Thanks Rich, I couldn't be bothered to read through that entire portfolio I was being handed searching for a single bit of proof. I wanted the Cynic to point me directly to something factual. Wikipedia is only reliable if you go through the whole process of investigating the sources and once again I can't be bothered to do all that work for someone. This is why wikipedia itself isn't reliable, and a very bad place to site as a source. Rather, going to wikipedia and siting the source that is related to the thing on Wikipedia is far better both in looks and ease for the reader.
I don't think you've defeated the argument though. Where did that infinitely dense point come from? See the thing about Zet's argument is that it boils down to that if there was ever a beginning there is a god.
Now I ask you, has the universe always existed? I've seen theories on it, but the idea is pretty magical in itself. I mean, why would it just exist? Seems like that would not kill the idea of God even then, but would do a number on creationism.
The "always existing thing" has indeed been thought about, historically. But it was shown, and ultimately proven, that the Universe is expanding (and I think it's actually speeding up in the process; that part I can't really explain, though). Basic logic would say, if the Universe is expanding, and you reverse time, there had to be a singular point (which scientists cleverly call "the singularity") that the expansion started from. This is essentially the evidence that first substantiated the Big Bang Theory.
The fact of the matter is, we scientists, we just don't know what happened! We have our evidence, we have our theories, but we don't truly know what happened, or what existed before the Big Bang, or what caused it (although there are theories about that one - ever hear of a particle accelerator? The collision of two particles at neat the speed of light... we have, in effect, created mini-Big Bangs through this).
I think my beef comes from the idea that, when religion is introduced into science, when we scientists don't know something, it automatically goes to "God caused it", which is clearly an ignorant and illogical assumption and ceases further research. I think obviously
something happened, and the fact that we don't know is kind of exciting! But there
has to be scientific reason behind it. I, personally, don't think that's disputable, period.
The danger of religion in science (and actually in general) is that it allows people to believe they have all of the answers when, in fact, they do not. If we confront an idea of which the answer we don't have, we approach it from that point of view, of not knowing and wanting to. We look at evidence, and fit that around scientific laws and come up with a logical conclusion that is both scientifically and mathematically sound. There are some instances, such as "the singularity" where the laws of physics actually begin to break down, and that's why we don't know what happened. That's the reason more theories come into play, such as String Theory, or M-Theory... we rationalize these ideas, and show that they work, and apply them to see what
could have happened. Sometimes these theories are incredibly abstract, but there's research behind it, and moreso calculations that can substantiate it. Can a Creationist say the same thing?
If we approach it from a "God caused it" stance, where is the science? Where is the research? Where is the evidence? Where is the math? Where is the logic? There is none. When you say "God caused it", what you're really saying is, "it's divine, cannot be questioned, so let's not pursue the idea further". As a scientist, that, to me, is just plain stupid.
EDIT:
2 crucial points.
In vacuum wave theory when the particles "pop out of existence", that is not anihilation. No energy or mass is left behind whatsoever.
2nd of all dark matter =/= antimatter.
First point: Hm, well that's news to me! I'm a chemist, so I can't claim to be incredibly well read on physics, but I'll have to look further into that.
Point two: I never mentioned dark matter. :-/