Atheism: emotional hurts leading to case of pseudoscience?

[E.G]

[center]Is it possible that atheism is a product of emotional hurts leading to a case of pseudoscience? [/center]

The most intelligent and rational opening question to this discussion, and one of the main life endeavors that would service, externally well, the success and the future of every human, is the undertaking of an intellectual task to find an answer to this question: What if there is a God, is God Good, and what would I do about it?

As much as an atheist is uncertain about what was before the Big Bang, or what caused it, there is also uncertainty about God existence.

The universe had a start – who or what caused it?

The very fact that there have been, and remain ongoing attempts to deny God existence provide the first clue that God could exist, “There is no smoke without a fire�.

Some in the atheist community live under the cover of being the guardians of rationality and science. But how can they claim this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to answer legitimate questions such as, what, or who triggered the Big Bang?

Big Bang Theory (hypothesis assumes universe age is roughly 13.8 billion years):

The theory is that the Universe as we know was created in a massive explosion that not only created the majority of matter, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding and the universe as we know it began.

First scientific problem:

The earliest times of the Universe – the time when the universe was 10-43 second old, before which random energy fluctuations were so large that our current theories are powerless to describe what might have been happening. The uncertainties surrounding the Big Bang theory are the subject of extensive speculation.

Given that the laws of physics as we know them could not have existed at this time, it is difficult to fathom how the Universe could have been governed. What’s more, experiments that can create the kinds of energies involved have not yet been conducted.

Any theory or hypothesis that can’t be taken to the lab to be tested and produce results that can verify and validate the theory is considered a junk science.
Likewise, any theory or hypothesis that is missing a major link as a part of the systematic scientific and rational process leading to the formation of practical and applicable conclusions is considered a junk science as well.

Second major problem:

If the universe came about from a “Singularity� that suddenly began expanding and the universe as we know it began, let us take the case of our own solar system and ask these intelligent questions:

What if the earth was formed before the sun (after certain matters came together according to the hypothesis) , would it be possible to sustain life on earth, let alone, staring life?

At this point, if the reader chose to remain faithful to science (setting aside emotion for a moment), and we were to apply the probability concept to this argument, in other words, considering the massive universe that was formed after the Big Bang and the millions, or perhaps billions of moving plants and stars in different galaxies, we need to ask, what is the probability of the sun being formed before earth and also the moon, in order to create the most suitable conditions for life to begin and continue on Earth?
[center]One in a million? in a billion?, or perhaps in a trillion?[/center]

What if the sun was formed first then the earth, but no moon?, could life on earth survive? The gravity of the moon pulls the water in the oceans toward it. The gravitational attraction between Earth and the Moon also stabilised the tilt of Earth’s axis that gives Earth its predictable, fairly constant climate and its seasons.

We are all familiar with matters, they are around us and we deal with them every day, do they have a mind of their own or an ability to come up with an intelligent design on their own? As a researcher myself, and based on the premise of my argument, I feel comfortable to classify the Big Bang explanation as one of the most uncertain and weak theory that was ever presented by humans.

Therefore the question remains:

[center]What or who was behind this intelligent design of the universe?[/center]

[center]-------------[/center]

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by E.G]

Please, do not underestimate people's will to evil by the promises of whatever it is that is offered to them.

Also notes on culture of corruption, evil, crime etc.

Or with Star Wars:

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

- Lord Vader, Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzs-OvfG8tE, Star Wars - "I find your lack of faith disturbing"

[Neatras]

[center]Is it possible that atheism is a product of emotional hurts leading to a case of pseudoscience? [/center]

Despite this being the question in the title, and the first one you ask, you make no case for asking this question, offer no description of what terms you're using, and completely throw it to the wayside to ask humdrum questions about physics. I don't mind questions about physics, I would just rather you don't introduce a topic and then bring in unrelated issues. The theories on the universe's "origin" are very interesting.

