Often we may not look at what is required to believe in something. Usually it is not due to malice or negligence, but rather our finite logical processes. There a few “theories” we often look at and accept at face value without really looking at the supporting evidence, or rather, the opposing facts.

The big bang theory, for example requires a lot of faith as well as disregard for scientific principles. Either one must believe in the eternity of the universe (which opens up another can of worms) or one must believe in a beginning, a creation. If one believes in a creation, and also wishes to disbelieve in something outside of the universe creating it, then it must create itself, which is of course ludicrous for multiple reasons. We know matter and energy, inside of the universe, and according to the laws the universe operates on, namely the laws of thermodynamics, cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore you must either envision that nothing had the power to temporarily disregard the laws of existence to create itself from nothing, and organize itself into more complicated forms (ignoring another law of thermodynamics), or, that something else did (or that it happened in another way). And for some reason when that nothing exploded, it also ignored the conservation of angular momentum, despite the explosion of nothing happening in a supposedly scientific way.

Evolution being another example. Assuming the big bang is indeed true, and the second law of thermodynamics continues to abate for evolution to occur, you have the issue with at minimum forward eternity (and possibly backward eternity, if indeed there is no beginning of the universe, above). If with enough “rolls of the dice” planets and suns can come from explosions, life from unlife, complex from simple, etc. then eventually more advanced lifeforms, including quite advanced beings, become not just possible, but inevitable. Evolution uses the existence of such things we can observe as “proof.” If evolution is indeed true, God becomes inevitable, mathematically speaking. Unless of course there is a beginning and an end, and thus a finite number of “rolls.” Which of course begs the question, what would exist before and after (I.e. who or what created the finite universe and timeline?). So according to evolution and the big bang, God will eventually exist assuming He does not already. Or, if the universe goes back indefinitely, and an infinite number of rolls of the dice have already occurred, then God already exists. If God is infinite, has He not always existed? Perhaps more importantly, since we know He must exist mathematically speaking, is it so far fetched to think a being might exist outside of our understanding or outside of the laws that were apparently broken in order to create the existence we now observe? A computer programmer existing outside of the computer, yet still interacting with the program (to greatly oversimplify).

And yet, evolution and the big bang are oft postulated as proof that God does not exist, despite pointing toward a mathematical certainty to the contrary. That level of faith would be admirable, were it not so contradictory.