dhw: A theory is “an idea or set of ideas intended to explain something about life or the world” (Longman). If your theory can’t explain the history of the universe and evolution (but mine can), I don’t know what your theory is “consistent” with.

DAVID: My theory is consistent with a belief in God. Yours is descriptive with no cause demonstrated.

dhw: The theories we are discussing are THEISTIC: you can’t explain why your God made the universe so big, or why he designed eight stages of whale, or why with his ability for instantaneous speciation he had to design the weaverbird’s nest and the skull-shrinking shrew and umpteen hominins and hominids before he produced the one species he really wanted to produce. You admit that my theistic hypothesis does explain all this, and your only defence for rejecting it is that God’s logic is different from ours.

Your theistic hypothesis is descriptive of history. That is what I agree to. I look at what He created and recognize that He creates by evolutionary processes. I don't have to explain why the universe is so large. It is your problem. As for the bush of life, it does exist, and balance of nature provides energy for evolution to run its course, an entirely logical answer. God evolves His purposes.

DAVID (under “mussel fiber stretching): Natural biologic 'inventions' teach us how to invent useful products. Is evolution itself, more brilliant than we are? Perhaps it is because God is the inventor.

dhw: Evolution never invented anything. Only organisms can invent. That leaves you with a stark theistic choice: Do you think your God preprogrammed mussel fibre stretching 3.8 billion years ago (as part of his effort to keep life going till he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens), personally intervened to teach mussels how to do it, or provided them with the intelligence to work it out themselves?

Answered above: God is the inventor.

TONY: If we can not KNOW, why is faith irrational? It is the only alternative left.

DAVID: There can only be chance or design. dhw hunts for third ways which don't exist.

dhw: Faith: “strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp. without proof or evidence” (Encarta). Don’t get me wrong on this. I am not attacking faith. But it is obvious that the evidence either way is not strong enough to support a general consensus on the subjects we discuss and since, as you say, none of us can KNOW the truth, there has to come a point at which belief abandons reason. Hence irrationality. Faith is NOT the only alternative left. The alternative to faith is to remain open-minded. That obviously applies to the choice between chance and design, but I am even open-minded enough to consider forms of design that do not depend on David’s personal concept of a god.

DAVID: But faith in a designer is not irrational. It can be, and is for me, a logical conclusion, if only chance and design as the ultimate causes are considered.

Again I must stress that I am not attacking your faith, and I find your arguments concerning design perfectly logical. However, you believe in a supernatural being large and powerful and knowledgeable enough to create a universe and life, you haven’t a clue how it could have come into existence but you assume it has always been there for ever and ever, even though you’ve never seen it because it deliberately hides itself, and you acknowledge that you can’t know any of its attributes. Do you really think this belief is rational? Something brought life into existence. That is as far as reason can take us. Your faith that the “something” could be an unknown and unknowable superbeing is as irrational as the faith that it could be a stroke of luck.

DHW: Faith: “strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp. without proof or evidence” (Encarta). Don’t get me wrong on this. I am not attacking faith. But it is obvious that the evidence either way is not strong enough to support a general consensus on the subjects we discuss and since, as you say, none of us can KNOW the truth, there has to come a point at which belief abandons reason. Hence irrationality. Faith is NOT the only alternative left. The alternative to faith is to remain open-minded. That obviously applies to the choice between chance and design, but I am even open-minded enough to consider forms of design that do not depend on David’s personal concept of a god.

TONY: Ah, but my old friend, even the option of remaining open-minded is a form of FAITH. It is FAITH that we WILL eventually have enough information to be able to, not make a choice, but to not NEED to make a choice because the answer is utterly obvious. And that is, to me, where your logic fails.

Ah, but my young and very dear friend, I’m sorry, this is a basic premise I totally repudiate. I have absolutely no faith that we will eventually have enough information etc. etc. If there is no God, which I regard as a 50/50 possibility, then I can see no way I can ever possibly know the truth. That’s it. There is no faith whatsoever, because I simply do not know what to believe. But if I have a revelation during my remaining years, I'll let you know!

TONY: Now, if you have no Faith in God, and are not Agnostic, then your only recourse is Evolution.