I know what led you to ask this in the way you did. You have an initial feeling about "well, atheists are just people who were hurt and try to blame God! So they clearly made up the Big Bang Theory to exclude God from the obviousness of creation. If I show them that the singularity is false, that means they'll be Christian again!" Trust me, this is part-and-parcel for your average creationist in America. Willfully ignorant about many of the reasons people don't believe in your religion.

Now then, since you haven't actually made a case supporting your topic, I have no reason to put any more attention on it. Better to devote my efforts to answering the veritable Gish Gallop you've built up.

The most intelligent and rational opening question to this discussion, and one of the main life endeavors that would service, externally well, the success and the future of every human, is the undertaking of an intellectual task to find an answer to this question: What if there is a God, is God Good, and what would I do about it?

You'd be shocked to know that I don't even consider this question important to begin with. So unimportant is it, that I could think of many questions with greater relevance to humanity's future, such as: What sort of actions can we take that will prolong civilization on Earth? What scientific principles and verified agricultural techniques can we use to maintain a stable population while improving quality of life without damaging the ecosystems?

I don't really need you to waste time answering these questions, because you'll ultimately try to push things back toward your little script of talking about your god. The point of this little exercise is to point out your fixation on your god is a personal deficiency, not a case of extreme importance for many, many humans. I debate here because people are, by and large, bad at science, and this is a way for me to improve myself and for others to have a chance to improve their scientific literacy. Your god is just a concoction of very overactive psychological functions, I don't need some emotional argument against it, or some kind of warped Pascal's Wager to bully me into accepting it. Turns out, secular principles get the job done. (This is probably what you'll single out to make a stink of it, whining about how you're absolutely right, and I totally need god otherwise secularism will destroy the world; a concept that I would expect from any religious or cult member. You don't really have a choice but to believe that, because that's how you've been raised.)

As much as an atheist is uncertain about what was before the Big Bang, or what caused it, there is also uncertainty about God existence.

Well, depends on what god you're talking about. Every god described to me is probably fictitious, given what we know about how religions develop and evolve. If you give me a description of a deity that can logically exist, then we move onto what properties of said deity you can provide evidence for. It's a shame I'm 5+ paragraphs into this before even starting to ask for evidence of your god. Really goes to show how little faith I have in the religious to pull through.

The universe had a start – who or what caused it?

Correction, the universe changes states, and its change since it's singularity phase began at the time of the Big Bang, according to our best models (which are incomplete). There's no telling what its "origins" are, or if there is a different explanation.

I know you'll jump in and say that it must have had a cause, and you'll assert that the cause was a thinking, rational agent, blah blah blah. Problem is... your intuition sucks. This isn't an insult, my intuition sucks, everybody's intuition sucks. Intuition is a poor tool in describing or explaining reality, so I'm not inclined to listen to your intuition with regards to how the universe began. The physics are way too complex to leave the question in philosophical grounds. I'd rather leave it to scientists who work really hard to figure it out. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but it's not like anyone else could ever have a hope of answering it rationally.

The very fact that there have been, and remain ongoing attempts to deny God existence provide the first clue that God could exist, “There is no smoke without a fire�.

You are seriously disconnected from your own arguments. You clearly stated earlier there is uncertainty about your god's existence, now you whine about how people deny your god's existence. Try and level out your internal coherence so that you're not jumping from one Christian soundbite to the next in an attempt to stack the deck in your favor. "There is uncertainty about God's existence" is a technique used to equivocate religion and science (I can show my work later if you ask). "There are people who deny God's existence" is an attempt to sneak in "God is so obvious, people just deny him out of emotional reasons." This poisons the well against non-Christians. Both are illegitimate arguments, both are rationally incoherent when presented together, both show that you're adding in whatever apologist scripts you can to try and sound emotionally convincing.

Techniques to improve your debate ethos can be found online.

Some in the atheist community live under the cover of being the guardians of rationality and science. But how can they claim this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to answer legitimate questions such as, what, or who triggered the Big Bang?

