Strange

I can only comment on what you write, not what you (later) claim to be concerned with. You said "coming up with an explanation". ASSUMPTION. ASSUMPTION. Yes, all our beliefs and knowledge are based on various assumptions and axiomatic ideas. And your idea is also based on lots of assumptions. I have pointed out some, other people have noted some others. But I really don't think that is relevant. I just want you to get to the point instead of all this faffing about. Not really, no. Which is why I am interested in science. (If I was interested in "truth" I would be hanging around on religion forums.) Again, I can only respond to what you actually say. If you mean something different then I can't comment on that. But the receiver doesn't have to think they are true. Children can learn language from fairy tales. They (probably) know that the stories are not true. That doesn't stop them (a) using the input to extend/strengthen their knowledge of language and (b) understanding the story. So your assumption that truth is important is wrong. The fact that you are not aware of them (even after people have pointed them out) doesn't stop them being there. I have. I can. And it is fairly insulting to assume that people who do not instantly accept everything you say are either not reading it or unable to understand. I can read and I can understand what you write. I just happen to disagree with some of it. (Of course, you are now claiming that you sometimes mean something other than what you write. That does rather complicate things.) Why do you assume that n is finite?

Also, although there is a concept of "time = zero" in a naive extrapolation of the expansion we observe this doesn't really mean anything. Our theories of how things behave break down before you get to that point. So the model currently says nothing about the creation of the universe (from nothing or from something). In other words, not only can we not say anything about before the Big Bang we can't even say anything about "at" the Big Bang. So the Big Bang model is about the (current) expansion of the universe from an early hot, dense state We probably need a theory that combines gravity and quantum theory before we can say more about the early universe. Af least one attempt to do this suggests that the universe is infinitely old.

Communicating the explanation may require language but it isn't obvious that coming up with an explanation does. So you are assuming (I assume you mean "assumption" not "presumption") that thought requires language. Or do you have a reference to support this? And I can imagine some explanations are sufficiently simple that they don't require language. Just a drawing, for example. What does "truth" have to do with it? Do you perhaps mean "meaningful"? You seem to be describing the basic process by which babies acquire language- by analysing probabilities of sounds, words, context, etc occurring together. But none of that content has to be "true" but the baby brain does assume (presume) that there is meaningful relationships / information to be discovered. Childrenearn language from stories and fairy tales just as much as from "true facts" (whatever that even means). In ahort, your argument is full of assumptions that you do not seem to be aware of. I would recommend an introductory course in philosophy so you can tighten up your reasoning. Apart from that, I look forward to you using this thread to move some steps beyond where we got before.

That makes no sense. Matter and antimatter both have positive mass (or energy). For example, if an electron and an anti-electron (positron) annihilate you don't get zero energy, you get two photons of 522 keV. 4x1069 what? According to Wikipedia (consistent with other sources) the mass of the observable universe is about 1053 kg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Mass_of_ordinary_matter But the mass of the whole universe will be much greater. Or could be infinite. It is also possible that the total energy of the universe is zero, because the (negative) gravitational potential energy cancels out all the other mass-energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Somehow your inability to understand a brilliantly clear exposition of very simple principle does not surprise me. Has it occurred to you that the problem may not be with all of physics (and the many thousands of brilliant people who have contributed to our understanding of the world). The problem just could be that you are not quite as clever as you think you are. Basically, if you personally do not understand something, it does not mean it is wrong.

I think you are confusing the Quakers with the Amish. Unless US Quakers are very different from Europe. I agree that creationists are, potentially, a danger. But by themselves they have no real power. It is when politicians collude with them that there is a real risk. In fact, there are probably as many examples of political interference with science as religious. Lysenkoism, for example.

I guess a case could be made (for a few specific issues) that religion had a negative effect in the past. However the OP's question is specifically framed in the presence tense. And, particularly as he can't be bothered to support his position with evidence, the answer still seems to be "of course not".

