Science = Atheistic?

[McBell]

I do find it interesting however that you didnt reply to my proof...

Hate to have to be the one to break the news to you, but the fact is merely spouting more unsubstantiated claims in support of previous unsubstantiated claims is not presenting proof.

..... but decided to cry about how i demanded it but couldnt post any because this site requires 15posts before the usage of URLs......

WHat is your excuse now that you have past your 15th post?

TROLLS BE GONE!

Seems you are completely unable to banish yourself....

 

[jonman122]

Its my time to leave, someone's quoted wikipedia - the user constructed encyclopedia. MUST BE all facts in there !

The road to enlightenment is uphill for some, what a shame.

Bye thread.

You say that as though you quoted anything useful -.-

you realize by the time humans would have had the ability to worship the sun (what, you think animals worship anything?) they would have had the ability to worship animals as well, because at that point there was both the animal and the sun? Are you implying that anyone knew who jesus christ was BEFORE he was born? are you clinically insane?

 

[tumbleweed41]

This picture is a carving of Nefertiti and her husband Pharaoh Akhenaten, who revolutionized religion in 14th century BCE Egypt by beginning a monolatristic worship of the Sun Disc, Aten. This practice was later ended by Pharaoh Horemheb in the 13th century BCE.

View attachment www.religiousforums.com 2010-8-10 21-35.png

Does someone fancy themselves the husband of Nefertiti?

 

[DarkSun]

Likewise it would be folly to claim that a religious belief is true without sufficient evidence to support the claim. That is why it is a "belief." A belief works like a hypothesis. You can test it and act on it to confirm it as true or false. If a belief is untestable, what good is it? That is why there is no reason to try and figure out what happened "before" the big bang. Because we have no means of testing or determining what happened before time and space began, any theories would be conjecture. If a God concept is untestable and has no bearing on our existence, it is useless conjecture as well.

You're using an equivocation fallacy by using the word 'belief' ambiguously. Belief could mean two things:

• Synonym - Faith. Holding a certain view of the world without any evidence, or,
• Any worldview that an individual might have.

Which definition do you mean?

If you mean the first definition, then a belief is not the same as a hypothesis, by definition, because belief requires no evidence before it is considered true, while a hypothesis does require evidence.

If you mean the second definition, then your comparison between religious belief and scientific hypotheses fails, because religious belief does not fit under this definition very well.

Please pick a definition. Continuing to use this fallacy now is dishonest.

Hmm... interesting. That brings up a lot of questions and stuff to think about. Is God the universe? How can we tell? I'm not exactly asking you. Those are just questions that come to mind.

I don't claim to know.

Hmm... I think that God is still bound to reality. He can no more bend and break the rules than anyone else. Does that make him less than "all powerful" to you? How about "God has all power that it is possible to have within the limitations of the laws of the universe."

I personally don't understand how "all powerful - with limitations" is the same thing as being "all powerful". Perhaps that's just me.

I don't believe you. You'll have to do a lot more to convince me that I should even take your claim seriously. (I know that wasn't your real purpose, but I don't really get what your real purpose was. So feel free to try to get your point across again. Sorry.)

Think of the cheese as God. Your rejection of the cheese's existence is on the same grounds that an atheist would reject the existence of an Abrahamic God. They feel there is insufficient scientific evidence. Like with the cheese, there is no way you could possibly believe that the Abrahamic God exists without taking a leap of faith.

This is also why science will never claim to know one way or the other whether the cheese is on the moon. The existence of the cheese cannot be empirically proven, and thus the claim that there is or isn't any cheese is moot.

That's the point. We couldn't. So the only rules we can play by are his. The only way we can discover if an omniscient being exists is if that being wants to reveal itself to us. Otherwise we might as well be arguing about the existence of the FSM. And if such a being wants to reveal itself to us, it is by it's rules and conditions (if it has any). It could easily prove itself to all of us. Maybe, just maybe, such a being would have reasons for not revealing itself to us all at once in an obvious and intrusive manner. Such a possibility does exist. However small.

Of course the possibility exists. But to make a claim that God exists without any evidence is unscientific - science cannot test for the existence of God, so science doesn't address God.

 

[Luminous]

View attachment 1744

Does someone fancy themselves the husband of Nefertiti?

The King chose to change his name to Akenaten, because it means servant/prophet of the Aten.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

You're using an equivocation fallacy by using the word 'belief' ambiguously. Belief could mean two things:

• Synonym - Faith. Holding a certain view of the world without any evidence, or,
• Any worldview that an individual might have.

Which definition do you mean?

