Hi del,

>Much of this background, I'm sure you know...
>
>Science says the Unverse is expanding. If you reverse the process all matter comes back to a point such that the origin is the so-called Big Bang. Science also says the Universe is cooling, with no new energy being created. Had this gone on eternally (looking back in time), then why hasn't all the energy burned itself out by now?

Well, you asked for science, science you will get. Energy is eternal. Energy does not disappear. If you burn fossible fuel, it transforms into different other energies: Heat, light and gasses. Material means energy (E = mc^2). There is only one way to destroy energy: by anti-material.

Even if you use nuclear energy, you fuse two atoms into one with a lighter mass. The difference in mass is transformed into heat (again E = mc^2).

In the universe the amount of energy always stays the same. It however, transforms from one type to another. The theory is that at the big bang massive amounts of material and anti material were clumped together with the total sum of no energy at all. At the big bang however there was a process (I forgot the explanation) that created an unequal balance between the material and anti material. That balance can be expressed in energy.


>Science doesn't explain where the matter in the Universe comes from (beyond the dense ball of matter just prior to the Big Bang). So, since there is so much still unexplained by science, there's a certain amount of faith/hope/uncertainty associated with whatever explanation you want to come up with.

Sure, there is much to explore yet and therefore there is a lot of room for intepretation of the unknown, even for scientists. There is an awfull lot we don't know, and perhaps never will know. So there is a lot of room for religion. But religious people will have to accept that things they now explain by the word of god might be narrowed down by science in the future. After all a real scientist is looking for scientifical answers rather than explaining it by a god.

I believe in science. I don't believe in something intelligent that watches over us as individuals. Therefore I'm rejecting the idea of a god not neccesarely rejecting the idea of life after death.

>The point is that those who claim a "pure" logic can't say they are any more logical than those who believe in God. In their mind, the existence of God sounds like a fairy tale, so therefore it must be a fairy tale.

As long as it is not proven, it is not science. Scientifically, there is not prove of something like a God.

>Yet the Bible says this...
>
>1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
> the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

>2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
> night after night they display knowledge. (Psalm 19:1-2, NIV)
>
>Essentially, the Bible appeals to an individual's common sense here.

I don't have a clue what it says. I might interpretate this as it was written down by someone who was trying to find an explanation of what he was seeing, but not able to find a logical explanation he was left with no other choice of giving a religious answer.

Walter,