>I love science, and I love god. However, what god means to me
>is far different than what god means to the mainstream.

because when you use the word god all of the common associations are going to be made.

>Clever, but, it works both ways.
>
>God is unnecessary as he/she has never shown his/her face. We
>could just as well believe in the big bang and it wouldn't
>make a difference.

That's not the common approach to God. It's not what so many humans put their faith in.

>No, it does break down. If you don't want to take my word on
>it, take Michio Kaku's.

Kaku talks about the possibility of the multiverse. It's all theoretical placeholders waiting for evidence.

>>Wrong there's actually a lot which supports it, not the
>least
>>of which is the observable expansion of the universe. But go
>>ahead and take that quote on faith.
>
>You are choosing to believe something that is incorrect. You
>are placing the flag in the wrong ground. Could it be faith?

No I'm merely explaining why the big bang theory has held up for so long, because it's been supported by observable evidence. Should further evidence be found which doesn't necessitate it then I'm willing to replace it.

>I'm not against the big bang. Where did you get that? Are you
>reading what I am writing? I am simply pointing to the fact
>that its built on nothing.

Sorry you're just trying to get to a concession that the big bang is based on faith, which is absolutely wrong, but again do you.


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."