I argue, you follow science religiously, it's a belief system based on the notion that God and consciousness does not exist. All modern "science" rest on this fundamental concept and studies and concepts that challenge this are by default shunned and thrown on the garbage heap. Along with the heretics that dare to propound them.
I argue, the universe is designed, design implicate consciousness or a designer, I say that is a more rational standpoint than stating that something came from almost nothing, for the sake of argument. It doesn't make the _model_ less silly.
It is literally impossible to follow science "religiously", that would defy the basic tenants of the scientific method. There are, however, no standards for religious belief, which is probably why hundreds of religions all disparage each other as "Heresy".
It is not a belief system based on the notion that "God and consciousness" do not exist, where did you hear that? Science should have nothing to do with religion, it is based on the scientific method. By definition, you cannot draw a "supernatural" conclusion from "natural" premises. "Faith-based" is just that, it means you have no evidence, but you're good with that. You "believe" the universe is "designed", yet you have no objective, empirical evidence to support this belief. Is your argument "more rational"?, of course not, all rational arguments place the burden of proof on the positive, and as well as having no evidence, you dismiss, out if hand, established, evidence-based scientific conclusions, you may "Say" it is "more rational", but that does not make it so.
If your argument is "I don't know where things came from, it must be a God/Designer" than you haven't really explained anything, have you? That's not even really a coherent argument. Why would you find a singularity (please review the definition of a 'singularity' when you have an opportunity, it is not "almost nothing") less plausible than a being, ostensibly humanoid in form (a form which has only existed for roughly the most recent 200,000 years, which is a little bit late to the party), with the ability to create that singularity, or at least its purported results? it is an order of magnitude less plausible than the singularity. You're just reiterating the "First Cause" argument which the Greeks came up with. See any Greek Gods around these days?
Even the Vatican Science Office acknowledges the Big Bang these days, are you any more devout or informed than they are?
I respect your First amendment right to believe anything you want to, and I applaud your welcoming this discussion. It's when public policy is shaped by irrational beliefs, that I become concerned, because that is the same thinking which brought us the Inquisition, placed Galileo under house arrest for 300 years because he posited that the earth revolved around the Sun, and any other number of atrocities.
If you feel so strongly that "Science" is bad, feel free to renounce and discontinue using everything it has provided to you: your phone, computer and telecommunications for a start, modern medicine, your car, your genome, etc., because these things were brought about by people asking questions, not dogmatically assuming they, or their surrogate deities had all the answers.
