I think what people tend to forget is that causality itself is more like an observation of influence.

Whenever two things collide, one thing bumps into the other and among other things it caused contact. As a result of an event something else happens.

Causality only provides a description for whatever happens within our frame of knowledge. If we don't know what made the two things actually get in the vicinity of each other or better yet what made the two things, that's simply where our understanding of causality ends. In a way it's simply artificial.

Is there really a deeper meaning or more advanced reason behind the possibility of two objects hitting each other? Except from their existence in the same space, I really don't think there is.



Actually, basically we do know. A corpse will start to rot and nature will take care of cleaning it up entirely... eventually. We even know that when our brains stop functioning we won't be able to think anymore, which should lead to the logical conclusion that the lights simply go out and that's it.

Of course, that's a scary thought for some,... for some reason, and hence their invention of an afterlife. This even makes sense, after all through evolution we, just like any other creature on this planet, were more or less 'programmed' to survive, giving in to the thoughts of death is unnatural.

Cheers

This is the last time I'm going to mention this. If the Big Bang doesn't need a cause, why do you assume that God needs a cause?

Your Big Bang, without a cause, is also outside of causality.

Can someone else help try to explain this, I'm giving up.

I think the idea is this: whether something needs a cause or not is not the issue. The issue is whether something can be tested for truth or not. For example, when someone came up with the concept of the Big Bang, they could test some things about it. Despite the fact that we have no observer to say whether a Big Bang happened or not, we can put together some working models as to how it might have occurred and what the results would be. Then we can see if we can find any of these results in our reality. What we discover allows us to valid an idea, negate an idea or to change an idea. But we have things we can test and observe in order to see if there is any validity in the concept.

When it comes to God there is not test. There is no way to prove that he/she/it is out there. Someone can have the idea ... the concept ... but it is simply not testable.

So, when we talk about theories for the universe and how it all came together, we have ideas we can test and ideas we cannot. God is not only an unknown, but not testable. And, on top of that, with all the gods out there, none of them seem to fit with what we have learned about our universe. As such, most scientists would have to conclude that there is either not a god or gods or that, if there is, then we simply don't know who he/she/it is.

One Possible answer:

Because human race has parents. And humans are made equal to god. Means this god surely has parents ...

While at causality. Believers makes gods, not vice versa. A GOD needs somebody who BELIEVES. Have a look at the religions. First there are some fanatics, then they create their god. It's always that way. Not assumed, but observed.



Before the Big Bang there was no causality. Because there was no Before at all. And causality needs a Before and an After. Big Bang caused itself. As told, a paradoxon. And just one theory.

Can also be that newest string theories about multidimensional universes is true. I think they are at 13 dimensions at the moment, growing, hehe. Still miles away from the world formula. Anyways. That one would mean that our universe is caused by another parent universe, and is causing child universes too. And the whole multiuniverse stuff would be eternal. (i am still in trouble how to measure eternity without time and space. That eternity would be surely a different eternity than we know ...)

We cannot proof it in reality. None of the theories. And probably will never be able to. But Dan has named it, we can make a theory, calculate it and have a look how it fits to the facts that we find. Those told theories can be calculated by math. A god would destroy all calculations though, because it would do influence at a closed system, and would destroy the causal balance.

Which for me is a mathematical proof that there is no god, no matter which theory is true. Else there would be a difference in what we see and what we calculate. E=mc² for example would become out of balance when some goddess would throw in some forces from outside ...

In my opinion the key point is not the big bang by itself
The key point is the existance of matter

Does matter need a cause ?
This is the question

According to common sense and classic Physiscs the answer is : yes

According to quantum mecahanics the answer is (probably) : no

Energy and matter "must" exist

You are claiming it exactly the other way round!
All what I wanted to say is, that if you assume that the big bang needs a cause (god), god logically also needs a cause!

"Your Big Bang, without a cause, is also outside of causality."
It was the BEGIN of causality. Which means it influences us, but not the other way round. There is no contradiction. But god is claimed to be influenced by us, too (sinning->making him angry). That means events in "outside of cause" have a cause (which includes the origin of god), which is a contradiction.

Exactly.

ID/Creationism are not testable, thus are not science, thus do not belong in a science class.

The big bang is testable as we can see the results of it today and work backwards through the laws and theories of physics and mathematics. Evolution, is an incomplete theory, I'll admit, but is testable through fossil examination, bacteria, and other short-generation creatures like the fruit fly.



And hence a major factor in my disillusionment with the Church. (along with the unchristian behavior of the right wing, the superstition and the rabid denial of fact even in the face of overwhelming evidence).

Agnosticism is my stand point. I challenge anyone to prove there is a god and I challenge anyone to disprove it.

Agnosticism often seems to deny some facts as well, as in what we do know. Agnosticism values more what we do not know yet or can't know.

When something is impossible to be proven, doesn't this just mean it's untrue by definition? I mean, apart from the mere existence of these kinds of theories, there's nothing -quite literally- that points in this kind of direction (a God etc.).

Cheers

Agnosticism, by definition, simply means the person does not know for certain one way or another. The word is broken down this way: "a" means "no" or "anti" (as in "against") and "gnostic" meaning "knowledge". Literally the word means "no knowledge". The agnostic, then, is one that is more likely to say, "I don't know if there is a god or not" instead of saying, "There definitely is not any god."

Innocent until proven guitly
So as long as the existence of god isn't proven we can't assume that he exists.