>>54
I told you, the Big Bang isn't a satisfactory solution on its own, since it doesn't say -how- it actually occurred, only what happened during it. I'm perfectly happy with the theory being the most plausible, given the evidence (H/He proportions etc..). I'm talking about whether a sentient being caused it to occur or not. The problem at this point being, we're not certain if anything testable is even possible. MY problem at this point being, atheists will not even consider the possibility that it was a sentient being at all. In my mind, it is as possible a solution as any mathematical construct like branes you can concoct (untestably, and currently without evidence) to sort-of explain why the Big Bang might have occurred. People have high-profile, well-paid jobs researching into these (untestable, no evidence) solutions, but no one has ever considered generating testable predictions based on it being a sentient stimulus.