I’m sorry again, but this is a complete non sequitur. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God. It is a theory concerning how different forms of life developed from earlier forms, as opposed to their having been separately created. It does not in any way preclude the existence of God, who may well have invented the whole system. Who says so? Darwin himself: “I see no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of any one.” (Origin of Species) You have fallen for atheistic neo-Darwinism, which I as an agnostic plus millions of your co-theists reject.

TONY: WHY are you afraid to commit to there being a God? Is it because if you have to commit to acknowledging that there is a God, then you must also make a choice between a Personal God or a Nebulous God?

I am not afraid to commit. I am unable to commit. But during our discussions on the hypothetical nature of a hypothetical God, I am happy to discuss its possible nature.

TONY: The idea of a Nebulous God is, in its own way, as terrifying as Evolution, because it means there is no point to any of this. And if there is no point, you have to answer hard questions about pain and suffering. What could possibly be worth all the pain and suffering in the world if all of this is pointless? Why bother?

Why do you find it terrifying? The world is as full of beauty and love as it is of pain and suffering. I deplore the pain and suffering, but I do not see my love for my family and friends as pointless, or human attempts to relieve pain and suffering as pointless, or life itself as pointless even if it ends when we die. I would rather be happy now than unhappy. Why is my, your, and everybody else’s quest for personal happiness pointless?

TONY: The choice of a personal God is even more terrifying, because then comes the question of accountability. Were we wrong? Did we make choices that make us too unworthy as to be be beyond redemption? Why did he allow all of this pain and suffering? What kind of special asshole must he to let it go on like this?

Good questions, and one cannot discount the terrifying possibility of a sadistic God, just as one cannot discount the possibility of a loving God or an indifferent God. But what stops me from making a choice is that none of the arguments for and against the existence of God are sufficiently convincing for me to take the leap of faith required to make a decision. I don’t know why this is so difficult for both theists and atheists to understand.

TONY: So, I would like to know why YOUR brand of faith is better or worse, in your eyes, then other brands of faith. And yes, it IS better in your eyes because it is the brand of faith YOU CHOSE. (I don't mean that to sound as caustic as it does, but I know no better way to phrase the question.)

No faith involved, as explained above. And I do not regard my inability to choose as better than your choice or the choice of an atheist. However, when theists or atheists present their arguments, I try to explain why I can’t share their faith, just as you try to explain to atheists and different brands of theists why you can’t share their faith.

David says that biology “Does not work by adding atoms.”
Reblak: Sorry, David – nothing can form without this process. I respect your authority in explaining the complexities of cellular evolution, but in creating complex parts, previously formed bits and pieces (I am no biologist!) are required. I cover this by pointing out that the initial process becomes infinitely more complex over time. Even in highly advanced life forms, gradual change applies, refining additions.
A point is reached when DNA etc. has almost total control but can be influenced by external forces which can rearrange things so that a new species may be formed or cause dreadful damage. However, this is highly controversial and not being discussed here.
I entirely agree that the successful advances in biology require some measure of intelligent direction. This is provided, right from the outset by the nature of physics.

I will accept that you are not a biologist and from you general statements I see that you have no concept of the workings of organic chemistry. Organic molecules are not put together by adding one atom at a time. There are giant enzymes that literally force the reactions to occur. How the process of chance evolution was able to construct these amazing enzyme molecules made up of thousands of atoms (to use your terms) is on of the unanswered problems Darwinism cannot answer. They are very specific in the way the strings of amino aids are placed and in the proper folding of the overall molecule.

The physical chemistry of organic chemistry has nothing to do with forming living organisms with all the cooperating organic molecules. Can you quote an article for me to support your contention? I can quote several which refute your 'physics makes biology' concept. The reason no one can explain the start of life is bsecause the initial cell had to be highly complex when it started. Almost 70 years of origin of life research and is no further than when the research began.

reblak Mother Nature didn’t need it, so - just how does having ‘directed intelligence’ magically solve this problem? It doesn’t!

Your blanket statement about Mother Nature and magic requires as much faith as an atheist can muster.

