Who claims that the universe appeared out of nothing? The answer could be way more complicated than we can grasp at this point. This makes god a cop out. We don't know the answer, therefor it's god. Where is the evidence that god came out of nothing? If god can be eternal why can't the universe? Not true. Logic suggests you do not believe things with zero evidence, so discounting god is logical. Discounting the big bang is not because we know that the universe was originally condensed together and then expanded. It has nothing do with creating from nothing or comfort. It's about logic. Without evidence, it is illogical to believe anything, whether it be an all powerful creator or pink invisible unicorns. 0 or non existence is the mathematical default. To assume existence of anything, you need evidence. You do not need evidence to call the claim bullshit.
Modern man or homo sapiens in general? It's obvious that "man" started in Africa and spread out in waves across the world. The waves often interbred with each other at various times. Interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans is a big part of evolution as well, but yes, it's pretty much proven that human ancestors left africa and adapted to the various climates. Tens to hundreds of thousands of years later, more of them left, interbred and adapted. After a bunch of these waves, homo sapiens left, interbred and adapted. The term is convergent evolution, which is the case with Homo sapiens and neanderthal. Almost every homo sapien on the planet has Neanderthal DNA, except for a few sub saharan tribes in Africa.. aka the ones that never migrated out.
When I say "latch onto an incomplete, unlikely idea", I don't mean "accept tentatively, while keeping an open mind, collecting more information, and also exploring alternative ideas", which is what science guides us to do. I mean "accept without question, and ignore any succeeding evidence to the contrary", which is what religion guides us to do. Sure, science has led us astray many times, but the fact that we admit mistakes and willingly shift our focus and direction is proof that the process is better than religion ever can our will be. There are also many scientific hypotheses that many people don't accept, because evidence isn't strong enough, or the idea doesn't seem likely enough. It doesn't mean we know the answer, just that we don't accept that given hypothesis for the sake of pretending we do.
I am not talking at all about attributing creation to God, I am talking about discounting the concept of a God under the guise that science has revealed it unlikely, when science hasn't even come close to scratching the surface of it. the big bang had an origin that has yet to be identified. that origin is the equivalent of believing in God, so your analogy isn't accurate. we have a strong grasp on how the big bang unfolded after it ignited, but the question is the before. the problem is if we find that beginning, that only leads to another logical question -- what before that? and so on, and so on. God as the answer is a cop out, but only if you assert it and stop asking the questions. but an equal cop out is "we don't know, will keep looking, but we have ruled out God completely as a possible explanation." that isn't an answer, it is a bias.
Yes, because both the Bible and the Big Bang Theory have equal scientific backing... At least use an argument that makes sense as opposed to saying "they're both unproven, thereby, they're both equally likely outcomes".
Yeah, I'm not really seeing equivalence here. Especially given the larger context. "God" has been used to explain all kinds of things in the past. Science has been used, as well. Science has to date done a much better job of explaining and predicting the universe around us. And besides, no one has said, "we are ruling out god completely." There's just zero evidence that a god - any god - should even be brought into the conversation in the first place. Or, to put that another way, if we're not ruling out god as a possible explanation, we are also not ruling out Xenu, Vishnu, aliens, invisible pink unicorns, pixies, inter-dimensional carp, the Jets' offensive line, etc... it just becomes a meaningless exercise. D'Brickashaw is responsible for creating the universe. Prove that he's not. Oh what? You want to rule that out completely? Why are you showing such a bias? Ridiculous, no? That's because you only bring in the information that is relevant and testable. Otherwise, it tells you nothing and is just a guess. Well, we can make guesses about all kinds of stuff. That's not the same thing as what you're proposing. It'd be like having a discussion about who the best hitter in baseball is and then wanting to somehow use tarot card readings as a metric. Those tarot cards aren't going to help you figure anything out.
that isn't what I have said at all. beyond that, there isn't any scientific evidence for what ignited the big bang, so you are making the same mistake he did in his comment -- comparing the ignition claim being attributed to a God to the material unfolding of the big bang, not the material ignition. when the science of the big gang is spoken of with materialistic certainty, it is the after, not the ignition. the ignition is still the million dollar question.
