MajGenl.Meade wrote:Yes. Still, is it not equally irrational (or rational) to believe either that everything came from nothing or that material x has always existed? The big bang is certainly something we've not seen and yet people believe it. The process is one of arguing backward from observed reality to ultimate cause. At some point one reaches an irrational leap of faith, even in purely secular terms.
I'm not sure that all religions have logical/rational consistency vs. the actual world. Internally they may.
No, I don't think it is equally rational; the "big bang" involves naturally discernible processes and can be supported by natural evidence (which is readily available for all who want to see it). Certainly we all can rely on natural processes to "prove" that something we haven't seen exists or existed--I have never seen my great grandparents and yet I know I have them because I had a grandmother and she came from some parents who would be my great grandparents. And that's the difference; once we posit a supernatural god (and that is the only sort of god that can be omnipotent or perform miracles), then that god cannot be proven or ascertained by natural evidence. Certainly interactions of the supernatural with the natural may be seen, but these do not prove the existence of the supernatural, as it cannot be proven.
So perhaps science can ultimately take us back to the point of the beginning of the natural universe, and this is the best it can do, but it stops there. As for what existed before the universe began (if anything), it's pure conjecture; but in a way I see it again as the "why" in the "why did the universe start" question. That is more the realm of faith and belief than it is science, because when natural laws no longer apply, science is of little value.
