| Ha. That second sentence is exactly what I said as a teenager; I've since found out how ignorant I was. It's only equivalent to saying "I don't know" if you follow a line like Pascal's Wager, with any sort of faith or conviction you're saying you have established an answer. The Big Bang is widely accepted yet is by normal definition impossible (you need time in order for something to change, the Big Bang requires a change before time existed). It's a cop out that allows people to curtail metaphysical enquiry at the bounds of known physics ... People will challenge a theist "who created god" but don't challenge "who/what created the Big Bang". For some reason ex nihilo is fine for the Universe but preposterous for a creator? (The reason is usually a religious reliance on certain assumptions.) >you stop looking for the actual answer. // Your petitio principii is showing. If I find "I get wet standing outside when it rains" I don't need to find a contradictory reason why I'm getting wetted by rain unless the original theory fails. Of course you stop looking and only consider then opposing answers if they present themselves. When you wake in the morning do you enquire as to the nature of your reality afresh or do you assume it has the same realism as when you went to bed? (Until that realism is challenged?) |
The big bang and what (if anything) cause it does get challenged and is challenged by serious scientists too. The current answer is we have absolutely no idea.
On the other hand, it's rare to see religous people acknowledge that gods (there is no logical reason for a single god) require a creator at all, it's a thought terminating proposition.