Also, even if we use "faith" in the limited (and perverse) meaning of trust, then it is irrelevant because the thread is about the effect of religion on science. No one has said "trust is holding back science" so this entire discussion is a red herring, a strawman and off topic.

If gravity were an unproved(1) theory(2) then the existence of the atmosphere would be (yet more) evidence for gravity. (1) nothing is proved in science. (2) gravity is not a theory, it is a fact. But there are theories that explain if (with varying degrees of accuracy) Gravity. Wanting a particular answer is unscientific. Also density and buoyancy are results of gravity, not a cause.

Speak for yourself.

So the usual analogy is to go to two dimensions: consider the surface of a sphere; it has a finite area but no boundary.

That isn't faith. You need to buy a dictionary.

There IS only one model. The different interpretations are just analogies to explain (interpret) that model in human terms.

Even if some fake spiritualist visited the White House, and even if Lincoln was influenced by her, that doesn't mean that anything "metaphysical" (*) happened. (*) I don't think that is the word you are looking for; "psychic" maybe, or "wooooo". Or "bullshit".

These are not necessarily related. The usual model of the universe is that it is either finite or infinite but in either case has no boundary.

You seem to think it is because he was an atheist, and therefore amoral. No? Do you think that religious people have never developed weapons? Or that none of the people working on the project were religious? Or that none had doubts and the ethical and moral implications of what they were doing? Why do you think that the religious, who may have strong preconceived ideas based on their faith, would make better scientists?

Nonsense. (I am being extremely polite and restrained here.) Yes, a faith-based belief (or a wild-assed guess) can turn out to be correct if it happens, by chance, to agree with the evidence. But that is not necessary. Not even desirable, as EdEarl says. If people have faith-based beliefs then they are likely to look for evidence to support it, and disregard evidence that doesn't. That is not a constructive approach to science. Which is why that mindset is not appropriate to science. That is a weird use of the word "belief". And it has nothing to do with faith (as the word is normally used). Is the problem that English is not your first language?

What effect did that have on science? None at all, I assume One person rejecting science (for whatever reason) is not going to have any effect on the progress of science.

How is it a blind belief. It is supported by evidence. So it is a scientific "belief" (if you must use that word).

To get back on track, do you have any evidence that it is? Otherwise, the answer is, obviously, no. If you have no evidence, then we can just ask that the thread be closed.

What are these "other explanations"? And who are these "many scientists"? Perhaps you could give some examples. It is not taught as "fact"; it is taught as the best theory we currently have. Examples please. Otherwise I have to assume you are just making this up. So what. That has nothing to do with the big bang model (which is science). I think what you mean is: people pointed out why that model can't work and you ignored them because of your devout beliefs. What does that mean? There is objective evidence that matches the quantitative predictions of the big bang model. Creationism is based on the foolishly literal interpretation of some old metaphorical tales. So I can't see any similarity at all. You faith has obviously blinded you to rational thought, which is a bit sad. Pathetic, even.

Well, it is hard to answer this because, of course, creationists can just make up any answer to explain any observations. That is why it isn't science. But, there should be fossils of some current organisms if they evolved long enough ago and the environment was stable. If there were none, then I suppose they would just have to say "we haven't found them yet" or "maybe god continued to make things after the 7 days" or ... And as for fossils of things that no longer exist, well the bible doesn't say anything about that. And they can't all be attributed to a mythical flood. They came from ancestral organisms (which we do have fossils of in many cases).

I am totally impressed by things like people doing a perfect shuffle (casually, while chatting to the audience) so the cards are back in the same order while everyone assumes they will be completely scrambled. I love Penn and Teller's "Fool Us" when they are left completely stunned and baffled.

I am actually less impressed by tricks where I have no idea how they are done. But when you have an idea of the methods that must be used, but still can't see "the trick", then I am seriously impressed. That is why I love Penn and Teller: sometimes they will show how a trick is done and then the skills involved are really impressive.

You need to provide a reference to where you read this.