The big bang does not lead us to any useful conclusions about the universe because the theory merely takes for granted all the scientific knowledge that is available and uses it to build this grand suggestion for how it originated. Theology does essentially the same thing.
Except, without the "takes for granted all scientific knowledge that is available and uses it" part.
Assuming that some intermediate organism between the beginning of time and now existed, it seems reasonable to say that it would be self-sufficient and reproduce in a way that is conducive to its survival. However, that organism cannot be worried about survival if it is infinite. In other words, something had to have preceded it. The thing before it had to have passed on the ability to survive, or at least to reproduce before perishing. Hopefully you see where I'm going with this. From where did the knowledge of how to survive and reproduce originate? Surely not from chaos.
Actually, yes, precisely from chaos. In the very beginning, around the few nanoseconds after the big bang, there were just LOTS of particles. Electrons, protons, neutrons. At some point through random swerving around of these particles, two neutrons and two protons got together and two electrons started orbiting around them. This was a stable configuration (more stable than these protons, electrons, neutrons, being on their own, anyway) so they remained in this position, and
have remained in this position until this very day, as a helium atom. However, not a SINGLE loose neutron still exists, and as such this species can be said to have "died out" (although in reality it simply got absorbed into one of more than 200 kinds of stable atoms). It isn't about "reproduction" or "survival" as it is simply about stable states continuing to remain stable.
Now let's imagine that over, say, a dozen billion years,
somewhere, pretty much every possible configuration of atoms has occurred. Now, obviously, some of these configurations are simply going to be more stable than others. Those configurations are more common today, and the less stable configurations simply don't exist because they usually break down.
Reproduction isn't necessary at this stage of evolution because there's enough raw materials that, when everything gets sorted, are likely going to end up being used in the formation of a relatively small number of molecules, i.e. only the stable molecules. The step from stable molecules to figures resembling cells similarly does not require reproduction (see previous post regarding hydrophobic lipids and hydrophilic phosphates).
Reproduction gets
introduced after the creation of basic single celled life, but before mitochondria comes on the scene. We don't know much about it, but that isn't to say that we should throw evolution out (in fact, if you say that because we can't yet explain the onset of DNA we should throw evolution out, you will look very silly in ten years when we
can explain it visa vi God of the Gaps).
Was that so improbable? You know, if I wanted to, I could describe your own belief as "believing in a magical genie that you talk to at night, and if you believe hard enough he'll grant you wishes", but I don't misrepresent your position like that and I'd appreciate if you wouldn't mine.
Furthermore, since infinity never ends, no matter how far into the past we go, we will never reach the originator, unless that originator is infinite. Poignant fact! You get my drift... I've overused the word God, and you'll probably find some other entity that is not intelligent or all-powerful to theoretically be able to perform those tasks. But how confident are you in that theory? And does your heart tell you that's the source of all life? Or is that your defense kicking in?
Why does this infinite thing have to be a being? An agent? Why do you so fervently believe that some
one has their hands in the wilful creation of the universe? The alternative, though bleak, is just as likely (50/50 chance that there is no such omniscient
being, if I may take a page from your book).
@ 2nd paragraph: See (A). Moreover, I never employed Pascal's wager in my arguments. Pascal's wager urges you to choose God because you have nothing to lose. I have not told anyone to choose God. I've merely been debating His existence.
Pascal's Wager has a lot to do with "If it's 50/50, and one way nothing happens, but the other way you can choose between hell or heaven, why not just believe and the you get to go to heaven or nothing, as opposed to not believing and you get to go to hell or nothing?"
That "50/50" part is the part that bugged me because saying that two things with equal amounts of evidence negating their existence have the same chance of existence is deeply, deeply flawed.
(D) @ the rest of your post: I agree that many ancient religions can be shown to be false by recycling proofs. What makes my prophets more credible or texts more accurate? Well, nothing, to be honest. That's pretty obvious. I just choose to believe them, same way you choose not to (I presume).
You don't choose to believe. You said yourself that your heart "knew" it to be true, and therefore you believe. Trust me, if I were able to believe in Christianity, I would, just as Cypher wanted to go back into the Matrix. I cannot bring myself to believe something that I can so plainly see to be wrong, though.
(E) @ 1st paragraph: Regarding Pascal's, see above (D). Concerning the whole heart thing, that gets into reformed theology, which is the mainsail doctrine for the Christian Presbyterian denomination. You probably don't even want to hear this, but I believe that men and women cannot believe in God unless he chooses them. This has to do with Calvinism and the T.U.L.I.P. interpretation which I won't get into. Yea, I'll stop there for that subject.
Will ignore this bit.
(F) @ paragraphs 2 and 3: In IP 3 you yourself admit that you don't know much about the Big Bang Theory. How, then, can you support your statements in IP 2 that there is a great deal of evidence pointing to the BBT? I'm not calling you out. I'm just saying - if there's a great deal of evidence of the BBT and it has so much explanatory value, why don't we call it the Big Bang Science? Yea, let's drop that whole tangent. I only brought up the BB as an example of an explanation to the universe anyway. I don't know anything about it.
I can tell I know a hell of a lot more about it than you. I only pointed it out because I could tell you didn't know anything about it, AND you're the one who brought it up.
(G) @ paragraphs 4 and 5: Tell me: do you really believe there's a good chance chunks of elements just floated around in space indefinitely,
Yes.
those chunks randomly produced life,
There's nothing random about it. Stable formations will tend to remain stable. Once something stable "randomly" happened, it remained like that forever. Imagine a bunch of pieces falling down from the sky. Obviously they're not going to form a clock. But imagine, you clear the ground of any pieces that are in the wrong position, and then drop a bunch more pieces. It'll probably take a LONG time before you even have one piece in the right place to start building a clock, and a lot longer before you actually have a clock, but it'll take a billionth billionth billionth of the time that it would take before dropping random pieces and then clearing the ground would take to make a clock. I guess there's still a random element to it, yes, but you need to realise we're talking about the former random, not the latter random. If I were arguing that the latter would make a clock, I'd be ****ing crazy as I imagine you imagine me to be.
and the chunks were never seen again?
What? I never said this. There's tons of floating chunks around that aren't part of life. The Moon is a good example.
Again, you brandish the "evidence" card. Apparently, there's "huge swaths of evidence for it"? So scientists have observed these entities of chaos nimbly jetting around in a distant galaxy?
Well yeah. Like, you know. Clouds of helium. Giant chunks of carbon.
Please. It seems to me you're implying that the "chunks of elements" became life, rather than producing it. In other words, the claim is that we are the evolution of things that were eternal, yet we are mortal and finite.
Matter is eternal; you can't create or destroy matter. We are eternal in that the stuff we're made of is eternal. You can burn a table; the wood didn't "vanish", it simply became carbon dioxide and water (organic material + o2 --> HOH + CO2, combustion of organic material). But the table's not there anymore, even though the stuff it's made of is infinite.
We did directly evolve from those first individual subatomic particles (although to call them the "first" is misleading because all the matter that ever existed was all right there at the big bang, and it's all still around and nothing but it), as I've almost fully speculated above.
(H) [And I know there are a million posts after this one - but I need to rest] @ your post: You're overcomplicating my ideas. I'm merely claiming that there must be some origin from which the universe derived itself. Why must we overthink things and talk about rational this and irrational that? My logic is straightforward. Everything you see before you did not come from nothing? What kind of non-divine being could initiate a genesis that would develop into a universe of this magnitude and awesomeness?
Maybe not-a-being-at-all? Maybe given the laws of physics and some particles to start out with, all of this would just
happen? Which is what Newton proved hundreds of years ago.
