brotherdan

First of all, carbon dating only works on the timescale of thousands of years. Carbon isotopes decay over time, until you get to a point where the difference in the amount of carbon 12 and 14 is so small that it no longer is useful for dating things. Other isotopic dating methods, using isotopes with longer half lives, are used for dating things on longer timescales. But that is neither here nor there, as there are no isotopic dating methods that could establish the age of the universe in the first place. Isotopic dating requires the existence of heavy elements, and the big bang theory predicates that no heavy elements exist at the beginning of the universe in the first place. What scientists do to measure the age of the universe is get very big telescopes that can look extremely far (and looking far also means looking back in time, as light travels at a finite speed, so the further away a things is that you are looking at, the longer ago the light that you are observing was emitted).

No, a supernatural being is inherently more complex than any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe. Science can't simply rule out the possible existence of some kind of intelligent creator, but there is not a single shred of evidence to indicate that some kind of complex mind is behind the origin of the universe. And an infinite number of competing hypotheses are just as valid as the judeo-christian god hypothesis, such as the flying spaghetti monster hypothesis. So jumping from "we don't yet know the ultimate cause or source of the universe," to "the lack of knowledge is an obvious indication that the universe must have been created by something that we cannot know," is a fallacy in and of itself. But it is an even greater magnification of that fallacy to then jump to the further conclusion that the origin of the universe is not only unknowable, but it's origin must be due to a specific being, about which people people claim to have knowledge, even though you are basing your entire argument on the basis that the origins of the universe are ultimately unknowable. You can't have it both ways.

And it's not exactly true that you lose nothing if christianity is confirmed in it's falsehood. You have to factor in the opportunity cost of time wasted in worshiping a false deity. But don't for a minute think that Pascal's wager is going to sway anybody other than the weak minded. That argument has been rejected by philosophers and theologians for centuries. And anyway, you run the same risk as a christian that an atheist does. If it turns out that another religious doctrine is correct, and that you have been worshiping the wrong god all along, your punishment would be just as great as the punishment would be for an atheist if a christian god did exist.