Because the Big Bang is a culmination of our understanding of how physics works. We see the universe is expanding, that objects under pressure get hot, and roll back the clock until everything's compressed to a singular point. There's a lot more physics that goes into this model of reality, but I won't get into it. The point is that we're not obligated to meet your standard for explaining existence when we're just doing our job. That'd be like arguing a biochemist hasn't solved cancer, therefore cellular theory is unexplained and therefore biologists aren't the "guardians" of biological science.

We're working on it. So chill.

Big Bang Theory (hypothesis assumes universe age is roughly 13.8 billion years):

Theory. Not hypothesis. You wanna play in the big boy corner, you play with big boy words. Fix your scientific jargon, I'm not gonna let you twist language the way so many creationists regularly do.

The theory is that the Universe as we know was created in a massive explosion that not only created the majority of matter, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding and the universe as we know it began.

I've already done enough to explain how this description is... inadequate. Moving on.

First scientific problem:

The earliest times of the Universe – the time when the universe was 10^-43 second old, before which random energy fluctuations were so large that our current theories are powerless to describe what might have been happening. The uncertainties surrounding the Big Bang theory are the subject of extensive speculation.

Given that the laws of physics as we know them could not have existed at this time, it is difficult to fathom how the Universe could have been governed. What’s more, experiments that can create the kinds of energies involved have not yet been conducted.

Little blurb here, it's not that the laws of physics "don't exist here," it's that they "break down." The scales at which all existent matter was at the time meant that all physical laws that exist had no functional effect, or they would have effects we can't predict. It's entirely possible there are many laws we don't know about that governed what happened in such a state. Language is important.

Any theory or hypothesis that can’t be taken to the lab to be tested and produce results that can verify and validate the theory is considered a junk science.

Another script change, now you're bringing in the "either it's in a lab setting or it isn't science!" This is something you should start another topic over, I'd love to thrash it. But going into an extensive argument over creationists' attempt to shut science out of the argument by redefining science infuriates me, so I'd better leave it at that for now. Destroying the rest of this will satiate me.

Likewise, any theory or hypothesis that is missing a major link as a part of the systematic scientific and rational process leading to the formation of practical and applicable conclusions is considered a junk science as well.

Wrong. We're working on it, and making progress. If it was junk, we wouldn't have been able to make any predictions about reality. Only problem is we have the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation verifying our theories on what the early universe looked like.

If it turns out to be junk, I'd be shocked, but accepting. But we won't know it's junk by listening to you of all people; scientists will be the ones to figure it out. And not creationists. Actual scientists.

Second major problem:

If the universe came about from a “Singularity� that suddenly began expanding and the universe as we know it began, let us take the case of our own solar system and ask these intelligent questions:

I'm being a little mean, but these aren't intelligent questions. They're not stupid, don't get me wrong. But they're not intelligent. "There are no wrong questions" comes into play here. I'll answer, but they did put a cute little smile on my face when I read them.

What if the earth was formed before the sun (after certain matters came together according to the hypothesis) , would it be possible to sustain life on earth, let alone, staring life?

The earth did not form before the sun, so your hypothetical is naught more than a cute mental exercise. Life would not be able to form nor survive.

Interestingly, your religion posits that the earth existed before the sun. I can at least tell where you got the idea from, but it goes to show that the bible's description of "origins" are severely lacking.

At this point, if the reader chose to remain faithful to science (setting aside emotion for a moment)

"for a moment"

I'd say I've done mostly well in keeping entirely factual. So I'd appreciate if you left the baggage at the door and didn't let your superiority complex leak through. You're a Christian, not an arbiter of truth. I'm not an arbiter of truth either. So let's keep our heads on our shoulders, and not in the clouds, okay?

...and we were to apply the probability concept to this argument, in other words, considering the massive universe that was formed after the Big Bang and the millions, or perhaps billions of moving plants and stars in different galaxies, we need to ask, what is the probability of the sun being formed before earth and also the moon, in order to create the most suitable conditions for life to begin and continue on Earth?
[center]One in a million? in a billion?, or perhaps in a trillion?[/center]

Excuse me? Are you saying it's improbable that the sun formed before the moon and earth? So that earlier question wasn't just an intellectual sinkhole, it was actually motivated by a lack of understanding about stellar life cycles or the fusion process. Alright, we're getting somewhere.

