ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s all well and good, but positing a Ã¢â‚¬Å“natural, unknown process(es) that started it allÃ¢â‚¬Â is opinion, a priory thought, and presupposition; therefore explains nothing at all. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s basically a Ã¢â‚¬Å“faithÃ¢â‚¬Â statement. Further, where did this natural process come from? Ã¢â‚¬Å“WhoÃ¢â‚¬Â, or Ã¢â‚¬Å“whatÃ¢â‚¬Â started it? Where did Ã¢â‚¬Å“WhoÃ¢â‚¬Â, or Ã¢â‚¬Å“whatÃ¢â‚¬Â get the materials to start it?
Now I believe the atheist response is very similar to the theist (one that goes with the scientific community) response, with one exception; that God didn't start the big bang, but some natural, unknown process(es) that started it all.
This leads to the conclusion that the questions still have not been close to being answered, and atheism still has been found bereft of foundation.
Again, this is an atheistic Ã¢â‚¬Å“faithÃ¢â‚¬Â based opinion. And I have no problem with atheistic Ã¢â‚¬Å“faithÃ¢â‚¬Â based opinions; but they are not science, just opinion.
There are several hypotheses with how the big bang started. Ultimately it is an unknown and may always be so. Perhaps many take solace from these hypotheses, one that jumps out at me is from the video on this forum from the 'universe from nothing' thread if you can remember that. In that video some astronomer or physicist talks about how the universe is flat and a flat universe can be created out of nothing due to quantum fluctuations. In the end, it may always be an unknown to what caused the big bang while theists will readily say that it was God.
If you read back through, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll notice that I brought this up a number of times. In fact, many of the points youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re forwarding here are better suited for a different thread. And, I believe they would be fruitful threads with good discussion.
If you want to discuss the merits of the big bang beyond an abstract state perhaps a new thread is in order.
This evidence works just as well for the Creation origins, and in no way assists the atheists origins foundation.
To be brief the main evidence is the cosmic background radiation, the homology of the universe, and redshift with Hubble's equation. There are more subtle evidences, like the distribution of population I and II stars within certain types of galaxies and quasars, but this could be the result of something other than the big bang, but it does co-inside with the big bang theory.
A natural Ã¢â‚¬Å“onlyÃ¢â‚¬Â universe is an assumption, and therefore ill equipped as an explanation for the atheists origins foundation. As is the balance of your post (other than your appeal to new threads, which is a good idea), and therefore, I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to waste time (which I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have right now) answering it.
To continue the story... Taking the same principles as before, using the methodology of the scientific method to understand the natural universe,