Dhw: “...as if it’s enough to say we don’t know what it is and that proves it must be automatic...
reblak: For so long as the secret of life remains undiscovered, we can only surmise. No help is presently gained by appealing to logic (atheism), praying to a God or sitting (like Humpty Dumpty), precariously balanced on a wall (fence).
You call upon me to accept that my atheism is an irrational faith and therefore carries no greater authority than pretty well any other faith, in that all ‘faith’ is irrational. I am at a loss trying to make sense of this. It has hitherto been my understanding that any belief that results entirely logically from known facts is a rational belief, while beliefs not so founded may well be irrational.

I am NOT saying that atheism is an irrational faith. Atheism is simply rejection of belief in God. (As an agnostic, I neither accept nor reject the belief.) Atheism is not a faith at all. But like most atheists I know, you go beyond rejecting belief in God, which takes us to the secret of life. Yes, we can only surmise. We are not talking about “help” but about belief. In my view, faith is strong belief in something without proof, i.e. NOT resulting “entirely logically from known facts”. That is why I think belief in an unproven, sourceless, omniscient being can be called irrational faith. You confirmed your belief that “living beings can be produced by an impersonal and unconscious force which works automatically”. If you can tell me the known facts which support this belief, I will agree that it is not an irrational faith. (See David’s post for a much more scientific response.)

reblak: I have no difficulty in viewing both my adoption of atheism and my belief in the absolute perfection of the universe as prime examples of rational belief (yes, yes, belief!) Both views employ only known facts in support of their proven efficacy in understanding and solving problems. To define them as irrational, simply because they cannot (yet) explain how life has appeared, or to disparage them as vehicles for rational thought seems itself irrational – In Spades!

I prefer to call atheism the rejection of a belief rather than a belief (see above), but that's not the point here. I agree that rejection is rational. I do not agree that belief in the creative powers of an unconscious force is rational. I still have no idea what you mean by the “absolute perfection” of the universe. If your Mother Nature were to drop a giant asteroid on our Mother Earth, killing me and a few billion others,I'm afraid my dying words would not be “I believe in the absolute perfection of the universe”, but since I don’t know your criteria I really don’t see your point. It certainly has nothing to do with theism or atheism.

Reblak: Challenging me by asking me to show how life can be created, as if my inability to do so were some criterion of the value of my thoughts, of atheism, or some sort of proof that logical explanation is not possible, does not advance my understanding.[...]

Your understanding of what? Of course my challenge won’t advance your understanding of how life came into existence. Your telling me you believe it arose through unconscious automatic processes won’t advance my understanding either. That does not devalue your thoughts on other subjects. Please, please do not take one disagreement to indicate dismissal of all your thoughts! On the contrary, I share your scepticism concerning the Big Bang (but regard this as irrelevant to theism versus atheism), and as regards your next comment (which contradicts your earlier characterization of “Mother Nature”) I had already suggested something similar in my reply to you on 17 July under "Reasons why ID must be considered"(not an apt heading for your debut on this forum!) but you never responded:

Reblak: Dhw suggests that a degree of awareness may exist in cells. My view is similar, but I propose that all the cells inherit awareness from much earlier – i.e. day one!

Dhw: (July 17 @ 09.07): "This brings us back to the problem of how organic life and intelligence arose from inorganic materials – a question nobody can answer. But instead of your “Mother Nature” or David’s God, one can perhaps speculate that even the simplest of materials also have a form of intelligence – far more rudimentary than that of organic cells, but nevertheless endowing them with the ability, as you say, to combine atoms with atoms and form new materials. This idea, as you probably know, is a form of panpsychism, which seems to be enjoying a bit of a revival. What it comes down to basically is life and consciousness evolving bottom up from its most rudimentary forms to its most sophisticated. Some forms of panpsychism are theistic – but one might just as well have faith in a zillion bottom-up evolving consciousnesses as in a single top-down creative consciousness that has existed for ever. I’ll stop here to see whether these ideas have any resonance with you."

I’m delighted to have at least a degree of support for this hypothesis, though I should add that I do not regard it as any more fact-based (rational) than the God hypothesis or the hypothesis that life originated automatically via an impersonal, unconscious force called Mother Nature.

The problem with red-shift is that it assumes a constant, uniform speed of light, when experimentation shows it can be bent, its path manipulated by gravity, which would by necessity alter travel time.