When the Big Bang happened, there was no elemental matter. None. It took maaaaybe a fraction of a second for Hydrogen to form, and some of that probably managed to fuse into Helium due to the intense concentration of matter, but the universe at the time was still too hot for most protons and neutrons to have low enough energy states to bond together and form matter. By the time the universe had expanded enough to start forming stars, there was almost no matter of higher atomic mass. No metallic elements, no chance of Earth or the moon. Heavier elements form in the heart of stars in a process of fusion, and when supernovae are generated by dying stars, these heavier elements are thrown out and can, through gravity and orbital mechanics, aggregate in non-stellar celestial bodies. Stars existed before planets. Our planet formed due to accretion around our sun, given all relevant evidence. The odds of this happening? As close to certain as any scientist would like. I don't really care about meeting your standard of evidence, because as we discussed previously, your standard of evidence is colored by your intuition rather than evidence-informed reasoning, and so is utterly useless in a practical sense, on the scale we're talking about.

What if the sun was formed first then the earth, but no moon?

Well, that's what happened.

could life on earth survive?

Nope. Not really for reasons you think of (because you've never actually learned about the process involved, and so are going in with only your intuition), but because the earth at the time was a giant, molten ball.

The gravity of the moon pulls the water in the oceans toward it.

Yep. Don't really care about ocean movements when the earth has no liquid water. That happened... well, I've forgotten exactly when the moon formed. But by the time the moon had aggregated into a spheroidal shape, the earth had cooled down enough. Dunno if there was any liquid water at the time, though. Ask a scientist. Something creationists seem to find impossible to do. So you come here, to this forum, asking laypersons to fix your faulty knowledge while knowing deep down that everything we say goes against your intuition, and therefore you won't accept any of it. Quite the psychological road map you follow, but I know where it leads.

The gravitational attraction between Earth and the Moon also stabilised the tilt of Earth’s axis that gives Earth its predictable, fairly constant climate and its seasons.

Some planets don't have moons, and don't wobble. Do you mind presenting evidence for the stabilization of earth's tilt? It's not that I'll chew you out over it, but learning about the dynamics between the earth and the moon is an illunarating process... eh? Ehh? Just trying to be funny...

We are all familiar with matters, they are around us and we deal with them every day, do they have a mind of their own or an ability to come up with an intelligent design on their own?

This is a topic unrelated to the majority of your questions. It's another case of creationists putting all their arguments in a bag, trying to find relevant questions for a topic, and just dumping the bag out. You have your own little god-script where you desperately want to assert god as the answer to all these individual questions, but you're encroaching on different fields of science with each one. You want a discussion on abiogenesis? Read up on the topic, start a new discussion. You wanna make prose about how likely a god is? Present evidence. You wanna waste my time by continuing your Gish Gallop? Don't.

As a researcher myself

What's your field?

and based on the premise of my argument, I feel comfortable to classify the Big Bang explanation as one of the most uncertain and weak theory that was ever presented by humans.

Is this based on your intuition?

Therefore the question remains:

[center]What or who was behind this intelligent design of the universe?[/center]

[center]-------------[/center]

And this is the crowning piece of garbled nonsense that makes up the standard creationist fare. Trust me, I'd be more than happy to get into this topic.

But now you have some homework to do. Make it snappy.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 1 by E.G]

Please, do not underestimate people's will to evil by the promises of whatever it is that is offered to them.

Also notes on culture of corruption, evil, crime etc.

Or with Star Wars:

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

- Lord Vader, Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzs-OvfG8tE, Star Wars - "I find your lack of faith disturbing"

Please keep the discussion firmly in scientific grounding. I don't really have time to deal with this bear trap of an emotional argument you've set up. It's more of a "preaching to the choir" type of post where you affirm the theist posting the topic. Try contributing in a different way, or giving an argument with some novelty. I already got through EG's boring hand-bag of pre-made apologist arguments he stole from other apologists. So since you are in the scientific sub-forum, I can dismiss most of this out of hand. Please try again.

