Maggie's Farm

It isn't god that creates "order" it is man that sees god in order. In my experience those who try to use science as a proof of god willingly ignore anything that doesn't fulfill their expectations and excitedly trumpets anything that because of it's mystery or "order" seems to propup their beliefs. The problem with using science or any logical system to support a belief in god is that any objective observer can easily see the fallacies that crop up. For example the typical appeal made by those who cite science as proof is that the niverse is too complex to have been created by chance and thus must have been created by intelligent design. But please don't ask then who created that intelligence behind that design, or the endless series of questions that must follow i.e. who created the intelligence that created the intelligence behind the design...
It is better to stick to the wonderment and faith rather then step into the world of science to attempt to prove something that science cannot prove.

My point is simply that for a theist to step outside of their comfort zone in an attemtp to prove the unprovable is a mistake. Their lack of understanding and knowledge of science exposes them to ridicule. It would be lke a poet who could write a beautiful poem about natural beauty choosing to claim that the constants Pi or e are meaningless or that calculus is a waste of time and has never contributed anything to the world. He would expose his ignorance and debase his arguement. It isn't necessary or useful to try to prop up or prove theism with science it is based on faith and a belief system and doesn't lend itelf to science.

"Either everything came from something, or nothing comes from nothing. Take your pick."
As I understand it prior to the big bang all matter was compressed into a very small ball with infinite gravitivity and instability where the ying overcame the yang (or was it the other way around) and exploded into what we now can see and experience. Life was the inevitable result of the presence of specific elements and coumponds in close proximity along with an idea l energy level. From this perspective the only religious context I could entertain is that before humans as we know them existed something else possibly with even superior abilities existed that controlled or directed the flow of life to what we see today. This view isn't "much" different from most religions but a honest discussion of this view would probably quickly devolve into heresey and open warfare or something.

I don't have an answer if that's where you thought I was going. There is so much in life that we don't know and so many experts are wrong that it is the norm and expected. What id do know (or believe) is that you cannot argue that something made something else without leaving yourself open to the question of what made the first "someting".

I would prefer theists stay in the realm of faith, that poets speak of beauty and scientists stick to the facts. But humans are human and can't resist "going there".

The big bang theory is a theory with some supporting evidence and data. This is what science is all about. Smart people who spend their lives studying an area of science formulate a theory and put it out there for others to support or refute. As more study takes place theories grow or fail. It is not perfect it is merely the best you can do. You say or appear to say that the big bang theory is incorrect but you fail to follow with proof. At this particular point in my life and education I favor the big bang theory. I may change my mind if future information promises something better or refutes it. To me that is the strength of the scientific method, to others it is a weakness.

Philosophy has a troubled history, while many philosophers were interesting many were clearly crazy. Not intended to be disparaging as many great people were/are crazy. Sometimes it creates a kind of single mindedness unavailabe to the common man with a family to feed, etc. Philosophy doesn't require truth nor facts it is merely opinions writ well. Science could never be a subset of philosophy even though popes have tried to make it so. Science and philosophy would appear on the opposite ends of any rational scale of things.

I think what you were searching for is that religion is a subset of philosophy although I consider it to be more related to politics.

Not exactly I neither want nor have I asked for origin proof. It is what it is and people make up their mind. My original point was simply that it is a mistake to dabble in science to prove the unprovable to the unbelieving. Science is agnostic.

There will always be supporters and deniers of any particular scientific theory (see AGW). The big bang theory explains so much of what we see today that is otherwise not explained. Now it will not suprise me if someone comes up with a different theory from the big bang that satisfies those questions and captures my interest.

"you did use the word proof".
Well of course we are discussing an article that claims to prove something so in reference I used the word "proof". But my response is still accurate that I need no proof of origin. The author may, or he may think others do but I don't and from the sound of it neither do you.

The link went to a bizarre place.

Bizarre. For example: "Those who have begun to grasp the mega-importance of the Geocentrism Revolution now brewing--a revolution that will enlist true science in returning to the Biblical Geocentrism Model of the universe [See: Size-Structure Pt 1] -will have no difficulty in recognizing the other false science dominos that must fall when the heliocentric deception that made possible the Big Bang deception is toppled."
It's gobbledygook, or maybe the author of the site has something to say but can't help themselves from writing that way, I don't know. All I can say is it was bizarre trying to read it.

You are welcome to embrace the bizarre web site and the debunked theory it supports. Even those scientists the theory supporters cite don't support the theory or agree that any of their own work supports the theory. Perhaps over time a better theory will replace what most scientists agree on today.

Nothing that can get past your bias.

Don't take it so hard, we all have biases.