Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

silverharp

J C wrote: »

There are many proofs....
... and here are 5 Proofs for his existence:-
http://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/5-proofs.html

here is one of the "proofs"

resurrection

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ...

Skeptics may dispute this historical claim that Jesus Christ rose again from the dead but they do so perilously. This is because there is enough evidence to validate it and it is the point at which all of the history of Christ and Christianity rests. This means that if anything of Christ and Christianity is true then the Physical Resurrection of Christ is also true. The opposite is also true. If Christ did not literally rise from the dead then none of his history or teachings have any credence.

But if the resurrection of Christ can be seen as a reasonable historic fact (based on over 500 eye-witnesses, the preparedness of all of those witnesses to defend their testimonies even at the point of losing their lives, the resultant baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues- still available today) then this is perhaps the most overwhelming piece of proof for the existence of God.

Ill take one, This cant be a proof or its a "proof" in the way something in the Book of Mormon is a "proof". Even within the NT there is no confirmation for the 500 witnesses found anywhere else in the New Testament. The Book of Acts, (which is attributed to Luke, a companion of Paul) undermines this claim because it indicates the size of the church prior to Pentecost was about 120 believers, not anywhere near the 500+ that Paul advertises.
So you are presenting a proof which look ropey even looking at it from a Christian perspective and has no historical account outside of christian lore.

Mr_Muffin

I think people believe in Aliens based on the immense size of the universe - there a countless stars and planets out there so when you do the math it seems like there is a good chance Aliens do exist although we might never know. If there were only Earth and one other planet in the universe people would probably admit we are alone.

When it comes to God it just seems people will believe with zero evidence - it's not that dissimilar to Santa Claus really - when children grow they put the pieces together and realize that Santa isn't actually real but not everyone questions God authenticity and i am not sure why.

I am not closed to the idea of there being a creator, i mean anything is possible at the end of the day but when you pull back the facade and ask the simple questions no one can seem to give an answer that makes me logical sense. Thank you J C for posting and supplying links i will read through them to help me get a better understanding.

J C

silverharp wrote: »

here is one of the "proofs"


Ill take one, This cant be a proof or its a "proof" in the way something in the Book of Mormon is a "proof". Even within the NT there is no confirmation for the 500 witnesses found anywhere else in the New Testament. The Book of Acts, (which is attributed to Luke, a companion of Paul) undermines this claim because it indicates the size of the church prior to Pentecost was about 120 believers, not anywhere near the 500+ that Paul advertises.
So you are presenting a proof which look ropey even looking at it from a Christian perspective and has no historical account outside of christian lore.

Where does the Book of Acts indicate the church size was 120?
... and the eye-witness of 500 people was only one of 12 accounts of Jesus meeting various people after his resurrection:-
There are 12 different recorded appearances of Jesus:

1st of 12 The appearance of Jesus to Marry Magdalene Sunday 17th or 21st of Nisan Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:9-11, John 20:11-18

2nd of 12 The appearance of Jesus to the other women Matthew 28:1

3rd of 12 The appearance of Jesus to two disciples (Cleophas and another) on the road to Emmaus Mark 16:12-13, Luke 24:13-32, John 24:33-35, 1 Corinthians 15:5

4th of 12 The news of the appearance of Jesus to Simon Peter Luke 24:33-35, 1 Corinthians 15:5

5th of 12 The appearance to the astonished disciples (Thomas absent) with a commission Mark 16:14, Luke 24:36-43, 1 Corinthians 15:5

6th of 12 The appearance of Jesus to the disciples the next Sunday night John 20:26-31

7th of 12 The appearance of Jesus to seven disciples besides the Sea of Galilee John 21:1-25

8th of 12 Jesus appears to the eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee Matthew 28:16-20, Mark 16:15-18

9th of 12 12 Jesus appears to about 500 hundred people on a mountain in Galilee 1 Corinthians 15:6

10th of 12 12 Jesus appears to James his brother 1 Corinthians 15:7, Galatians 1:9

11th of 12 Jesus appears to the disciples with another commission Luke 24:44-49 & Acts 1:3-8

12th of 12 Jesus appears to the disciples with another commission Matthew 28:16-20

Cen taurus

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

I think people believe in Aliens based on the immense size of the universe - there a countless stars and planets out there so when you do the math it seems like there is a good chance Aliens do exist although we might never know. If there were only Earth and one other planet in the universe people would probably admit we are alone.