[Bust Nak]

Some in the atheist community live under the cover of being the guardians of rationality and science. But how can they claim this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to answer legitimate questions such as, what, or who triggered the Big Bang?

What's wrong with the answer: "I don't know, but we are working on it?" Surely that's more rational and scientific than any alternatives on offer.

[benchwarmer]

[center]Is it possible that atheism is a product of emotional hurts leading to a case of pseudoscience? [/center]

No point addressing the mish mash after the first line.

You appear confused what atheism is. It is simply the lack of belief in ANY god, not just your favorite one.

So, the fact that someone can't be convinced to believe in the many god concepts floating around, has nothing to do with emotion. On the contrary, it's usually the various theist apologists who bring emotion to the discussion in order to try and convince the atheist there is a god.

Are you emotionally hurt since you don't believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny (or maybe you do believe?) Was it emotion that drove you to realize the truth of these fictional characters? If not, then why the special pleading for your invisible character you call a god?

[Neatras]

[center]Is it possible that atheism is a product of emotional hurts leading to a case of pseudoscience? [/center]

No point addressing the mish mash after the first line.

That's kinda hilarious! I had the exact opposite reaction. This question is so ill-suited for the rest of the topic that it's pretty much out of place. Heck, I'd say it's even in the wrong sub-forum. I had much more fun with the rest of it, though I do like that combined, we're quite thorough.

[Kenisaw]

[center]Is it possible that atheism is a product of emotional hurts leading to a case of pseudoscience? [/center]

Yes, it is possible someone is an atheist because of an emotional hurt or psychological reaction to an event or situation in their life. That does not correlate however with pseudoscience. There is no requirement for a certain type of belief system when performing good science.

The most intelligent and rational opening question to this discussion, and one of the main life endeavors that would service, externally well, the success and the future of every human, is the undertaking of an intellectual task to find an answer to this question: What if there is a God, is God Good, and what would I do about it?

This is highly IRRATIONAL actually. The main endeavor of humans (as a collective) is to improve the human condition. Spending limited resources and man hours on things that have no evidentiary support behind them is a fruitless endeavor. We should be getting the most bang for the buck, and looking for supposed supernatural beings and trying to decide if they are good or not is not money well spent. Of course, if you have some empirical data that points to the existence of some kind of god being, bring it forward. (I'm going to assume you don't, since no cultist ever has evidence, and therefore we've once again hit the wall on that request).

As much as an atheist is uncertain about what was before the Big Bang, or what caused it, there is also uncertainty about God existence.

Different levels of uncertainty to be sure, but a true statement at the basic level.

The universe had a start – who or what caused it?

No one knows. That is one of the big questions currently being researched.

The very fact that there have been, and remain ongoing attempts to deny God existence provide the first clue that God could exist, “There is no smoke without a fire�.

Your use of the negative "deny" reflects your predisposition to assume that people not wanting to spend time and money on the topic means they are actively working against gods. I can't say no one is, so I'll say that the vast majority of people aren't working on the god question because there is no data or evidence that would lead one to think that there is a supernatural or god creatures. It's the same reason why no one is actively working on the leprechaun question.

Some in the atheist community live under the cover of being the guardians of rationality and science. But how can they claim this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to answer legitimate questions such as, what, or who triggered the Big Bang?

Not being able to answer that question does not invalidate the millions of man hours and countless experiments done for the last 150 years that have given us untold numbers of scientific explanations and discoveries. In fact there were quite a few scientific realizations that even got us to the point of the Big Bang. Is that work suddenly wrong because we haven't answered the question of what started the Big Bang? No.

That would be like an atheist asking you for Jesus specific height and weight, you saying you don't know, and that atheist claiming that your inability to answer that refutes anyone's ability to say they are an expert about the Bible, or Odin, or any other god being.

