Why Faith VS. Science, and not Faith AND Science?

[WolfBitn]

My conprehension are fine... you went on explaing gravity as though you were sure it was a fact... i merely pointed out that you dont KNOW... because we only have theory

I explained the currently accepted model of gravity according to general relativity. That you took this as a statement of fact speaks to your reading comprehension skills yet again.

If you prefer me not to take you seriously when youre speaking authoritatively i wont... my point was you should say something to the effect "some theorize" or "one theory is" not "well this is what it izzzzz"

Thats what i was waiting for you to say... in the bolded

You have quite a quandry here since it takes gravity to hold this ball of energy/matter in its tight lil ball. It took gravity to take it to a pinpoint of infinite density prior to the bang... Guth even postulates that the bang was cause by a sudden powerful inversion of gravity, though he admits he has nothing to back this postulation... this is part of his 'eternal inflation' theory

Yay for Guth, he has a postulate with no way to test it that not only implies a breakdown in the normal laws of physics but an actual reversal of gravity. Good for him. The problem with looking past the big bang is that we don't have a unified theory that combines relativity with quantum physics, the best description of this issue and how it pertains to the big bang I've found is this:

"Because Einstein's general theory of relativity works so well, we have to accept for now its description of space and time as only aspects of the gravitational field of everything in the universe...gas...energy...matter...light. Near the Big Bang, gravity amplified itself by feeding off of its own energy in a complex and brief state, which ended in this gravitational energy producing the first generations of particles and anti-particles. These later decayed into, not only the familiar electrons and quarks, but also into the particles of light and the essences of the other fundamental forces in existence today. Mathematically we can describe much of this transformation, because many of its key ingredients have been seen by physicists already, at their laboratories. But the earliest conditions have yet to be artificially re-created so that we can thoroughly test our best theories.

"So, gas was once part of space; space remains indistinct from gravity, and so everything we see around us was once part of the invisible field we call gravity...which flashed into existence billions of years ago. Like a car rolling down hill, the momentum of this event is still with us and drives the expansion of the universe, and the clumping of matter into galaxies, stars, planets and ourselves!"

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11844.html

In your OPINION its only an article of faith not backed by science... i disagree with your opinion.

What i am interested in knowing is which God you attribute this bang to? Which do you lean toward if you dont have a sure thought on it and why?

Good for you, if you can demonstrate how one could test a hypothesis about the first cause of the big bang singularity I'd be happy to take a look at it. Unifying relativity and quantum mechanics would be a good place to start. Good luck.

As for your second question, I believe in the same God you do and I believe that He is the outside cause. Science can take me to the edge of creation, faith takes me past that edge to the Creator. In the end it works itself out.

Let me ask you something Lurker... if you believe in the same God i do, and you believe that if there was a bang He is the outside cause, why are you argueing against me, if i'm argueing the same thing?

[Genesis1990]

Because an athiest thinks he is always right. He think faith and science do not go hand in hand, but they have since the creation of the universe.