When it comes to God it just seems people will believe with zero evidence - it's not that dissimilar to Santa Claus really - when children grow they put the pieces together and realize that Santa isn't actually real but not everyone questions God authenticity and i am not sure why.

There is zero evidence, as you term it, for alien life found to date, but as you say the universe is a very big place and we know only a fraction about it, and it is very unlikely we are alone in the universe.

Spirits such as God are the very definition of not of this world, and other forms of life in the universe and beyond.

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

I am not closed to the idea of there being a creator, i mean anything is possible at the end of the day but when you pull back the facade and ask the simple questions no one can seem to give an answer that makes me logical sense.

I feel exactly the same about atheism, having listened to and examined all its usual arguments ad nauseam (And it’s really hard to find any high quality atheist arguments, 99% of what I've seen are a combination of cheap misrepresentation and ad homiem of theism / Christianity) I find it too hard to believe that such an enormous quantity of energy and matter, and the incredible odds against the universe, planets, gravity, even being able to co-exist in some sort of balance, never mind life on earth existing, never mind the exactly correct weather systems, water, seasons and sunlight to sustain it, never mind the complexity of DNA and biology, never mind the complexity of human beings and their capabilities for thought, communication and rapid development, and the entire existence of everything in the universe, is just some mere random accidental event that emerged out of nothing, and was caused by nothing, for nothing.

PopePalpatine

Cen taurus wrote: »

I feel exactly the same about atheism, having listened to and examined all its usual arguments ad nauseam (And it’s really hard to find any high quality atheist arguments, 99% of what I've seen are a combination of cheap misrepresentation and ad homiem of theism / Christianity) I find it too hard to believe that such an enormous quantity of energy and matter, and the incredible odds against the universe, planets, gravity, even being able to co-exist in some sort of balance, never mind life on earth existing, never mind the exactly correct weather systems, water, seasons and sunlight to sustain it, never mind the complexity of DNA and biology, never mind the complexity of human beings and their capabilities for thought, communication and rapid development, and the entire existence of everything in the universe, is just some mere random accidental event that emerged out of nothing, and was caused by nothing, for nothing.

Something's not adding up...

silverharp

J C wrote: »

Where does the Book of Acts indicate the church size was 120?

"1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)"

This head count was to appoint of a replacement for Judas, which was a very important event. Such a meeting would require the presence of all members, not just some of them.

silverharp

Another "proof"

The universe displays an amazingly complex level of interdependency which logically leads to the conclusion that it was designed that way. There are just too many coincidences of such "just rightness" for it too be a random haphazard coincidence. The earth is "just the right" distance from the Sun; it contains "just the right" mixture of chemicals and gases to sustain life; humans have "just the right" ability to breath these gases; the human body has "just the right" synergy of internal organs in order to function, and so on.

had to lol at this , I'd be upset if a kid couldnt figure this one out. By definition for any life to occur the conditions have to be right. There are about 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way alone, outside that, there are millions upon millions of other galaxies also. There is nothing to suggest that there might only be one Earth like planet in the Universe.

Safehands

J C wrote: »

Gen 3:1-3
3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

I always make it a rule: never, ever trust a talking snake, no matter how persuasive or crafty he seems to be. Other talking animals are OK, but the snakes, completely untrustworthy.
See, I do take heed of the Bible.

galljga1

Probably been asked before but I am new to boards and cannot trawl through thousands of posts. Quite simply:

How did God come into existence?

Cen taurus

galljga1 wrote: »

Probably been asked before but I am new to boards and cannot trawl through thousands of posts. Quite simply:

How did God come into existence?

Probably been answered before as well, as most atheism / theism debates go round and round in circles.

God is infinite, infinity doesn't come into existence.

hinault

Cen taurus wrote: »

There is zero evidence, as you term it, for alien life found to date, but as you say the universe is a very big place and we know only a fraction about it, and it is very unlikely we are alone in the universe.

Spirits such as God are the very definition of not of this world, and other forms of life in the universe and beyond.