Your logic is atrocious here...

Big Bang Theory (hypothesis assumes universe age is roughly 13.8 billion years):

Let's fix your nomenclature here. The Big Bang is a scientific theory, so your use of the word "hypothesis" after the fact is erroneous. Whether you did so consciously or subconsciously I won't guess at, but suffice it to say that your attempt to belittle it with the word hypothesis shows how little you understand about the level of research and validation it takes for something to achieve the status of theory in a scientific context.

The theory is that the Universe as we know was created in a massive explosion that not only created the majority of matter, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding and the universe as we know it began.

More garbage science on your part. The Big Bang was an expansion, not an explosion. It did not create anything, as the matter and energy in the universe was already present at he moment of the Big Bang. Where the singularity came from is the big question. What happened when the singularity expanded into the universe is covered by the Big Bang Theory already.

Please update your understanding.

First scientific problem:

The earliest times of the Universe – the time when the universe was 10-43 second old, before which random energy fluctuations were so large that our current theories are powerless to describe what might have been happening. The uncertainties surrounding the Big Bang theory are the subject of extensive speculation.

No, our ability to explain BEFORE the Big Bang theory is the subject of speculation. Please update your understanding.

Given that the laws of physics as we know them could not have existed at this time, it is difficult to fathom how the Universe could have been governed.

It wasn't our universe until the Big Bang. You are talking about before the Big Bang, which no one can say for sure what was going on (although there are ideas being looked into). That some literature likes to include the singularity in with the Big Bang, that is not technically accurate. The Big Bang is when the universe started and the laws of physics as currently understood came into existence. What rules governed the moments (or eons, who knows) before the Big Bang are not known.

What’s more, experiments that can create the kinds of energies involved have not yet been conducted.

We haven't made any stars either. Do you really doubt that stars exist, or that they function as described? I wouldn't pin your hopes in creating an experiment like the singularity since all the energy and matter in the universe would be needed to repeat it. Think about it, that's not very rational...

Any theory or hypothesis that can’t be taken to the lab to be tested and produce results that can verify and validate the theory is considered a junk science.

You mean like the resurrection of a dead body after three days and that body ascending into a supernatural realm despite the conservation laws in the universe? That kind of junk?

Likewise, any theory or hypothesis that is missing a major link as a part of the systematic scientific and rational process leading to the formation of practical and applicable conclusions is considered a junk science as well.

That would be a valid point if the Big Bang included the speculation surrounding the source of the singularity, which is does not. There's no real doubt that the universe is expanding, that it came from a central point, and that gravity waves and the cosmic background radiation and other evidences are proof that the universe started out small and expanded over time. There are no major missing links to that. What is not known is where all the stuff in the universe came from.

Second major problem:

If the universe came about from a “Singularity� that suddenly began expanding and the universe as we know it began, let us take the case of our own solar system and ask these intelligent questions:

What if the earth was formed before the sun (after certain matters came together according to the hypothesis) , would it be possible to sustain life on earth, let alone, staring life?

The Earth wasn't formed before the Sun, so this question is pointless.

At this point, if the reader chose to remain faithful to science (setting aside emotion for a moment), and we were to apply the probability concept to this argument, in other words, considering the massive universe that was formed after the Big Bang and the millions, or perhaps billions of moving plants and stars in different galaxies, we need to ask, what is the probability of the sun being formed before earth and also the moon, in order to create the most suitable conditions for life to begin and continue on Earth?
[center]One in a million? in a billion?, or perhaps in a trillion?[/center]

Given the number of stars that we already know contain planets in orbit, it seems to be a completely common phenomena. The Earth isn't large enough to have had enough gravity to come together on it's own from a cloud of dust and gas, it would've taken something like the left over stuff after a star formed to make planets. The odds of 8 planets plus Pluto forming first and then moving into orbit around the same star is where you one in a trillion comes in.

No, it's obvious that a star has to come first. Any other scenario has massive problems with it that are unresolvable.

