(March 27, 2014 at 8:14 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:(March 27, 2014 at 7:32 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: For the record: I don't know how the universe began. Or if it even had a beginning. I do know that the rational course of action from there is to investigate and ask questions rather than just make up an answer and call it good.
That's the dilemma isn't it? Any explanation of the origin of the universe will not be rational, you're just going to have to accept that a supernatural event took place at some point. I find it curious however that you state how you don't know how the universe was created, but somehow are quite certain that it wasn't God.
How can you begin to dispute something if you have no basis on which to form your argument? If you have no peticular belief or theory on the creation of the universe then you'd have to take a neutral stance because you "don't know".
You are not being logical. "I don't know" is the only rational answer.
We have good evidence that something like the Big Bang occurred, we have no evidence of multiverses or gods.
I don't believe any of the explanations, but I only seriously consider the ones for which there is evidence.
I also summarily dismiss the ones that are non-logical or contradictory such as a steady-state universe or one that involves a creator that is eternal.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.