If you mean the first definition, then a belief is not the same as a hypothesis, by definition, because belief requires no evidence before it is considered true, while a hypothesis does require evidence.

If you mean the second definition, then your comparison between religious belief and scientific hypotheses fails, because religious belief does not fit under this definition very well.

Please pick a definition. Continuing to use this fallacy now is dishonest.

Hmm... I don't really like either choice. ): Maybe the word I want is "think." When I say believe something, I mean that I think something, I assume something. I don't mean that I know something. I think almost all beliefs are prompted by something. Just some beliefs aren't thought out very well or tested. And, why don't religious beliefs fall under world views very well? It is part of your view of reality. Why should religious beliefs be excluded?

I don't claim to know.

Fine by me. Any guesses?

I personally don't understand how "all powerful - with limitations" is the same thing as being "all powerful". Perhaps that's just me.

Meh. It's just easier to say "All Powerful." Plus, why waste time considering something that is logically impossible? (I suppose in your view, an Abrahamic God might not a far cry from being "logically impossible" ).

Think of the cheese as God. Your rejection of the cheese's existence is on the same grounds that an atheist would reject the existence of an Abrahamic God. They feel there is insufficient scientific evidence. Like with the cheese, there is no way you could possibly believe that the Abrahamic God exists without taking a leap of faith.

True. But what if a bunch of people claimed to have tasted the cheese? And they were dead serious? I realize a lot of these people said it tasted totally different. And many of the stories were totally fabricated. Some people might "believe" the claim, or at least wonder about it. That is what leads people to believe in God. Other people claim that he exists. A lot of Scientific theories require a "leap of faith." A natural phenomenon needs to be explained. Someone comes up with a possible explanation. If that explanation creates predictions, it can be tested. If a hypothesis has no testable predictions, it is useless. Have you heard of string theory? It sounds like a leap of faith to me, with no supporting scientific evidence (not *too* sure about that one)

This is also why science will never claim to know one way or the other whether the cheese is on the moon. The existence of the cheese cannot be empirically proven, and thus the claim that there is or isn't any cheese is moot.

What if someone handed you a piece and told you to taste it? Would you attempt to taste it? Or laugh at him for pulling your leg? What if you KNEW he was sincere?

That's the point. We couldn't. So the only rules we can play by are his. The only way we can discover if an omniscient being exists is if that being wants to reveal itself to us. Otherwise we might as well be arguing about the existence of the FSM. And if such a being wants to reveal itself to us, it is by it's rules and conditions (if it has any). It could easily prove itself to all of us. Maybe, just maybe, such a being would have reasons for not revealing itself to us all at once in an obvious and intrusive manner. Such a possibility does exist. However small.

Of course the possibility exists. But to make a claim that God exists without any evidence is unscientific - science cannot test for the existence of God, so science doesn't address God.

Agreed. "Science" cannot produce evidence for God. But, can we as individuals acquire evidence that God exists? That, my friend, is the million dollar question. One to which I would reply, absolutely yes, because God does want to be known, but by his own means.

Please reply. <- I enjoy them.

 

[Luminous]

self hypnosis is not a good way to go around doing science.

 

[UniversalScholar]

No, actually that is a picture of XIth Station of the Cross, Golgotha, at the Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.
The Church was first ordered built by Constantine under the direction of his mother on the site of a temple to Aphrodite (Built by Hadran) that had been ordered destroyed by Constantine, with all groundwork and rubble removed.

Good work...now whats the temple mean...and how old is the religion that was practiced in it?

Akhenaten is the pharaoh of Moses' time.
Sue me, its a drawing aspect of egyptology - the exodus.


I only replied for tumbleweeds work of actually looking into stuff.

I didnt post any of this so you, storm, animism boys would be converted into smart, its for all the truthers out there who dont care for bias and idiocracy in the form of a forum gang.

Sure animals and the sun existed at the same time...so that means humans worshipped animals before the sun...which the animals also relied on? Jonman im going to bet your diet consists of red meat, fluoride and wikipedia.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Good work...now whats the temple mean...and how old is the religion that was practiced in it?

Fail...

 

[McBell]

Good work...now whats the temple mean...and how old is the religion that was practiced in it?

Akhenaten is the pharaoh of Moses' time.
Sue me, its a drawing aspect of egyptology - the exodus.


I only replied for tumbleweeds work of actually looking into stuff.

I didnt post any of this so you, storm, animism boys would be converted into smart, its for all the truthers out there who dont care for bias and idiocracy in the form of a forum gang.

Sure animals and the sun existed at the same time...so that means humans worshipped animals before the sun...which the animals also relied on? Jonman im going to bet your diet consists of red meat, fluoride and wikipedia.