What if the sun was formed first then the earth, but no moon?, could life on earth survive? The gravity of the moon pulls the water in the oceans toward it. The gravitational attraction between Earth and the Moon also stabilised the tilt of Earth’s axis that gives Earth its predictable, fairly constant climate and its seasons.

Geesh, you scientific knowledge is poor. The Earth's tilt came from collisions with other proto planets, including the one that sheared off a big molten chunk of the planet that eventually became our moon. The moon didn't create the planet's tilt, the collision that formed the moon did.

We are all familiar with matters, they are around us and we deal with them every day, do they have a mind of their own or an ability to come up with an intelligent design on their own? As a researcher myself, and based on the premise of my argument, I feel comfortable to classify the Big Bang explanation as one of the most uncertain and weak theory that was ever presented by humans.

Given your stated claims of things scientific that are wholly inaccurate and erroneous, you will forgive me if I don't put much stock in your conclusions...

Therefore the question remains:

[center]What or who was behind this intelligent design of the universe?[/center]

[center]-------------[/center]

Prove an intelligent designer exists first. Like you said, prove the claim before trying to credit it with doing something...

P.S. Like many cultists before you, you've tried to prove the case for a god being by disproving scientific theories. This is a classic blunder that many make. If the Big Bang were shown to be false tomorrow, that doesn't make your god concept any more plausible or realistic. DO you understand this? The god theory is stand alone speculation, that fails or succeeds on it's own merits. Why so many believers think that god automatically wins in the Big Bang is not right is beyond me. They aren't related, and they either stand or fail by themselves....

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by E.G]

is the undertaking of an intellectual task to find an answer to this question: What if there is a God, is God Good, and what would I do about it?

Personally speaking, I would take out the "What if" from the start of the question. Just seems to me that saying "what if" emotionally prejudices the question. I would say instead "Is there a God".
Although I suppose I would want to first define what the word God means...

As much as an atheist is uncertain about what was before the Big Bang, or what caused it, there is also uncertainty about God existence.

Hmm...is this to say a non-atheist is uncertain? It's only the atheists that are uncertain? Also...does "before" and/or "cause" even apply as concepts when relating to the Big Bang?

The universe had a start – who or what caused it?

Are you sure the concept of "start" or "cause" even applies here?

The very fact that there have been, and remain ongoing attempts to deny God existence provide the first clue that God could exist, “There is no smoke without a fire�.

As I said before, emotionally prejudicing the question. Instead of saying "deny", I would say "verify the claim God exists".
Does denying something, mean then that the thing exists, or is valid? Does you denying atheism lend validity to the concept of being an atheist, what an atheist think or believe? Does your denial of gods other than your preferred one mean that those gods exist?

Some in the atheist community live under the cover of being the guardians of rationality and science. But how can they claim this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to answer legitimate questions such as, what, or who triggered the Big Bang?

Your language is loaded, E.G. The way this is written, it makes it out that being an atheist, and promoting rationality/science, are things that just don't mesh.
Why not say instead that "Some in the atheist community promote rationality and science"?

Also, why does someone being unable to answer what/who "triggered" the Big Bang mean they cannot promote rationality/science? Again, your language is loaded, in that it seems to me that E.G. is saying that only those who presuppose an answer to a particular question can promote rationality/science.
I don't presume ANY answer to the question of who/what started the BB...and yet I promote rationality/science all the same.

Big Bang Theory (hypothesis assumes universe age is roughly 13.8 billion years):

You conflate the words theory and hypothesis. Another mistake.
Another mistake is that you say there is an assumption made about the age, and that assumption is 13.8 billion years. Are you completely unaware of what has gone on in the scientific community with regards to the actual number that is the age of the universe? Are you under the impression that this number is static, unchanged, unchallenged and unchallengeable among scientists?

No-one "assumes" 13.8 billion years. No-one STARTS with that number.

