I'm getting at that, not only is the creation of the universe unexplainable by our current best understanding of how the world works, but there is no realistic prospect that it will ever be explained.
There is every prospect it will be; there are, in fact, currently at least two hypotheses (brane collision and Guth's "free lunch" vacuum fluctuation scenario) that are completely consistent with all we observe, but cannot yet be proven because we can't test their more esoteric predictions. Not being able to test esoteric predictions is not proof they cannot be correct; merely proof that we don't yet have powerful enough mathematics and powerful enough particle accelerators to do so. The fact that there are two such hypotheses, not inconsistent with any observed fact, and not inconsistent with any physical theory, says that you are 100% wrong, that we can and will rationally explain the origin of the universe, and not in the sweet bye and bye but in the near future. Religion as an explanation of the origin, or any other characteristic, of the physical universe is obsolete and has been since the seventeenth century. If you can find some other use for it, fine; but stop trying to convince people that there is some big powerful dude up in the sky, because we can look with telescopes and see there isn't.
As my signature says, unquestioning belief is proof not of faith, but of doubt. If you are incapable, as you seem to be, of questioning your beliefs, you have already admitted, though you will deny it, that if you do so, they will fail; otherwise there would be no need to avoid questioning them. And anyone can read what you write and see that.
I have faith that the universe is ultimately completely explainable by rational inquiry; and I welcome arguments that seem to question that faith, it is a tenet of that faith that I do so. It, unlike religion, is ultimately self-consistent in that regard. I need only have faith that what I sense is actually connected with some "reality" "out there," and that "I" am the same "me" that "I" was a moment, or a lifetime, ago, and that all of you are just like me in both those regards, and from that I can derive a relatively complete and highly useful understanding of the world around me, from which I can construct values, which then lead to ethics. And to deny this is a self-swallowing solipsism, stating that you all, and ultimately I myself, have no real existence. As Camus wrote, the alternative is suicide. I choose life; I choose to believe that what I sense is real; I choose to believe that this is all really real and really happening to me; I choose to believe that the products of my reasoning concerning what I sense, and its internal self-consistency, indicate the existence of a world apart from the direction of any agency whatsoever, a world that has its own independent existence, and evolves according to its own internally self-consistent set of rules, rules which I and others like me can discover by investigation and careful thought.
You, on the other hand, choose to believe that there is some question as to whether this is real or not; to believe that there are ultimately undiscoverable and inconceivable "realities" of which we cannot aspire to gain understanding, and that these "realities" have chosen to communicate with neolithic sheep herders, and made no serious attempt at communication since. Given that every other primitive human society on the face of the Earth, and in the history of the human race, has developed a set of explanations of natural phenomena that deal with such undiscoverable and inconceivable "realities," and that without exception these explanations have been proven superstition as we have gained knowledge of how things really work, why do you, and why should we, believe one more superstitious and ignorant explanation? You have not given one single argument in favor of this; all you can do is point out that our explanations so far are incomplete, and pretend that this means that they will always remain so. You have no PRO arguments; only CON arguments. And the nature of your assertion is that you
cannot produce anything but negatives.
That is why I, and those like me who can think clearly, dismiss your superstitions; and once the scales have fallen from our eyes, we also note that a great deal of evil comes from those beliefs, and find ourselves rejecting them even further for that reason. People have been burned alive, women and men have been raped and tortured, buildings and airplanes full of people have been destroyed, wars have been and are now being fought, over these superstitions. Is it not time we grew up and stopped killing people for lies? And if we continue to believe in these lies, how can we ever stop having these evil things happen?
