Do you find it any more objectionable than your implication that we should all be theists -- that is, that we should "accept the explanation that God created the universe"?
I did not intend to imply anything of the sort - as I said above, I was more challenging the general attitude and querying my understanding of rationality than attempting to directly challenge anyone's theism or lack of same.
I don't agree with your implication that I am actually forced to choose between "God created the universe" and "the Big Bang happened" (indeed, I know many theists who believe both), nor with your assertion that my "worldview" has no explanation for the Big Bang happening.
I agree completely - I also believe that the Big Bang occurred. My point was more about why and how it happened, not if.
I mean, think about it: if I propose a theory that predicts certain results to certain tests, and you go out and perform those tests and you don't observe those results, what conclusion would you come to about that theory?
I don't mean that performing the tests will not give visible results, I mean that performing the test leaves you with difficulty in reporting your findings. Large chunks of the Bible is about predicting either the future or what was the future when it was written. And most religions make a pretty big prediction of and event that will definitely happen to all of us.
An interesting point - all my learning in astrophysics up to now had basically said that 'we don't know how it can have happened given that the laws of entropy and thermodynamics seem to prevent it'. Although the universe as a whole seems to obey at least some physical laws, e.g. expanding at a constant rate, etc. I happen to believe that there is a scientific explanation to be found for the Big Bang - I doubt that God will have created a perfectly cohesive set of scientific laws until you get to a certain point where he says 'Oh, all right, you got me there'. My point was more directed at what seems to be 'any scientific theory, even if it can't explain all the evidence, is better than any other theory, even if it can't be disproved'.
The Big Bang and theism are in no way mutually exclusive - I myself have no problem that the Big Bang is probably the origin of the universe. As for predictions, there are various prophecies and suchlike in the old testament that were fulfilled in the new testament - though you will probably call doubt onto the reliability of these sources.
My understanding of quantum physics is not as good as I wish it were - what is different?
Care to explain my error? I'm somewhat new to this - why is a theory that has no explanation of the facts be placed above that which does?
I must say I resent the allegation that all readers of this blog must be atheist - is it not permitted for me to be interested in rationality just because I am one of these 'obviously deluded' religious types.
And should you not, as a rationalist, accept the explanation that God created the universe, which is an explanation that fits the facts, and makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed), than accept that something happened (the Big Bang) which your worldview has no explanation for?
And why is God creating the universe paradoxical? Outside of this universe, with the physical laws that require causality, why does He require a beginning?
The test I was referring to was dying - if the afterlife is as a religion says it is, then it can probably be accepted that the rest of the religion's doctrine is correct - at least the essentials. Or if not, you could ask the Supreme Being what IS correct.
Conversely, if there is no afterlife, then if can be accepted that the religion is incorrect.
Obviously this does not apply to all religions, but server the purpose here, I believe.