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

>Actually not at all. The difference being the concept of god
>to believers is infallible. It can't not be. Big Bang can be
>removed from the equation if more information is provided
>which proves it unnecessary.
>

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.


>Technically they don't actually break down there though. It
>goes through bang and crunch cycles creating the multiverse,
>only one of which we are in. So that quote is actually a
>misrepresentation.

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

>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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346

>
>> It is taken on faith just as god is. The
>>singularity is god and god is the singularity, in that they
>>share ZERO evidence where physical laws are impossible, and
>>both drive the most profound question that we have to
>>consider.
>
>Again you're wrong, but seeing as you're just happy a couple
>of scientist are against the big bang...

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.