Originally posted by PureX
This isn't true. There are indicators that there are other possible causes, and Zakath listed several of them. They are not proven, but neither is any other hypothosis. But the fact remains that they are viable, and there is evidence to have suggested them.
Actually, there is ZERO evidence that suggests complex, life-permitting universes would explode into existence out of nothing. There is no test, no body of data, no observation, no experiment - nothing that has proven any such thing would happen, or *could* happen. In fact, the very idea of a singularity of infinite density and zero volume is purely mythical. Such a thing has never been observed, tested, etc. To simply say these naturalistic theories are "not proven" is gross understatment. They haven't been shown to be *possible*. The idea of a universe popping into existence uncaused violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, and the idea of an eternal universe violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They are NOT viable options whatsoever.
As for yours (and Bob's) assertion that if you can eliminate any other suggested cause, then the "God did it" theory must have been the cause by default, you have over looked the very obvious OTHER possibility, and that is that we don't know, or possibly can't know.
Who said anything about "knowing"??? I am not a theist because I claim to "know" that there is a Creator. I am a theist because theism is the origin model that has the most evidential and logical soundness, based on the evidence we observe in biological life and the universe. The fact is, every single person on the planet is an "agnostic", but very few act like it.
Not knowing does not equate to "God must have done it". Not knowing just means we don't know. And in fact it is more true than any of the other suggested truth claims to date.
I find it rather amusing how you are so quick to tell theists how not knowing does not equate "God did it", but we never hear a peep out of you when atheists claim that not knowing automatically equals "a natural process did", even if the natural processes they posit are totally in violation of the laws of physics, are completely unverifable, and have never been observed, tested, etc.
Oh, I very much doubt that. But this statement is yet another invitation into the endless mire of the interpretation and viability of scientific facts. No thanks.
I don't like mire, I do have interpretations, and what is and is not a "scientific fact" has very little to do with origin theories.
