Goku, Goku, Goku, I don't debate matters of personal belief. I am discussing these things with you at a mild level of general talkification since you were tongue-in-cheek and in relaxed mode.
Sure, you have studied enough of the Big Bang that I probably couldn't win a debate about it, so what's the point in debating me unless a third party is present that is neutral and knows the alternative explanations? My point is, in times past you have argued similarly, saying, "there is no other explanation", like you do with CMB. I've heard the same types of arguments for macro evolution, "you can't explain whale bones without evolution", and things like that, only to find there are perfectly parsimonious explanations without evolution.
There's no point in arguing with my beliefs because like your beliefs they're not really a matter of debate. That's why I defended you in the topic earlier, because if someone is totally convinced by belief and will of X, they have free will so debating it is almost like knocking on the door of freewill and saying, "let me in to control what you think, you should think this."
I'm not in debate mode either; I just gave an overview of the evidence for the big bang, albeit skipped over the expanding universe beyond mentioning it because most/all people here accept it, and did this to point out that no one is asking you or anyone else to accept the big bang on blind faith.
In a sense every stance someone takes is a personal belief, but if we are to distinguish between personal beliefs that have been objectively verified and personal beliefs that are evidentiarily lacking, then the big bang falls in the former group.
My beliefs are up for debate/reflection/introspection; if they weren't I would still be a religious person. Sure people have the free will to believe anything they want, but the whole point of an intellectually honest debate is to convince people based on evidence, logic, and reason. Obviously there is a time and place for such debates, but an online debate forum like EFF seems like an appropriate place for such debates.
Goku: There is nothing preventing you from believing that God created the big bang
I know, I just don't believe their answers are correct. I am "open" to them being half-correct but when it comes to created things I don't believe natural, random processes can create created things. By definition, the universe has design, and it's organisms.
I appreciate that you're genuine enough that you preach big bang to me because you think I am the type of person willing to listen and not be a dogmatic fundy. You're right. In fact if I read about the big bang I would probably not disagree that certain types of evidence might fit, and that they even predicted X but ultimately my position is that I don't believe we are smart enough to figure out how God done it. Now science give the illusion that because the likes of Einstein and Newton's brilliance were off the scale, that science is some sort of omni-tool. No, all I am saying is that science is limited in what it can do for us. If it tells us a bunch of stories about how processes created giraffes, cheese and hairy knees then I say it's only coming up with those stories because it has crossed the line and therefore lost it's usefulness my lad.
Ironically the main point I am trying to make to you in this thread is that science is limited, and saying that the big bang necessitates an atheistic origin (as a matter of ontology rather than a methodological limitation) as you have implied is beyond the scope of science.
So your position is basically that despite any and all evidence, real or potential, you reject the big bang because your personal belief, which is not up for debate, is that science will never figure out how God made the universe?
Again I see a disconnect; the big bang theory doesn't say where the universe itself came from; it turns back the clock on the universe to when the universe was a 'singularity', but it does not say how this 'singularity' came about (although there are educated guesses, but nothing confirmed) nor explains the underlying mechanism of the laws of nature that drives the general history of the universe or any potential explanation for the origins of the big bang (e.g. if the big bang was some sort of quantum fluctuation via the laws of nature). I guess what I am trying to say is that from my perspective you are rejecting the big bang, apart from that it is your personal belief which is not up for debate, on false premises of what the big bang entails.
P.S. So if I tell you that cheese is created from milk that has been processed you would not believe me?