I feel exactly the same about atheism, having listened to and examined all its usual arguments ad nauseam (And it’s really hard to find any high quality atheist arguments, 99% of what I've seen are a combination of cheap misrepresentation and ad homiem of theism / Christianity) I find it too hard to believe that such an enormous quantity of energy and matter, and the incredible odds against the universe, planets, gravity, even being able to co-exist in some sort of balance, never mind life on earth existing, never mind the exactly correct weather systems, water, seasons and sunlight to sustain it, never mind the complexity of DNA and biology, never mind the complexity of human beings and their capabilities for thought, communication and rapid development, and the entire existence of everything in the universe, is just some mere random accidental event that emerged out of nothing, and was caused by nothing, for nothing.

Science actually makes the case for how precise the Universe is and how precisely things have to be in order for their existence.

Stephen Hawking

the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on....

marienbad

J C wrote: »

What is bizzarre about my eye-witness sightings of Aliens?

Millions of other people have also seen them.

Your post smacks of 'sour grapes'!!!!:)

... and Marienbad ... just for you ... I've put in the smilie you requested

I thought you were joking J C about aliens , am I missing something ? Are you serious ?

djerk

Yeah, it would be nice to think that, but even in death, we're not free of this christian nonsense in this country yet.

I don't believe in any religion at all.. none of them. I do believe in the soul. I do believe in the spirit. I believe the sooner we get rid of religion the sooner we can stop all this madness and start living in the real world. If we don't, it will be the end of us all.

Nick Park

silverharp wrote: »

"1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)"

This head count was to appoint of a replacement for Judas, which was a very important event. Such a meeting would require the presence of all members, not just some of them.

Not at all.

After three years of ministry there were disciples in many different locations. Most biblical scholars think the appearance of the resurrected Christ to the 500 took place in Galilee, not Jerusalem.

orubiru

Cen taurus wrote: »

I feel exactly the same about atheism, having listened to and examined all its usual arguments ad nauseam (And it’s really hard to find any high quality atheist arguments, 99% of what I've seen are a combination of cheap misrepresentation and ad homiem of theism / Christianity) I find it too hard to believe that such an enormous quantity of energy and matter, and the incredible odds against the universe, planets, gravity, even being able to co-exist in some sort of balance, never mind life on earth existing, never mind the exactly correct weather systems, water, seasons and sunlight to sustain it, never mind the complexity of DNA and biology, never mind the complexity of human beings and their capabilities for thought, communication and rapid development, and the entire existence of everything in the universe, is just some mere random accidental event that emerged out of nothing, and was caused by nothing, for nothing.

Have you ever studied it though? Ever read up on it?

What you are doing here is basically making an argument from incredulity.

"I can't understand how Statement A can possibly be True. Therefore Statement A cannot possibly be True". Basically, right?

The second part I have highlighted basically shows that you don't understand (or maybe are not even aware of) the current hypotheses on how The Universe came to be the way it is. Nobody with any respectability is claiming it as "some mere random accidental event" or saying that The Universe "emerged out of nothing, and was caused by nothing, for nothing".

You are getting 2 things wrong here. You are misunderstanding the current scientific viewpoints, replacing them with what you think people are thinking. Then you are saying "well, I don't see how that can be true so it must be false" (without proper reading or proper research or any kind of attempt to understand).

I think it might be better for you to just admit that you don't want to learn and are happy to settle for what you believe. This is why so called "Atheist Arguments" can't reach you.

You know, the idea of the Big Bang wasn't "made up" to disprove the existence of God. The concept was arrived at, and refined, by studying the available evidence. If you read up on it I am sure you will come to understand it and why it is widely accepted as truth.

The same goes for Evolution. People were not thinking "hey, we need a nice convincing story that will cast doubt on God and the idea that God created us" and so they came up with the idea of Evolution and campaigned for it to be taught in schools etc. Even a basic level of reading on this topic should show you why it is, almost universally, held to be true.

Safehands

J C wrote: »

I know Aliens exist ... because I have seen them ... but I don't follow their rules ... because they have none.:D

I've never spoken to anyone who saw them. What were they like? Did they communicate, how did you know they don't have any rules?

orubiru

Cen taurus wrote: »

Probably been answered before as well, as most atheism / theism debates go round and round in circles.

