the non theist."<
I understand, but you fail to state important distinctions between the two.
As a "non-theist" (an atheist, thankyouverymuch), I don't REQUIRE "proof-positive" to accept a validly presented and supported notion, "beyond a reasonable doubt". Therefore, I never offer any claim (on behalf of "science") as "proof positive", or "beyond any and all doubt". The "theist", on the other hand, presents faith-based claims as beyond (any) reproach or doubt. As far as the faith-based claims of Christians are concerned, such are offered as "absolute", "immutable", and "unwavering" TRUTHS. Scientific substantiation (or "proof") is not required to make such claims, nor is it often (if ever) provided for evaluation/falsification.
>"At the end of the day, however, it is the non theist who takes the stance that the theist way of thinking is flawed filled with unsubstantiated supernatural and false methodology."<
Indeed, and there's a very good reason why.
One may evaluate evidence, and subsequently form a (potentially falsifiable) conclusion, or....
....one may insist upon/claim a foregone and unfalsifiable conclusion, then seek out only confirming evidence, and dismiss/ignore any contradictory evidence.
One methodology IS flawed, the other is not.
Believe it, or not...