Oh man, reminds me about the priest of my school (catholic school). In 7th grade he was telling me that I needed to believe in a religion, so I asked him which of the thousands of religions have existed through history. He said that I needed to believe in his religion because, historically, it has been the most relevant. And I was just shocked… That’s was the dumbest shit I had heard. I told him that wasn’t enough for me to believe in something that is going to send me to hell for eternity if I make a human mistake and forget to confess.

It is just an event that could explain the current state of the universe. Why is the distance between the planets increasing? Why is space expanding? Scientists come up with explanations to observations, and then try to prove or deny them.

It’s not like any of us actually believe that is a irrefutable fact. We won’t kill other people for it like religious people have done for centuries if someone denies their god. We have no emotions attached to it, if science discovers that it is false, we won’t start a war.

Science never assumes it holds the absolute truth. In fact, science promotes the denial of its own theories through observation and experimentation. That’s how the scientific process works. Al’s, science is just trying to create useful models that describe and explain the behavior of the universe we live in. We know the models are never absolute, we constantly find that the models are incomplete, but they are still very useful in certain restricted contexts. For example, Newton’s equations helped humanity for many years, but they are obviously incomplete compared to modern models.

I hope you now understand how silly your argument was. Please don’t compare science with faith again.

This atheist sees the big bang as an event horizon of time. We don’t know and its part of the atheist superpower package to come to terms with we don’t know and use it a lot, rather than assuming God did it or deciding we have winter because Mother Nature misses her daughter when she’s on duty at the underground worksite.

Hawking tells us there isn’t at at first before the big bang. Time started with it, so causal chains can’t be expected to work the same way. There’s no before.

Greene submits ours is one of countless universes, but we are only privy to the one we’re in, and big bang events are the result of brane collisions. That is to say the big bang is the result of a natural event, and any point where events happened ex nihilo would be well out of the scope of our speculation, or of any deities that might take an interest in us.

Which of these are true? Or is it something else?

We don’t know.

Based on the observable evidence that’s the best explanation that fits reality. You are free to find other explanations and proof to support it showing something else happened. That’s the beauty of scientific explanations, things either are or aren’t.

A magical being that created everything for no reasons then decided to punish all of humanity forever because he didn’t like something one of them did makes no sense. Also apparently he gives a fuck about who you fuck for whatever reason, what sort of pervert like that tis worth worshiping?

Let me guess, you hear voices too?

You should see a psychiatrist and get medicated before you cut your children in half.