Blind faith and evolution

[bladevalant546]

First off all thanks for the response I found it informative.

No it's not. Seriously, I's not. Even if relevant scientists have to speculate about the conditions at the point of the beginning, such speculation is used to fuel investigation. They don't simply stop there and believe they found the answer.

Now this is more a semantic game. So let us put the definition of Faith here.
faith
/feɪθ/ Show Spelled [feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith

Now we see here the actual definition…so according to good ole webster I withdraw my statement then. So faith only applies in science if there is not enough evidence to quality it as proven. However any hypothesis that does not have enough “proof”. Then according to definition of proof and definition of faith. They have faith in the hypothesis, and that it will be substantiated by fact.

Science isn't decided by debate. Also I question your use of the word 'intense' in this context. Do you have data for this claim? Show your work!

This is fair, I will simply supply you with the current theories floating around. I would like to make mention I thought it was well known that several theories are floating around which means there is no universal solution of the origin of the entire universe as of yet. Here is decent collection of these theories. (http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~danr/ph367u/report.pdf) I am reading it for my own enjoyment. However, this shows that there is still debate in the scientific community.

You do realise that the total energy of the Universe is zero, right?

Are talking about this hypothesis? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe)

I've said this many times: consider the whole Universe compressed into a singularity. All matter, all time, even all of space itself. What reason do we have to think that such a structure would be stable? We already know atomic structures break down spontaneously. Why should the start of the Universe be any different in this regard? I'm not claiming to have all the answers of course, but isn't that better than just assuming there isn't one?

I am sorry for my wording, it could have been better I am working on that. Your questions are founded, however my statement based on induction had to have some kind of catalyst. At the same time, maybe there is not one. Perhaps Hawkings was right and it kinda just happened. Again I do not know all the answers merely stating what I learned from what I read about the origins of time. I just know that there is not a general answer to what “caused” the big bang. I think we will find out once we understand QM better.

I'm going to apparently contradict my previous statement (and then commit seppoku for the hideous split infinitive). Anyway, the laws of physics inevitably break down (aaagh - another one!) under extreme conditions, such as at the Big Bang. Convenient, perhaps. Blame Einstein.

Yea understood, once black holes and QM was discovered…that screw things up. I will admit my ignorance of the total scope of this.

You have to go wherever the evidence leads. So far, nothing to do with the Big Bang has a face on it.

Fair enough, however merely stating on those who believe it was nature 100% however there is inductive reasoning behind this.

I wish people would stop harping on about logic as though it was the ultimate, indeed the only, tool in the box. Logic has to be grounded in reality or else you can reason yourself round in circles until you disappear up your own arse. It tends to give one a somewhat narrow, dark and smelly view of the world.

In my opinion I think our minds work on seeing observational patterns and then we adapt based on those patterns. We also connect seemingly irrelevant pattern information. This is usually falls under either deductive or inductive logic or reasoning. I however agree logic must be based in reality and it influenced by our lenses by which we view the world. Could you express other tools that I might be missing, I am eager learn.