I did not intend to imply anything of the sort -

OK, fair enough.

For future reference, phrasings like "should you not, as an X, do Y?" will frequently be interpreted by native English speakers as implying that Xes should do Y. (In this case, that rationalists should accept "God created the universe" as an explanation.)

My point was more about why and how [the Big Bang] happened, not if.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying that.

For my own part, I have no clear idea why or how the Big Bang happened. Neither am I very clear about why and how stars were formed, or why and how the state borders of Louisiana were established, or why and how the Connecticut state constitution was ratified.

So I suppose you could say that I have a "worldview" that has no explanation for these things. It's hard to know for sure, since I'm not quite sure what "my worldview" refers to. I certainly believe that there is an explanation for how and why those things happened (several explanations, actually), if that clarifies anything.

But in none of these cases does my ignorance of why and how that thing happened strike me as particularly compelling evidence for anything particularly significant, and it certainly doesn't seem to be evidence that God created the universe, or the stars, or the state of Louisiana, or the Connecticut state constitution.

I don't mean that performing the tests will not give visible results, I mean that performing the test leaves you with difficulty in reporting your findings.

Now you've just confused me. Can you describe more concretely the test you have in mind, and what I should expect to experience after performing that test if God created the universe, and what I should expect to experience if the universe came into being some other way?

most religions make a pretty big prediction of and event that will definitely happen to all of us.

Again, I'm unsure what you mean. Can you be clearer about what event most religions predict that will definitely happen, and how that prediction serves as evidence about how and why the universe came into being?

is it not permitted for me to be interested in rationality just because I am one of these 'obviously deluded' religious types.

Of course it's permitted. We couldn't prevent your interest in rationality even if we wanted to, which we don't. Nor could we prevent your reading the blog, even if we wanted to, which we don't.

Whether theism is permitted is an uninteresting question.

I must say I resent the allegation that all readers of this blog must be atheist

I can understand why you would resent that.

Do you find it any more objectionable than your implication that we should all be theists -- that is, that we should "accept the explanation that God created the universe"?

should you not, as a rationalist, accept the explanation that [etc.]

I agree that "as a rationalist" I should, in general, prefer to accept an explanation for an event that fits the facts rather than accept the existence of an event that has no explanation.

I don't agree with your implication that I am actually forced to choose between "God created the universe" and "the Big Bang happened" (indeed, I know many theists who believe both), nor with your assertion that my "worldview" has no explanation for the Big Bang happening.

makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed),

Observing the results really ought to count for a lot... that's not something to casually throw away.

I mean, think about it: if I propose a theory that predicts certain results to certain tests, and you go out and perform those tests and you don't observe those results, what conclusion would you come to about that theory?

1) The universe itself is also not something that exists inside the universe. Hence, if you think causality doesn't apply to your god, you shouldn't think causality applies to the universe as a whole either. (thus, your characterization of the big bang as a "theory that has no explanation of the facts" vs. theism as a theory which does explain the facts, is wrong)

2) You claim your religion predicts the future ("makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed)"). Presumably you refer to various afterlife-scenarios. The big bang theory predicts far more things which can be observed. Hence there is no reason for your theory (theism) to rise to the status of a hypothesis in the first place. Read Privileging the Hypothesis

3) The notion of "causality" in physics has changed a lot since the days of classical physics. It no longer corresponds to the naive notion of causality that might naively seem to require an uncaused cause.

And should you not, as a rationalist, accept the explanation that God created the universe, which is an explanation that fits the facts, and makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed), than accept that something happened (the Big Bang) which your worldview has no explanation for?

No. Basically not. You lost all your righteous momentum here and started sounding nutty.

I must say I resent the allegation that all readers of this blog must be atheist - is it not permitted for me to be interested in rationality just because I am one of these 'obviously deluded' religious types.

And should you not, as a rationalist, accept the explanation that God created the universe, which is an explanation that fits the facts, and makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed), than accept that something happened (the Big Bang) which your worldview has no explanation for?

And why is God creating the universe paradoxical? Outside of this universe, with the physical laws that require causality, why does He require a beginning?