The math is pretty hairy, but there is some weirdness in the logic. If the CMB is the 'outer elipse' of our universe, it is moving faster than we are because it is further along in its expansion which makes it travel further faster.

• Our universe is accelerating AND expanding, which means that older objects are traveling FASTER than we are.
  
• Not only do you have to know where we are in relation to the 'origin', but also where we are relative to the expansion/acceleration cycle of the universe as a whole.
  
• What's more you have to KNOW how fast the outside edges are ACTUALLY moving. (Otherwise you can't know how fast the universe is actually expanding.)
  
• We do not KNOW the origin point of the universe, we assume it.
  
• We do not KNOW our position relative to the origin, because we do not know the origin.
  
• We can not accurately measure WHERE the CMB is, because we do not have a confirmed point of Origin, only an assumption.
  
• If the radiation from the CMB is what we are detecting, how fast is that radiation travelling by the time it reaches us?
  
• What is the time shift(think doppler effect) on the light because of the fact that it's source is moving away from us at an ever increasing and unknowable speed?
  
• Add to it that the path of light can be 'bent' around one or more objects and gravitational wells, and it no longer can be seen as a straight line distance.
  
• If we do not not know WHAT objects altered its path, or how far it deviated from it's original path, we can not assume a fixed point of origin. If we can not assume a fixed point of origin, we can not determine relative speeds etc, blah blah.

Basically, that theory is still a bunch of "We don't know but we assume that.,..." and "Because we assume our initial assumptions are true, we assume that this information we have confirms our initial assumptions, none of which can, at this point be proven."

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Quote: Lambda, the cosmological constant, describes the accelerated expansion of the universe, driven by an unknown force referred to as dark energy. (My bold)

QUOTE: Astrophysicists need precise tests of the model because its ingredients are not completely certain. Dark matter has never been directly detected. Dark energy is even more mysterious, and it's not known whether it actually is a constant or changes over time. (My bold)

QUOTE: It turns out that if we map where these red galaxies are in the sky, we can use them to calibrate the distances of the lenses and background galaxies used in the study.' (David’s bold)

DAVID’s comment: Note the bold. The study uses the red shift which reblak (John) thinks is wrong. Most cosmologists, however, fell they have solidified the standard model of the universe. I agree.

TONY: Basically, that theory is still a bunch of "We don't know but we assume that.,..." and "Because we assume our initial assumptions are true, we assume that this information we have confirms our initial assumptions, none of which can, at this point be proven."

And I agree with Tony. The whole theory is based on an unproven premise, and in order to explain the unproven premise, scientists invent two mysterious unknown forces called dark matter and dark energy! In certain respects (but not all, because I am an agnostic), it reminds me of the unproven premise that the whole universe and life were specially designed, and that can be explained by a mysterious unknown force called God.

In 1937 Hubble delivered another such lecture. This time his view was different. He compared the two views and said that either could be right and more research was needed. He also said that redshift may represent an entirely new phenomenon.

No such research was made.

The assumption that redshift represents high-speed expansion became a mantra, requiring of students that it be acknowledged as fact [otherwise] no pass in examinations.

It was then reasoned that the Universe is expanding at colossal speed. This meant that it must originally have been very much smaller. But this didn’t work mathematically so it was ‘decided’ that the Universe had started out as Matter compressed into a tiny point called a Singularity. This was produced by a pre-existing Universe whose physics allowed this otherwise totally impossible compression.
Then, at some point, the Singularity expanded violently into a massive cloud of particles. After about millions of years, it started condensing into the Universe we now have and began expanding at colossal speed.

Sir Fred Hoyle, in a 1947 BBC radio broadcast jeeringly coined the phrase “Big Bang” in dismissing this totally unevidenced, damn silly idea! He proposed an alternative ‘Steady State’ solution that offered an eternal, endless Universe.]

Because of [principally] redshift, it was claimed that this must lead to these incredible conclusions!

Wishful thinking in Spades!

No evidence, let alone proof is required! These ‘ideas’, [for that is all they are!] proved unsustainable because the only force credited with galactic wide effect is gravity. This is the weakest natural force and is not up to the job! Therefore some mechanism was needed to intensify gravity!

