Because that’s what the observations say; the events are not clean/perfect outcomes, nor are they aimed at any specific “final” form, so there is nothing to hint at them being guided. Some random events which happen to work stick, while most random events don’t stick, it’s a messy process and anything but guided, yet with time you end up with something that looks quite close to perfect due to trial and error. And so people say “it must be predetermined”, by Odin or whoever.

And of course the God is always a hominid, according to the hominids…

What does it say?

Nobody can explain what created the initial conditions for the big bang, where that potential energy came from in an entropic system or where the matter came from.

The point made by MLA is that deists would think something along the lines of God created those initial conditions and the laws that govern the universe and is pretty much hands off therafter.

Additionally, there are many religious people, Christians included that believe in evolution (and see Genesis as a moralistic story that served to purvay a truth to the audience at the time), so using the old evolution vs Christianity is oversimplified. Most of those same people would tend to weight most of their focus on the new testament rather than the old which both via method of formation and for practical purposes is an entirely different animal.

Feel free to take from that what you will, but I’ve seen as many athiest morons spreading the good word of science as religious morons and they are equally close minded and obnoxious.

That’s not much of an argument: we cannot find a pattern, so, obviously, no pattern exists.

Pseudorandom number generators pass innumerable tests for randomness, but are deterministic.

Surely you’re clever enough to figure that out yourself.

What is your definition of “religious people”?

the concept of the singularity is cool in concept (the beginning of time began in an environment when time did not exist, hmm) but clearly all of our science is based on the fact that something cannot come from nothing. therefore, imo, believing in a Deist God is necessary to believe in science including the Big Bang and Evolution. how can you believe in something based in time when you cannot explain time itself?

Evolution does NOT say something can come from nothing. BBT and and evolution have nothing to do with each other…I agree that BBT is completely out there and likely unverifiable, but evolution is a documented, verifiable process.

i agree. BBT and Evolution both state that everything comes from something else. all of science concludes this. this is why a Deist God is a rational conclusion to how the universe started. it is beyond our understanding and would require a complete revamp of all science otherwise. science therefore supports and even RELIES on the existence of a Deist God.

I think I know the study you’re talking about.

Scientists found a certain moth. In the countryside, the colorful moths tend to survive and the gray ones die. In the city, the gray ones survive and the colorful ones die. Apparently this “proves” that evolution is documented and verifiable.

From my point of view, a moth is still a moth. It’s not like the moth evolved into a saber-tooth tiger or something.

this is nuts its mind boggling that folks still believe in religion and stuff idiots wrote thousands of years ago when they were bored and had nothing to do for hours upon hours or were poor and stupid and needed to believe in something and would credit god with anything they could not explain. UGH

How does it support a deist God? You have to artificially assume that God exists, especially a God who conveniently does not interfere in natural processes, in other words a trivial addition.

There is a lot more information than this. You could read, but you seem to be proud of ignorance.

Cool - I’ll just go with your point of view as opposed to the scientists who have studied evolution for decades.

what created the singularity, in which time is irrelevant and in which the BBT is rooted, if not some being/force/whathaveyou that is unbound by time? as a scientist, how do you explain matter coming from nothing?

without believing in a Deist God, it is you who are artificially assuming everything as your science is incongruent.

But you can explain BBT with any arbitrary theory…Azor Ahai plunged his sword into Nissa Nissa creating the Big Bang. It does not support the necessity of a DG…or the Big Bang is a consequence of Deepak Chopras quantum cosmic consciousness…

i don’t see how explaining BBT with any arbitrary theory is possible at a time when time doesn’t exist. since all we know is bound by time you cannot explain it. that is why you need something not bound by time/matter/anything to explain it. this is also why some of the people with the greatest understanding of this, like Hawking, believe in a Deist or similar type God, out of necessity. they realize all of science is illogical without a God.

another set of idiots

Just to be clear I am not siding with any of the other crazies in this thread.

I dont’ doubt evolution, I don’t think lack of proof for a scientific theory “requires” God, I don’t think religious people are idiots, and I don’t think parading around your religious belief in all knowing Science makes you any more informed than the others.

i’d also like the state that a Deist God explaining our universe doesn’t solve the problem. clearly something needed to create our God and so on. it’s an infinite loop. in fact, i don’t think palantir and i are far apart from each other for this reason. we both believe some supranatural thing (that cannot be explained by science) had to occur to create the singularity environment and only disagree whether this supranatural thing happen as a result of another supranatural thing or by itself. that difference is mostly negligible.