You really need to work on the delivery of your back peddling.
You sound like a five year old who has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

 

[McBell]

You really need to work on the delivery of your back peddling.
You sound like a five year old who has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Damn.
I just noticed he had been banned like nine hours ago.

 

[idea]

Is science atheistic by it's very nature?

not at all. Science, when done correctly, points very clearly to God.

- Big Bang - something outside of the known universe instigated this creation event.

- fine tuning - everything is set just right

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

- irreducably complex molecular machines - natural selection only preserves things that function - irreducably complex systems perform no function until the entire system is up and running, like a car engine, without all the parts, it's useless.... there are many molecular machines which are irreducably complex.



- Cambrian Explosion - huge jump in complexity which happened too quickly.... The massive amounts of new biological information needed had to come from somewhere.

- origin of information

- origin of life...chemical reactions produce self-ordered crystaline structures, problem is, amino acids do not demonstrate the bonding affinities which produce proteins and DNA.... even if it did, you would end up with something like a crystal of salt, something repetitive, self-organization does not yield a genetic message, only a repetitive mantra... and salt crystals do not "evolve" over time. Salt now, is the same as it was billions of years ago.

theism provides the best explanation for origins.

- origin of self-awareness

the simplest solution... perhaps it all looks designed, because it is.

 

[Willamena]

Is science atheistic by it's very nature?

Not at all. It's empirical.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

- Big Bang - something outside of the known universe instigated this creation event.

Evidence?

- fine tuning - everything is set just right

In a universe that is 99.99999% empty, how can you believe that to be the case?

- irreducably complex molecular machines - natural selection only preserves things that function - irreducably complex systems perform no function until the entire system is up and running, like a car engine, without all the parts, it's useless.... there are many molecular machines which are irreducably complex.

Irreducible complexity has already been disproven. All supposedly irreducibly complex systems have been reduced and explained through evolutionary biology, and not a single successful example of an irreducibly complex system has ever been known to exist.

- Cambrian Explosion - huge jump in complexity which happened too quickly.... The massive amounts of new biological information needed had to come from somewhere.

The Cambrian Explosion happened over millions of years. It did not involve "new information", just a very rapid expansion of new species through evolution.

- origin of information

Information is in the human brain.

- origin of life...chemical reactions produce self-ordered crystaline structures, problem is, amino acids do not demonstrate the bonding affinities which produce proteins and DNA.... even if it did, you would end up with something like a crystal of salt, something repetitive, self-organization does not yield a genetic message, only a repetitive mantra... and salt crystals do not "evolve" over time. Salt now, is the same as it was billions of years ago.

We already know that chemical reactions produce conditions preferable for life on earth, and that simple single-celled organisms can be formed through simple chemistry.

theism provides the best explanation for origins.

No it doesn't, it just poses an untestable, unobservable, unprovable, undemonstratable hypothesis in place of actual research.

- origin of self-awareness

As far as I know, it can be linked closely with the origin of complex language in the human brain.

the simplest solution... perhaps it all looks designed, because it is.

You're suggesting an explanation based on an insufficient examination of the evidence. There is no such thing as a tangible, testable quality within nature known as "design".

 

[LuisDantas]

I regret to have to completely disagree, Idea.

For one thing, you're taking it backwards. From an statistical standpoint, we are obviously limited to a sample of "possible universes" where life is indeed possible. Such a non-random sample is useless to determine how likely it would be for things to happen in any other way.

All that proves is that we have no access to universes that don't support life or that did not even come to exist, not that they were meant "not to be".

 

[The_Evelyonian]

not at all. Science, when done correctly, points very clearly to God.

In what way?

Big Bang - something outside of the known universe instigated this creation event.

So how does "something" = god?

- fine tuning - everything is set just right

The puddle of water looked around and exclaimed, "Wow, this pothole is just the right shape for me!"

- irreducably complex molecular machines - natural selection only preserves things that function - irreducably complex systems perform no function until the entire system is up and running, like a car engine, without all the parts, it's useless.... there are many molecular machines which are irreducably complex.

There has never been a single organism shown to be irreducibly complex.

- Cambrian Explosion - huge jump in complexity which happened too quickly.... The massive amounts of new biological information needed had to come from somewhere.

Yep, the Cambrian Explosion took place over just a short, short, 70-80 million years. Plenty of time for evolution to do the job.

- origin of information

Define "information"

- origin of life

[youtube]U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube]

theism provides the best explanation for origins.

- origin of self-awareness

the simplest solution... perhaps it all looks designed, because it is.