Jules Verne steps up: “Got it! There must be Black Holes!” These [imaginary] areas of highly condensed Matter might produce the necessary. Then – oh dear – there was not enough Matter. 90% plus was missing! Jules Verne to the rescue once again. “There must be ‘Dark Matter. I name it so because you cannot see it or find it, but - it answers the call, so shut up about silly old proof!”

Oh dear again. It’s not enough. Up steps our saviour once more, “Not a problem. Dark Matter gives off Dark Energy! You cannot trace this so no-one can prove it isn’t there.” Together, these [imaginary] elements seemed to finally solve the problem but, it hasn’t.

So I, [and umpteen thousand others] are not content with ‘Jules Verne’ or ‘Alice in Wonderland’ solutions.

All these fantasies fade from view when true functioning physics are applied. These are detailed on the Electric Universe websites. They principally advocate the application of electricity and electromagnetism in explanation, no mystical powers needed.

Both ‘sides’ claim markedly conclusions drawn from the same telescopic observations.
The underlying difference is that the authors do not claim their views to be proven fact but provide a rational basis for understanding and further discovery. I am an E.U. fan.

The grounds for the Electric Universe theory were born in what is known as ‘The Velikovsky Affair’ that followed his 1950 publication of ‘Worlds in Collision’.

Velikovsky claimed [along with evidence supporting widespread mythology] that the planet Venus was ejected from Jupiter c.1500BC with amazing, Earth-shaking, near collisions with Earth. He presented new ideas that meant that the sciences of cosmology and geology were in dire need of revision.

The ‘Establishment’ went crazy, issuing hysterical complaints that Velikovsky was a fraud, another Von Daniken. They threatened to boycott his publisher, who was forced to sell off this million dollar goldmine to pacify its clientele.

All this shocking behaviour resulted in the immediate expulsion of any student who dared to raise his theories in discussion. I had personal experience of this belligerent attitude.

Velikovsky was the first to claim that Venus would be very hot [in opposition to then scientist ........who said that Venus was Earth-like.]. When a space capsule proved Velikovsky right and ......... completely wrong, this man said, insultingly “Give Enough monkeys typewriters and ...!”

How dare he? This, however, revealed the depth of enmity poisoning the anti-Velikovsky atmosphere.

All this because of a new and different viewpoint? Yes. But...

The real reason was that accepting his findings, as even just discussion points, would open wide closed doors, releasing suppressed information that would bring down highly paid international figures.

That could not be allowed. So afraid were they, no avenue of abuse was too much. This behaviour made Professor Alfred De Grazia write ‘The Velikovsky AffairUS: Scientism vs. Science’ detailing the whole scandal in 1967 – 256 pages!

Nowadays, we are being advised of amazing new discoveries that disclose in nearby galaxies proofs of the alternative scenario proposed by Velikovsky. Not a word about Velikovsky. No attribution whatever. These people have probably never even heard of him.

reblak: What is knowable is that there is no ‘first cause’. Eternity doesn’t include first causes! Everything has always existed, on and off, at different times and circumstances. In our perfect Universe, conditions at any point denote outcomes. Its inherent capacity allows any and every possible variation over time.

How do you know our universe is perfect? It is certainly very dangerous to life, except where it seems protected on Earth.

Reblak’s three posts constitute a detailed account of the argument against red shift and hence the theory of the Big Bang and the expanding universe. He also recounts the sordid history of how the scientific establishment has vilified its opponents, and has attempted to cover up or distort the evidence against its own theories. This is a very important contribution to our discussions. Having been a long-standing member of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (though I resigned some time ago for reasons I shan’t go into here), I am familiar with much of the material but as a non-scientist am in no position to pass judgement on the science itself. I can only say that the arguments are sufficiently persuasive to bolster my philosophical doubts about the Big Bang and expansion. In this post I shall therefore only discuss the non-specialist points Reblak makes at the beginning. I would like however, to express my gratitude for this most informative account.