Why? Because you claim it to be so? And how is "god did it," a better (or equivalent) answer than "We don't know, but we'll keep looking in the directions that evidence takes us"? Why do the goalposts have to keep moving further and further and further back? It's kind of sad, don't you think? "Okay, Galileo, maybe you were right and the earth isn't at the center of the universe... but god certainly created this planet 10,000 years ago exactly in its current state!" "Okay, Darwin and Thomson, maybe god didn't create this planet 10,000 years ago, and maybe all the creatures weren't in their current state, but he certainly created this universe all at once!" "Okay, Hubble, maybe the universe started as an infinitesimally small point, but what happened before that, huh? Huh? Yeah, that's right, suckers! It's god! Gosh, why can't you just admit it?!" Funny how "god" is always retreating to hide in these as yet unexplained areas of our universe. I wonder how people would feel if your doctors and researchers, instead of looking for real, testable answers to the problems that afflict you and your loved ones, just said, "Welp, god did it." Drug-resistant bacteria? That ain't evolution -- it's just god's will. No sense in looking to develop ways to combat it. Just enjoy your MRSA.
You are saying it's just as logical to believe there is a god, than to believe there isn't because you can't prove either way absolutely. That's not accurate. Exactly. It's a question. When you insert god as the answer it is a leap of logic, whereas when you admit you don't know or reject people's claims about god, it is not, since the evidence is not there. Well god hasn't been ruled out, but neither has the invisible flying urinating crocodile of salvation. The point is it is logical not to make assumptions, while it is honest to admit we don't know the answer. Lack or rejection of a belief, is not the same as belief and shouldn't be held to the same level of scrutiny. I have no problem with personal belief in god/creator, but when you claim it is just as logical as rejecting the claim of god, that's where I have to speak up, because it's not.
Fascinating topic actually. Homo Erectus was the first hominid to migrate out of Africa. They spread all across Europe and Asia. Some of their descendants actually became homo floresiensis (aka "hobbits"). Homo sapiens were not direct descendants of Erectus, but I have a hunch that Denisovans were, and that they were responsible for a lot of the "asian" features found in the human race. Scientists haven't found a single Denisovan skeleton, just a few teeth and bone fragments, but they were able to find DNA and have mapped their genome and linked it to humans. They definitely bred together (not all humans mind you). Similarly it is believed that the "ginger" gene (redheads) comes from Neanderthals. Homo erectus was one of the most successful hominid species, going strong for more than a million years before going extinct. They were the first to use tools and fire.
I'm not saying anything close to the simple statement that "God did it." so if that is your dispute of my position it doesn't address what I have said at all. I am saying that the mysteries of quantum physics aren't matching the strictly materialist argument for existence, and materialists have not resolved the conflict between materialism and consciousness other than to dismiss any other non-material theory (not so different than bible literalists), so for a materialist to dismiss either quantum physics or ignore those problems that have arisen with it isn't any different than bible literalists ignoring the realities of standard physics. there is something more than what materialism can or has ever been able to answer, so to take a strict material position is as flawed as a strict bible literal position. no, I am saying that the argument for a strictly materialist existence is as weak as the argument for God, so to claim one is more valid than the other is illogical. from the get-go my position has always been about the argument for or against, not the assertion that the answer is one or the other.
one thing is evidently clear. God cancelled his season tix for the Jets a long time ago and has moved on.
But who here is doing that? Who is ignoring the problems that exist with describing the quantum world? (And you should keep in mind that the problems that occur at the quantum level have more to do with the mathematics involved than with there being some fundamental question about whether it's "real" or not.) And why would you argue that quantum physics is somehow irreconcilable with a "materialist" position? This quantum weirdness is (likely) just an aspect of our physical universe. It's not intuitive with how things behave at the macro level, but so what? You have again dodged the biggest point though: All these "mysteries"... all these places for god to hide (or some god, or some "non-material" explanation, or whatever), have been receding slowly (and sometimes quickly) as scientific research progresses. Five hundred years ago, you would have been talking about how the materialist position cannot properly explain the origins of this planet. Three hundred years ago, you would have been talking about how the materialist position cannot explain the mysteries of reproduction. And perhaps most importantly, given how this progress and increase in our understanding about the universe has come about, how exactly does a "non-materialist" position have any value whatsoever? What does that entail? How do you look for that? How do you test that? How do you do anything but shrug your shoulders and say you have faith in it? That seems like a pointless exercise.
If you accept an infinite timeline how does that help the theory of a creator? Why can't there be an infinite timeline for matter?
I think the thing that bugs me the most is that anyone who is being honest with themselves can't find comfort in a religion because if you aren't deluding yourself there is always going to be more pointing towards the fact that after death is probably going to be what it was like before you were born. I don't see how you find comfort in a religion without putting a wall up to just block out the uncertainty. So most people just tell themselves its true over and over again until it IS true in their mind. I wish I could do that. But I am cursed with this nagging inability to lie to myself...
Sure but by definition faith means you are uncertain. And unless you are blocking out that uncertainty I don't see how you could find comfort in something that is "maybe" true.
