I think you could answer my question without fear of getting banned. :-)
OK cool, I'm actually going to enjoy this. Some of the things you mentioned I haven't heard before (so I get to learn). Thank you, but at the moment I'm at work so I can't get into too much detail. I'll nick pick some of the ones I know off the top of my head.
Don't confuse me with Red Baker. I just had the one question. Cheers.
Whoops... Too late, my bad
As for your question; I am by no means a scientist and will not pretend to be. I have not mastered the the big bang theory yet, but I am in the process. Basically, I believe there is always rational explanation. Though, as an agnostic I have no problem admitting I don't really know. But ignorance is not an excuse of God, so in my opinion, we just haven't discovered (or I am unfamiliar with) the science behind "the beginning".
Interesting. So you have never thought about how the universe began, or whether it began? Or are you saying that you can't define how the universe began and you aren't an expert at knowing how science currently tries to explain how the universe began?
One doesn't have to master the big bang theory to understand it's general concept. Here is the general concept of the Big bang theory. Based on the red-shift of far-distant objects, scientists have deduced that the universe is expanding. Extrapolating backwards, it makes sense to believe that, at each moment in time, the universe was more and more compact, and if you go back far enough in time, all the mass and energy in the universe existed in a tiny point, before which time it purportedly did not exist at all.
This is the prevailing belief of science today. Deducing how the universe came about itself is (scientists seem to concede) outside the realm of scientific study, and in a field they call "metaphysics". So basically, though some have tried to explain how the universe created itself, there is no established belief today on how the universe was once "nothing" and became "something".
One can throw up their hands and say "I don't know how" but that is, frankly, a cop out. Agnostics tend to dream as well, and the inability of science to answer all questions should at least lead you to wonder.
Now a new question comes to mind. You call yourself an "agnostic atheist" and I respect your choice to label yourself as such. But why do you associate your agnosticism with atheism? Since you don't know about science either, then why don't you call yourself an "agnostic ascientist" to coin a term. Which would mean, "I don't know if science can explain it or not, and we can't know if science can explain it or not". Why does your agnosticism have to specifically do with God? Would you reject science if you found that science cannot explain everything, or challenge scientists about their findings if you believed such?
Another question, why do you believe that everything has a "rational explanation"? And do you believe that said "rational explanation" would not sometimes include that something was done by an all-powerful God?
First of all, FOR THE LOVE OF HUMANITY PLEASE talk to someone about getting a mobile version of this site. It's becoming a burden to browse, and answer questions already...
OK, I got that out of my system. So, for the third time of retyping this:
I merely am claiming to not be an expert on the subject. I do have a basic understanding, which grows by the day because enjoy reading about this stuff in my spare time. Now, you are also missing a big part according to theoretical physics: the multi verse. (I originally explained this concept, but am quickly becoming irritated as I'm constantly having to retype this. So forgive me, but look it up on your own).
Now I don't just blindly follow science as a religion. I do challenge beliefs, I do think for myself, and yes I definitely wonder.
As for my claim of agnostic atheism, that is something of an intellectual honesty. I can not, by definition of atheism, truly be one. Why? Because that would require me to KNOW there is no God. I can not, in all honesty, say that I 100% KNOW without a doubt that there is no God. That is, once again by definition, impossible. Science does not disprove God's existence, it only allows you to question it. So the agnostic term is used correctly.
As for my "rational explanation" statement, by definition the answer to the question must be explainable. So saying "God did it" is not an explanation, but an excuse of ignorance. (in my opinion, it is not my intent to come off as harsh)