Well, in the case of Quantum Mechanics, if you don't get the math, I guess you'll just have to take it from me. If a particle isn't observed, it doesn't exist. "Multiple Universes" is just a sci-fi idea that grew out of popular misunderstanding of the math.

I don't get your second comment about evolution. What does exercise have to do with evolution? I never said I disagreed that evolution changes species from one to another.

The reason I mentioned the Bible wasn't to hold it up as authority. I don't care if you believe it or not. I mentioned it because YOU claimed that an omnipotent God can't change. The God in the Bible has changed many times. The god of every religion I know of changes. You are the only one who seems to confuse omnipotence with static perfection, and I merely used the Christian God as an example to refute that idea.

I'm not sure if any human religion has all the answers -- I doubt it. But I will say that the religion of Western Civilization produced the best results of any I know of, since we were the first to grant liberty to ordinary people, and the first to harness enlightened self-interest in the form of capitalism, to raise the human condition out of abject poverty and misery. So if I had to guess, I would guess the Christians must be closer to the truth than most.

Ooohh. Slightly condescending response considering that Quantum Mechanics is accepted in general by most of the scientific community, but many of the specifics are hotly debated by those same scientists…including the “if a particle isn’t observed, it doesn’t exist” part. It is far from proven.

What about all the particles generated by the Big Bang and comprising the early universe before any life existed to observe them?

Heheh. Good question manaboutown.

One of the most interesting things to me about cosmology is how the experts disagree on so much, even things that some of those scientists consider as proven. So little in the supremely unimaginable science behind our existence is accepted by all 'experts' as proven.

Even some long-accepted concepts come under question at times. The James Webb telescope has brought that to new heights. Could the Big Bang actually be questioned using modern science?? Here is a very interesting article...

The Big Bang didn't happen | Eric Lerner >> IAI TV

Odd, the direction that this discussion has taken. It started as a discussion of creation/intelligent design as opposed to evolution), which then somehow devolved into bringing a guy with a long beard and white robes holding court somewhere beyond the clouds, his assumed capabilities, motivation, etc.

Why does "intelligent design" have to include a God-person involved in in it?

As to the math, an analogy might explain. I comprehend a straight line (math), I just have some difficulty drawing one.
The exercise comment was to illustrate that a single entity is able to change, but that change does not equal evolution. Semantics?
Since you had only suggested the Bible and no other, it appeared to me that you were recommending it as authority. My misinterpretation of your comment.
I think you might be confusing someone else's comments with mine, however, my position (philosophically) is that if God (omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent) is perfection, there should be no need to change. But, as you point out, God has changed. Religion, a human construct, changes to keep and expand its influence over the faithful. As religion changes, the associated god(s) will be seen to change to accommodate the people. From a philosophical point of view, is that backward?

I agree that this discussion has taken a lot of twists and turns, but, like a drive on a winding mountain road vs a NASCAR oval, the mountain road is more interesting.
As to involving "a God person", the concept of intelligent design implies that someone/something planned and orchestrated the creation and operation of the universe. Just as we see/imagine faces or animals when we look at clouds, some people see God's work when they try to comprehend the world or the universe. To have intelligent design, you must, presumably, have an intelligence.

Religious education is indocrination. The earth is not flat as the photos from space being just once source, will show. Science is for thinkers, not just believers, which is what "faith" is.

From the perspective of a believer, they could say that the God that created the gigantic firework, ignited and observed it.

Interesting.

What is the difference, really between "The big bang", and "Let there be light"?

Oh, my. Lets see what my pea brain can come up with. How about this: "Let there be light" was the spoken command of God, a sentient entity, which created light from nothing. The big bang, in over simplified terms, was produced when a "singularity" exploded for, as yet, unknown reasons, expelling vast quantities of energy as light, heat, matter,etc.
In the first scenario, the religious one, a supreme entity lights the fuse, essentially. In the second, spontaneous combustion. No supernatural entities were involved.

Well?

Aye. But the RESULT is the same, no matter who lit the fuse.

Isn't that really all that matters?

For some that may be enough. For others it is not enough. For some it is enough that their belly is full. Others, once their hunger has been satisfied, begin to realize that they get hungry at regular intervals, and they begin wondering where their next meal will come from. This is the beginning of curiosity. After some time they are wondering about all sorts of things. Now we are wondering about the creation of, not just the world, but the entire universe. We wonder about creation itself. Pretty amazing what we are capable of. Only about 150,000 years ago we were small apeish creatures whose only concerns were food and predators. Now we think amazing thoughts, do amazing things. If we could quit squabbling and manage to survive another 150,000 years, I wonder what we might become. What thoughts will they be thinking. And what amazing things will they be doing.
I wonder! Don't you?

If you truly mean "why", if you are hoping for a serious reply, then I'd say look to human nature. Psychologically, it is very difficult for people to "give up" such institutionalize ideas. The latest, which will be interesting to observe, will be related to the "pandemic". Now that the CDC has made a small step toward acknowledging the truth (yes, I recognize they are still gaslighting, but I don't want to address the political aspect here, I simply want to point out some examples of how human beings will hold strongly to things even when they have been completely debunked) it will be interesting to observe how many people will continue to hold things associated with things such as paper and common cotton fabric "masks", 6', not 5' or 8', but 6' foot distance between individuals, and so on. People are simply reluctant to "let go" of "established" or what they think of as "scientific". In academia, we seldom discard as the "new" comes to light ! It's.... human nature !