God is infinite, infinity doesn't come into existence.

Why can't a Universe emerge out of infinity?

If we take the concept of infinity then we can say that anything that can happen will happen.

So, we are here because we can be. No need for God.

The emergence of our Universe from infinity would be inevitable. It wouldn't need to be created at all.

Is saying that "God is infinite" just a more refined example of "he works in mysterious ways"?

It's a pretty BIG leap from "God is Infinite" to God created everything to God answers prayers to God will judge you when you die, don't you agree?

galljga1

orubiru wrote: »

Why can't a Universe emerge out of infinity?

If we take the concept of infinity then we can say that anything that can happen will happen.

So, we are here because we can be. No need for God.

The emergence of our Universe from infinity would be inevitable. It wouldn't need to be created at all.

Is saying that "God is infinite" just a more refined example of "he works in mysterious ways"?

It's a pretty BIG leap from "God is Infinite" to God created everything to God answers prayers to God will judge you when you die, don't you agree?

So God is infinite, that explains everything. It is also a great cop out.

Two questions
What gave rise to the Big Bang and into what is the universe expanding?
The first can be explained, well not really, by the concept of infinity. The second one has me.

Not having a go at anyone but the concept of infinity is akin to responding to a kids question: 'it just is'.

Harika

galljga1 wrote: »

So God is infinite, that explains everything. It is also a great cop out.

Two questions
What gave rise to the Big Bang and into what is the universe expanding?
The first can be explained, well not really, by the concept of infinity. The second one has me.

Not having a go at anyone but the concept of infinity is akin to responding to a kids question: 'it just is'.

For the second question, the long answer can be read here: http://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/ the short answer under the spoiler

the Universe isn’t expanding into anything, it’s just expanding.

silverharp

Nick Park wrote: »

Not at all.

After three years of ministry there were disciples in many different locations. Most biblical scholars think the appearance of the resurrected Christ to the 500 took place in Galilee, not Jerusalem.

But wasn't deemed important enough to make it into any of the gospels. Its huge , it should have several versus no? It looks like one of those little stories that grew in the telling.
And the bigger point of course is , its still not history . "trust me I've had a vision" is not the basis for anything.

RikuoAmero

Just wondering guys. Do you guys miss me here, do you want me to end my self imposed "exile" and return to shredding apart each and every single thing that J C and the others keep responding with...or are you guys tired like me of having to debunk the same "evidence" over and over again? I looked over the three links J C gave yesterday, and...they're pretty much the exact same thing as I've debunked numerous times e.g. the argument from design.

Nick Park

silverharp wrote: »

But wasn't deemed important enough to make it into any of the gospels. Its huge , it should have several versus no? It looks like one of those little stories that grew in the telling.
And the bigger point of course is , its still not history . "trust me I've had a vision" is not the basis for anything.

History involves the assessing of all available sources. Of course historians don't treat every (or indeed any) source as infallible - but they do take them into account. So the writings of Paul, and indeed the Gospels, are part of history.

As for something 'not being important enough' to be in the Gospels. That betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Gospels are.

Each Gospel was written for a specific audience for a specific purpose, and the authors were selective in choosing their material. The author of John's Gospel specifically states that he left out a load of material because there wasn't space to record it all.

It's very easy to understand that the appearance in Galilee to the 500 would suit Paul's purposes in 1 Corinthians 15 better than the purposes of the Gospel writers.

Can you present an argument against the event which, when boiled down, amounts to more than "Well, I prefer not to believe it"?

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

Can you present an argument against the event which, when boiled down, amounts to more than "Well, I prefer not to believe it"?

Specifically regarding the appearance to 500 claim - because it's third hand AT BEST. It's Paul saying that he heard (didn't witness himself) from some other people who are never named that a guy who rose from the dead appeared to a crowd of 500 people. We don't know who any of these people are, other than Paul.
This is a claim that demands substantial evidence before I can believe it. However, other than Paul mentioning it just the once, there's nothing else. No one in that supposed crowd saw fit to write it down. It didn't pass into an oral history record.
I've never come across an account of this supposed visitation that doesn't in itself say that it's sourcing Paul.
So all we have to base this on is Paul's word. A guy who from my point of view is extremely unreliable when it comes to history. He's a guy who as far as I'm able to determine ate some bad mushrooms and tripped out in the desert and saw or heard weird things (the two accounts of the road to Damascus experience are contradictory - one says there was a sound but nothing visual, the other says there was an image but no sound).