The theory is that the Universe as we know was created in a massive explosion that not only created the majority of matter, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos

Two mistakes.
First, an expansion of space time itself, not an explosion. The two are very different.
Second...a majority of matter? So there's matter out there, somewhere, that is not from the Big Bang?

First scientific problem:

The earliest times of the Universe – the time when the universe was 10-43 second old

I'm being a bit nit-picky here, but if you find yourself unable to type scientific notation, you could try 10e-43, or 10^ -43. It looks like you wrote 10 minus 43 there.

before which random energy fluctuations were so large that our current theories are powerless to describe what might have been happening. The uncertainties surrounding the Big Bang theory are the subject of extensive speculation.

Now here's where my beef with Christians and other theists comes into play. Christians at this point, after admitting that our (current) scientific knowledge and abilities to predict break down at this point in time...then continue on to say that the cause/trigger of the BB is this thinking agent they call God...as if they somehow have an ability to predict an answer to this quandary they have just admitted they do not have the power to solve.

I do not have the expertise to solve Fermat's Last Theorem (no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than 2)...but let's ignore me admitting to an inability and believe me when I say that 4 is the correct answer.

Hmm...I think I might have just done something bogus. Do you agree E.G.?

Why is it you Christians plug in God as an answer to the problem of the Big Bang after admitting you are unable to solve it?

Any theory or hypothesis that can’t be taken to the lab to be tested and produce results that can verify and validate the theory is considered a junk science.

Not all science involves a laboratory with test tubes and chemicals...but what about your God hypothesis? Is it somehow immune to this declaration?

Second major problem:

If the universe came about from a “Singularity� that suddenly began expanding and the universe as we know it began, let us take the case of our own solar system and ask these intelligent questions:

What if the earth was formed before the sun (after certain matters came together according to the hypothesis) , would it be possible to sustain life on earth, let alone, staring life?

Why ask this question? Are you positing that maybe, just maybe, the Earth formed first? I don't give that any credence whatsoever. Are you E.G.?

At this point, if the reader chose to remain faithful to science (setting aside emotion for a moment), and we were to apply the probability concept to this argument, in other words, considering the massive universe that was formed after the Big Bang and the millions, or perhaps billions of moving plants and stars in different galaxies, we need to ask, what is the probability of the sun being formed before earth and also the moon, in order to create the most suitable conditions for life to begin and continue on Earth?
One in a million? in a billion?, or perhaps in a trillion?

To my own knowledge, all current astronomical/cosmological data suggests that stars are necessary for planets to form i.e. it is not known for any planets to form without a star being present first.

Unless you have some knowledge of planetary formation that is somehow possible without the presence of a star?

What if the sun was formed first then the earth, but no moon?, could life on earth survive?

Is the formation of life concurrent with the formation of the earth? Is that what you are asking?

We are all familiar with matters, they are around us and we deal with them every day, do they have a mind of their own or an ability to come up with an intelligent design on their own?

I'm unsure what you mean by the word matter, especially as a plural as you use it. The plural of matter is matter, like the plural of sheep is sheep.

I feel comfortable to classify the Big Bang explanation as one of the most uncertain and weak theory that was ever presented by humans.

Therefore the question remains:

What or who was behind this intelligent design of the universe?

Wait...what? You're just going to throw in intelligent design at the very end of your OP, with quite literally NOTHING to justify it? It comes out of nowhere! Where did it come from? Nothing in your OP led up to it!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by E.G]

As a researcher myself, and based on the premise of my argument, I feel comfortable to classify the Big Bang explanation as one of the most uncertain and weak theory that was ever presented by humans.

A few people like myself have responded to EG, and I'm a bit shocked that no-one else has pointed out to him...that it was a Christian who first came up with the Big Bang hypothesis.
Georges Lemaitre, a Christian monk.

EG where you aware of this? Did you know it was a Christian who first came up with the Big Bang (or as Lemaitre called it, the Cosmic Egg or primeval atom) concept? You spent so long in your OP linking the very concept of the Big Bang with those who "deny" your God that it just screams to me like you honestly don't know this.