DAVID's comment: Inflation explains much of why the universe looks as it does, but not without problems. A cyclic universe gets rid of the origin problem but keeps the Big Bang. It also gets rid of the multiverse. A cyclic universe doesn't get rid of a first cause.

dhw: Reblak has mentioned the redshift problem too, and perhaps he will explain this in more detail.
On this forum, we have repeatedly discussed the unanswerable question of what preceded the Big Bang if the Big Bang ever happened. The concept of eternal energy and matter as first cause would allow for any number of universes before this one, or for this one itself being eternal and constantly changing.

reblak: A cyclic Universe may well be a good suggestion and reflects somewhat my own view. How this cycle works is totally unknown. Proponents of other multiple universe ideas totally fail to accept that as Matter is unconscious it must work in accord with existing intrinsic universal physical law.
What is knowable is that there is no ‘first cause’. Eternity doesn’t include first causes! Everything has always existed, on and off, at different times and circumstances. In our perfect Universe, conditions at any point denote outcomes. Its inherent capacity allows any and every possible variation over time.

I regard ‘first cause’ as a philosophical con trick. The philosopher thinks of a logically convincing term and then develops it to fit his theories, so when someone opposes the theories, he can accuse them of defying the logic of the term. ‘Intelligent design’ is another such device. Your own theory is simply a different ‘first cause’ from Aquinas’s God - namely, an eternal (= always existed), ever changing “everything”/universe/combination of energy and matter, as I indicated above in the comment you quoted.

reblak: What it may include is an ongoing process of collapse and regeneration. That behaviour may possibly occur as a result of widespread supernovas. We may never know the definite truth. Such regeneration may entail a ‘rolling’ effect that is always afoot from place to place throughout the Universe. However, there can be no change in the actual makeup. The ‘laws’ have no capacity for change. An automatic process cannot change – it is immutable!

This is a problem for me. What laws, what “automatic process”, can account for the appearance of living cells capable of evolving from bacteria into the complexities of conscious human beings? I raised this question before, and drew your attention to a certain form of panpsychism that tied in with some of your ideas, but you never responded. Evolvable life and consciousness (in all its manifestations) for me are two major stumbling blocks to acceptance of atheistic materialism. (NB non-acceptance is not the same as rejection, which applies equally to my views on theism).

reblak: This process thereby totally precludes any pre-existing form of Universe. Such a view is a grossly misguided failure to understand that we have already a perfect Universe. Were it imperfect it would never have existed.

See below for a pre-existing form. I find your belief in an eternal universe very acceptable, but “we may never know the definite truth” applies to most aspects of our discussions! I am bewildered by your reference to “perfection”. I have asked you about this before, but you never answered. There are no criteria for you to judge by. What, for instance, would you regard as perfect about a comet smashing into Planet Earth and destroying every living thing? The universe is what it is and does what it does, and that’s all we know. Why muddy the waters with indefinable "perfection"?

reblak: This factor removes any possibility of any Big Bang or its attendant Black Holes and invisible Dark Fairies. Any re-formation absolutely must occur only within pre-exist [now also current] universal physical laws.

But an ongoing process of collapse and regeneration ties in with a cyclic universe, which you say somewhat reflects your own view. How does this remove the possibility of a “pre-existing form of Universe” or even a Big Bang? Doesn’t it simply mean that instead of new universes starting from scratch, you have one universe changing itself into another, as I suggested before?

Once again, I must stress that I greatly appreciate the rest of your post, and the above relates only to those aspects that I feel able to discuss and would like to see clarified.

I'd like to drop in for some comments and questions.

John: This raises the question of Matter being continually produced from nowhere!

Matter and energy are two aspects of the same thing. The universe is filled with energy.

John: What our own galaxy was doing for the putative billions of years, is carefully avoided.

Our galaxy is thought to be 5 billion years old and has organized since then into its spiral arms.

John: If this (virtually a certainty) is so, the redshift cannot possibly be (at every whichway) the actual ‘edge’ of the Universe. What we cannot ‘see’, as it were, behind us, must be a lot more Universe! This of itself makes conclusions about the age of the Universe totally uncertain and purely speculative.

What is your opinion of the cosmic microwave background which has been carefully studied by the Planck satellite as a remnant of the Big Bang?

John: Yet, here they are, inventing a wholey different Universe, packed with Dark Matter, Black Holes etc, ad Infinitum, all because their potty ideas keep falling apart without them! Black Holes became necessary to invent a way to increase the power of gravity when they realised that the Big Bang would not work with true gravity being the weakest known force.