Given that the 500 people appearance is mentioned just once, there's no account by anyone else in the historical record, I have to come to the conclusion that it's false, that Paul made it up.

galljga1

Harika wrote: »

For the second question, the long answer can be read here: http://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/ the short answer under the spoiler

the Universe isn’t expanding into anything, it’s just expanding.

Wibbly wobbly timey wimey spacey wacey stuff.

"it just is"

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Specifically regarding the appearance to 500 claim - because it's third hand AT BEST. It's Paul saying that he heard (didn't witness himself) from some other people who are never named that a guy who rose from the dead appeared to a crowd of 500 people. We don't know who any of these people are, other than Paul.
This is a claim that demands substantial evidence before I can believe it. However, other than Paul mentioning it just the once, there's nothing else. No one in that supposed crowd saw fit to write it down. It didn't pass into an oral history record.
I've never come across an account of this supposed visitation that doesn't in itself say that it's sourcing Paul.
So all we have to base this on is Paul's word. A guy who from my point of view is extremely unreliable when it comes to history. He's a guy who as far as I'm able to determine ate some bad mushrooms and tripped out in the desert and saw or heard weird things (the two accounts of the road to Damascus experience are contradictory - one says there was a sound but nothing visual, the other says there was an image but no sound).

Given that the 500 people appearance is mentioned just once, there's no account by anyone else in the historical record, I have to come to the conclusion that it's false, that Paul made it up.

So you assess one claim as false (the appearance to the 500) because it is only mentioned once in the historical record.

However, you claim to have determined that Paul ate some bad mushrooms, something for which there is zero mention in any historical record.

Thank you for that contribution. That pretty well torpedoes any claim you might make to be able to assess evidence objectively.

silverharp

Nick Park wrote: »

Can you present an argument against the event which, when boiled down, amounts to more than "Well, I prefer not to believe it"?

It's not a matter of preferring ,any more than having preferences about islam . humans have a habit of creating religions and as the saying goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Historically all one can say at the most was that there was someone called Jesus who caused trouble for the authorities , big deal. All we are left with is a cobbled together Bible written decades after Jesus died by anonymous followers.
The creator of the universe couldnt do a better job than every other charlaten from Mohammad and the rest.?

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

So you assess one claim as false (the appearance to the 500) because it is only mentioned once in the historical record.

However, you claim to have determined that Paul ate some bad mushrooms, something for which there is zero mention in any historical record.

Thank you for that contribution. That pretty well torpedoes any claim you might make to be able to assess evidence objectively.

Eating bad mushrooms is known, objectively, to cause people to hallucinate. It's a very likely cause for what Paul experienced (if the experience isn't itself made up, again we only have Paul's account for it, not that of his companions).
Yes, I know the account doesn't mention the bad mushrooms, or any other hallucinogens, but it's called being a detective, it's called looking for the most likely explanations. Just because a guy comes up to you and says he experienced something miraculous and doesn't mention anything that would explain it away as being non-miraculous, doesn't in and of itself mean that the non-miraculous explanation is without merit.
Even if there were no actual hallucinogens, there's a myriad of other likely scenarios. He had mental issues etc.

I can also turn the "you're not being objective" claim right back at you. You and I are both human. Neither of us can be objective, although we can and ought to certainly try to get as close to that as possible. However, when you read the account of the 500 people appearance and believe it happened, solely based on it being mentioned just once by one person, you yourself are not being objective. Your standards of evidence are contradictory.
There are myriads of other supernatural and fantastical claims that are mentioned by just one person just once, just like the 500 people claim. However you don't believe them. Doubtlessly you've read claims like these and yet, you never believed them. But for the 500 people claim...that you do.

orubiru

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Eating bad mushrooms is known, objectively, to cause people to hallucinate. It's a very likely cause for what Paul experienced (if the experience isn't itself made up, again we only have Paul's account for it, not that of his companions).
Yes, I know the account doesn't mention the bad mushrooms, or any other hallucinogens, but it's called being a detective, it's called looking for the most likely explanations. Just because a guy comes up to you and says he experienced something miraculous and doesn't mention anything that would explain it away as being non-miraculous, doesn't in and of itself mean that the non-miraculous explanation is without merit.
Even if there were no actual hallucinogens, there's a myriad of other likely scenarios. He had mental issues etc.

