[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by OBCT

I'd think Big Bang Theory vs. ID is closer. Even then, there are many aspects of each that can be logically and scientifically interwoven. Very generally ... God set the "Big Bang" in motion, which trigged planet formation, evolution, etc, and got us to where we are today. This person could take the Genesis account figuratively. Some people will take a similar line of events, but insert other instances of supernatural intervention to make it work in their mind. This might not work for you, but I'm saying it is plausible -- and equally falsifiable compared to other hypotheses (we can't go back in time to verify for ourselves... yet!).

Your argument fails to Occam's razor. You're trying to "explain" something -- that is, make a simplified account of its workings -- by postulating an even more complex unknown -- God -- that you do not explain at all. No matter how much you try to make that sound scientific by throwing around big words and sounding conciliatory, it is not.

It is also not falsifiable, unless I'm missing something. Frankly I think of most religious claims as falsifiable in the sense that we postulate a more rational, provable claim and then verify it, which by extension casts extreme doubt on the "God did it" explanation.

The big question people need to answer for themselves is, "what started it all?". Many scientists try to postulate catalysts for the Big Bang. I personally put supernatural creation about on par with a purely natural unfolding of events in terms of rational believability. Neither are a slam dunk. Where does the 'substance' for the catalyst from? In my mind, both options are incredibly difficult to grasp, and holding on to either one without any doubt seems difficult.

Are you an expert on theoretical physics? No? Shocking. You can "personally put" anything you want on par with anything else you want, but it doesn't make you an expert nor someone that anyone should listen to as an expert. There are people who've devoted their entire lives to the study of these ideas and to denigrate them with your armchair, recreational "well what ifs" is insulting to them and to the real study of science.

Yeah, maybe "God" caused the Big Bang. For that to be a worthwhile explanation to anyone, you have to then explain what God is and what created God. The only argument I ever hear about that is "well he just IS" or "it says it in the Bible", at which point it is no longer scientific and no longer useful in a scientific context. You're free to think what you want but you can't dress it up pseudo-scientific lingo and parade it about as scientific. It is not.

I appreciate what scientific discovery brings to our world, and am always interested in hearing of new pursuits and breakthroughs. For me, for now, I am content in my belief in the Bible and the corresponding belief in a supernatural beginning to our cosmos.

Scientific discovery brings progress to our world via its unyielding principles. It has brought us to where we are because it doesn't compromise and go "well I can't quite get this, must be God". It doesn't posit wishy-washy, feel-good conciliatory theories with no basis in reality. You're free to hold those opinions but it doesn't make you rational or scientific, so stop pretending like you are. You're making Faith-based claims, end of story.