When the LIGO found, more than once, colliding black holes gravitational waves, did you believe the results?

John: The phenomena they propound as ‘evidence’ can all be explained by the use of known physical laws and effects. What appears to be their problem is the result of an apparent determination to see what they want, not what is logically explainable in another way.

Didn't scientists find those 'known physical laws'? How did they lose their way?

BBella: I truly appreciate the simplicity and logic of your posts and agree with the majority of what you say. Thanks so very much for bringing your time and view to the table.
reblak: Thank you BBella. [...] you have cheered me up when I was beginning to think that no-one would understand what I am trying so hard to make clear!

I must also thank both you and BBella, as I fear my own welcome may have seemed a little ungracious. I also agree with a lot of what you say, but on this forum we all tend to focus on matters where there is disagreement. This should never be taken personally, and sometimes it does lead to greater clarity even if not to agreement. That may be the best we can hope for!

dhw: Forgive my intrusion, but firstly I don’t see why we must choose (what happened to open-mindedness?), and secondly I don’t see why the existence of God and the language of physics should be a “one or the other” choice: if God exists, could he/would he not have used the language of physics, chemistry and biology his “wonders” to perform?

Reblak: My answers are:
The question of choice must always be a personal decision. However – ‘sitting on the fence’ has little appeal for me – one gets stabbed by too many unwanted metaphorical splinters that way! I take the view that, from any standpoint, where in the course of research one avenue seems more likely than the other/s, my mental energy is going to be concentrated more on the one than any other. Note that I say ‘more’- not entirely.
The alternative is to sit back and wait upon the views of others. I do that as well! Choice!

Undoubtedly choice is a personal decision. Once you have taken your choice (atheism), of course you will concentrate your energy more on proving that your choice was right. David, one of our theists, follows the same principle, but I’m pleased to note that like him you are prepared to consider the views of others.

Reblak: Your second point:
“... if God exists, could he/would he not have used the language of physics, chemistry and biology his “wonders” to perform?” In my post I made very clear my position on this. I wrote:
For your better understanding, I would say, (were I religious) that God created the Universe just as it is, with its own logic and knew that humanity would eventually emerge.

You also wrote that our ignorance of how life came about “gives no credence to engaging some sort of magic (God) as being the solution", and that we must choose between “the unquestionable will/act of God” and a full explanation in the language of physics”. (My bold.) I don’t see why you can’t have both (no magic involved) since they are perfectly reconcilable. Forgive me, but your views on what a possible God may have done, or known in advance, is hardly an answer.

Reblak: I mentioned somewhere else that if God created the Universe, it is - must be - perfect. I have no belief (in this regard) other than in the efficacy of Mother Nature [...]

I see no difference between God creating perfection and Mother Nature creating perfection. A pantheist is still a theist. (I wonder what the criteria are for perfect universes, but let that pass.) The split occurs if you tell us Mother Nature is an impersonal and unconscious force which works automatically according to the laws of matter. David bombards us with articles describing the complexities of our biology (there are two more today), you have admitted that “there is nothing that we know of that can explain how life came about”, and I have pointed out that despite our own conscious intellect, we still cannot create a living being from scratch. And yet you believe that living beings can be produced by an impersonal and unconscious force which works automatically. That, in my view, requires a great deal of faith (which I define as strong belief without evidence, and hence irrational), and it is a major reason why I continue to sit on my fence, which I can assure you is not at all painful!

Reblak: Its very perfection precludes – in my perception of logic – any ‘previous configuration’ at all. The Universe functions entirely within its 'rules of engagement' and these particular 'rules of engagement' are all embracing and cannot be modified or disregarded in any manner.

Most theists would probably agree with the last part of this statement but would argue that the “rules”, just like biological complexity, denote design. I don’t have a problem with atheist arguments concerning faith in some supernatural being, but I do have a problem with faith in the astonishing inventive powers of an unconscious Mother Nature. You have not yet commented on the third, panpsychist hypothesis I have proposed.

You have devoted the rest of your post to once more debunking the Big Bang theory, and as I myself am sceptical about it and take very seriously both your own and Tony’s (balancemaintained) scientific arguments, I shan’t make any further comment. Tony, incidentally, is a theist, so the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the question of whether there is or isn’t a God.