Hi krumple I have read much of your work within this thread and you seem to see it close to how I do.
Some of things that you speak of I have no knowledge of so I surely would not say you are wrong but you may be. lol

This is somewhat how I see it, If a god could have always existed then why couldn't every thing else just have existed. Now I am not saying that evrything existed from the begining but things changed or evolved and things continue to evolve.

I find it to be more complex for someone to have an idea that a god all knowing and creating of all things and so on, compared to things just happening.
If a god could just exist than why couldn't all of what we observe just exist. To me it would seem less complex for things to just exist than for a god to exist then have to create all of what we observe.

I do not try to pretend to know how it all began and I feel sure that no one else knows either, they are only guessing at it.

is the big bang hypothesis a scientific hypothesis?

On a side note, what are the alternatives to the big bang hypothesis?

Science is not infallible, that much is true.

Science has no pretensions to infallibility, it aims to be adequate, that's all.

Science has no pretensions to infallibility, it aims to be adequate, that's all.

I know. Hence why it's foolish to try to claim science as the highest much less the only legitimate source of truth. Science is no substitute for philosophy or religion.

Is this not a clear case of science trying to replace religion? If religion is not scientific, how can science replace it? And what question is answered by the Big Bang Hypothesis?

I have discovered this Catholic writer, who seems pretty impressive.

I agree, and I try to use the simplest explanation when ever I can. However; many theists try to claim that god existing would be the simplest answer and in some ways it is simple but like you point out. First you would have to have a god existing and then a motivation for that god to even decide to make a universe, and then what the hell does that god make the universe out of anyways? Which is another reason I laugh when I hear a proponent against the big bang theory asking, "How does something come from nothing?" Well if god was the creator, what did god use to create the universe? Some left over parts in his garage? I find it a contradiction that they won't allow for energy to be the cause of matter arising from nothing but they can easily write off that a god just snapped it's fingers abracadabra presto and a universe from nothing. As if that one makes more sense.

advocates the idea modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society -from your second link. On the other hand, there are serious contributors who are christians but manage to keep their religious beliefs in place, van Fraassen, for example.

Have you any idea as to the meaning of omnipotent?

advocates the idea modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society -from your second link. On the other hand, there are serious contributors who are christians but manage to keep their religious beliefs in place, van Fraassen, for example.

I agree, and I try to use the simplest explanation when ever I can. However; many theists try to claim that god existing would be the simplest answer and in some ways it is simple but like you point out. First you would have to have a god existing and then a motivation for that god to even decide to make a universe, and then what the hell does that god make the universe out of anyways? Which is another reason I laugh when I hear a proponent against the big bang theory asking, "How does something come from nothing?" Well if god was the creator, what did god use to create the universe? Some left over parts in his garage? I find it a contradiction that they won't allow for energy to be the cause of matter arising from nothing but they can easily write off that a god just snapped it's fingers abracadabra presto and a universe from nothing. As if that one makes more sense.

I know the meaning but there is nothing that implies or supports first of all that there is a god and secondly that there is one that has that trait. If you take a christian biblical account. If god required six days to create everything, that is not very omnipotent if you ask me. Surely a omnipotent god would have been able to create everything in the first second. So why the six days if it is omnipotent?

If we are not talking about the biblical account of a god, then what would be your basis that there is a god and that it is omnipotent? That it can create anything from out of nothing? Which is absurd reasoning, because if a god can do that, why can't the universe?

what makes you think this should be 'kept in its place'?

I think claims like "modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society" are extremely offensive, indefensibly inaccurate and serve no purpose outside of the promotion of christianity. Those with positions of secular authority who abuse their position to promote this kind of crap get nowhere near my criteria for "impressive".