I can also turn the "you're not being objective" claim right back at you. You and I are both human. Neither of us can be objective, although we can and ought to certainly try to get as close to that as possible. However, when you read the account of the 500 people appearance and believe it happened, solely based on it being mentioned just once by one person, you yourself are not being objective. Your standards of evidence are contradictory.
There are myriads of other supernatural and fantastical claims that are mentioned by just one person just once, just like the 500 people claim. However you don't believe them. Doubtlessly you've read claims like these and yet, you never believed them. But for the 500 people claim...that you do.

Welcome back. I'm keen to see what Nick Park has to say about that.

TheLurker

Cen taurus wrote: »

I find it too hard to believe that such an enormous quantity of energy and matter, and the incredible odds against the universe, planets, gravity, even being able to co-exist in some sort of balance, never mind life on earth existing, never mind the exactly correct weather systems, water, seasons and sunlight to sustain it, never mind the complexity of DNA and biology, never mind the complexity of human beings and their capabilities for thought, communication and rapid development, and the entire existence of everything in the universe, is just some mere random accidental event that emerged out of nothing, and was caused by nothing, for nothing.

But you are ok with the idea that a super powerful intelligence just exists and has always just existed with no explanation required for how it happens to be intelligent?

If you say that it is unlike the universe would just exists as it is, why do you not also say it is unlike that God would just exist as he is?

Cen taurus

orubiru wrote: »

Have you ever studied it though? Ever read up on it?

What you are doing here is basically making an argument from incredulity.

"I can't understand how Statement A can possibly be True. Therefore Statement A cannot possibly be True". Basically, right?.

My that was fast, first line, jumping straight from criticising the post, to criticising the poster, and from then on it doesn't change much.

Basically, your combination of straw man / ad homiem is wrong (i.e. trying to pretend I am are unwilling to believe)

If I'm ever presented with any evidence for the claims of atheism, made here or anywhere else, or even a single sound solid argument for atheism, where none of the premises are false, I'll gladly change my views, but in quite a few years I've never see one. Do you have anything ?

orubiru wrote: »

The second part I have highlighted basically shows that you don't understand (or maybe are not even aware of) the current hypotheses on how The Universe came to be the way it is. Nobody with any respectability is claiming it as "some mere random accidental event" or saying that The Universe "emerged out of nothing, and was caused by nothing, for nothing".

You are getting 2 things wrong here. You are misunderstanding the current scientific viewpoints, replacing them with what you think people are thinking. Then you are saying "well, I don't see how that can be true so it must be false" (without proper reading or proper research or any kind of attempt to understand).

I think it might be better for you to just admit that you don't want to learn and are happy to settle for what you believe. This is why so called "Atheist Arguments" can't reach you.

You know, the idea of the Big Bang wasn't "made up" to disprove the existence of God. The concept was arrived at, and refined, by studying the available evidence. If you read up on it I am sure you will come to understand it and why it is widely accepted as truth.

The same goes for Evolution. People were not thinking "hey, we need a nice convincing story that will cast doubt on God and the idea that God created us" and so they came up with the idea of Evolution and campaigned for it to be taught in schools etc. Even a basic level of reading on this topic should show you why it is, almost universally, held to be true.

This would be another typical example of misrepresenting the argument yet again. I'll ignore all the bits where your trying to criticise the poster and people instead of theism . . . but that doesn't leave much to talk about.

There is no conflict between true religion and true science, each is a search for truth, each deal with different realms, the spiritual and physical. Science, correctly with the realms of science, deals only with the how, not the why. I support the theory of evolution, as do many Christians, and the big bang theory was first proposed by Monseigneur Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Catholic priest and physicist, he was the first to scientifically present idea of an expanding Universe, the first to derive Hubble's law and provided the first observational estimation of the Hubble constant.