None. But even the BBT starts with a singularity. No one knows what that is, but there are limits to science. But with science, rather than making up some deity to explain it all away, we just say we don’t know.
A typical strawman argument... i.e. because deity does some things by means other than nature, deity makes science in its modern sense impossible.
A disorderly deity might do that, but an orderly deity that takes the trouble to give an honest revelation won’t.
Don’t worry, I was that stupid too when I looked for solace in denying God.
I found that I didn’t have any choice in where I ended up when I did. I ended up dancing with the devil.
“But with science, rather than making up some deity to explain it all away, we just say we don’t know”
Paul says that we can know but we are too stubborn in our sinful darkness to want to believe it.(though God’s glory is revealed throughout the heavenlies so we are all without excuse)
Science doesn’t even explain the impulse of humans to claim deities as the originators of creation...social scientists and anthropologists speculate but they can speculate only from existing data. The argument is that ancient men did so out of ignorance... but they don’t dare speculate that perhaps it wasn’t out of ignorance but from what ancient men actually experienced by interactions with these beings far above them; the data now being unearthed suggests that human origins were much more complex than just the evolutionary and cultural processes as posited for the past 2 centuries or so.
Science, with those who practice it best, can’t make a distinction between the emotional desirability of believing in a deity or the emotional desirability of simply saying “I don’t know”. It can’t say “ “saying a deity made the universe” is stupid while at the same time saying “I don’t know” is the valid choice. For a scientist to say that “believing in a deity is stupid” is to step out of the world of scientific rigorousness and into a world of speculation. In short science will never fully escape the irrational humanity of those that practice science. Part of our humanity involves sometimes making choices and forming opinions that can’t always be supported by science!
If you want to say “believing in a deity that created the universe” isn’t science and there-for to be scoffed at, that is fine but you can’t say that it was fully informed scientific logic that brings you to that conclusion, but rather your own human pre-biases!
Re: “But with science, rather than making up some deity to explain it all away, we just say we don’t know.”
Actually, people who claim to be scientists, often don’t just say, “we don’t know,” but rather, “we may not know, but we do KNOW it can’t be God.”
I’m not saying that that is what you claim, but I would just suggest that the belief that God created the universe is not “making up some deity to explain it all away” - rather, the other way around, that the existence of the universe points to the possible existence of God. After all, doesn’t the Big Bang imply a Big Banger, or at least that possibility?