Actually, theism doesn't provide any explanations at all. Every theistic argument dealing with creation, design, and the origin of life has amounted to nothing more than an 'argument from ignorance'.

"I don't understand how [the universe, life, intelligence, etc] could have happened naturally, therefore, it didn't. God did it."

"Look how complex the [eye, wing, bacterial flagellum] is. I don't understand how evolution explains that, therefore, it didn't evolve. God did it."

There's nothing beyond that.

The God hypothesis doesn't answer anything. It offers no explanations beyond supernatural anthropomorphic beings with magic powers, which really aren't explanations at all as "magic" isn't testable or explanatory in any way.

All the "God did it" claim does is just push the questions back one step. People will claim that god made everything because everything needs a designer and then act as if the question "what made god?" is completely nonsensical. They will demand that everything must have a designer and then declare, by fiat, that god is immune from this requirement. Why?

If everything needs a designer then what designed god?

If god doesn't need a designer then why does anything else need one?

Anytime in history that we have invoked the supernatural to explain a phenomenon, we have always only ever been proven wrong.

Plagues are caused by demons -> Sickness is caused by germs.

Epileptics are possessed by the devil -> Epilepsy is caused by disorders in the brain.

Lightning is hurled from the heavens by the gods -> Lightning is a massive electrical discharge.

The sun is moved around the earth by god/gods -> The sun is a star and the earth revolves around it.

Supernatural explanations have never helped our understanding grow, they've only impeded it.

To say that science when done correctly points to god, isn't true. Nothing in science points to any such thing.

 

[painted wolf]

If the world/universe is "fine tuned" for life... why is 99% of all life extinct?
Why does the Earth continue to prove so hostile to life, let alone the rest of the infinite universe?
Surely this little speck of rock and water isn't dependent on the vastness out there... so if the universe is fine tuned just for us... why is it there? Such useless largess is hardly "fine tuned".

Seems like the one tuning the system is incompetent.

wa:do

 

[David M]

- Cambrian Explosion - huge jump in complexity which happened too quickly.... The massive amounts of new biological information needed had to come from somewhere.

You really haven't kept up with the field have you, Ediacaran rocks contains many multicellular organism dating back up to 90 million years before the Cambrian. Over 100 genera have been identified so far including some good candidates for the ancestors of species found in the cambrian. So your "too-quickly" spans about twice the period since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

I'd suggest you try some reading on the subject before you repeat any more propaganda found on YEC websites.

 

[skydivephil]

not at all. Science, when done correctly, points very clearly to God.

- Big Bang - something outside of the known universe instigated this creation event.

- fine tuning - everything is set just right





- irreducably complex molecular machines - natural selection only preserves things that function - irreducably complex systems perform no function until the entire system is up and running, like a car engine, without all the parts, it's useless.... there are many molecular machines which are irreducably complex.



- Cambrian Explosion - huge jump in complexity which happened too quickly.... The massive amounts of new biological information needed had to come from somewhere.

- origin of information

- origin of life...chemical reactions produce self-ordered crystaline structures, problem is, amino acids do not demonstrate the bonding affinities which produce proteins and DNA.... even if it did, you would end up with something like a crystal of salt, something repetitive, self-organization does not yield a genetic message, only a repetitive mantra... and salt crystals do not "evolve" over time. Salt now, is the same as it was billions of years ago.

theism provides the best explanation for origins.

- origin of self-awareness

the simplest solution... perhaps it all looks designed, because it is.

Idea, you posted this on another thread and I challenged you on it.
Instead of responsing you simply reposted the same piece in another thread. Thats pretty lame .
Anyway here is my reposnse again:
The fine tuning argument is a pile of BS and here are a few reasons why:
1. the assumptions that life cannto arise under such and such a conditions assume we know all the possibilities of life. In fact we have only one data point : Earth, we have no idea what life may look lik elsewhere in the universe. Researchers cant even agree on what life is.
2 Many new papers show many of the fine tuning assumptions are false , example:
Life beyond our universe
3 even if they are not false, the fine tuning argument is answered easily by inflationary cosmology impling a mutliverse, as does string cosmology and even LQG also implies prior universes to our own.
4 Fine tuning assumes life is the bechmark to judge the universe, but this is a biased view. why should life and not black holes be the criteria?
5 the vast majority of space and time cannot support life as we find it on Earth and so the universe does not appear fine tuned.
6 If god is not constrained by the laws of physics why does he need to fine tune them to create life? He could make life in a vaccuum if he wants. Hence even if the universe is fine tuned it would only imply a deist concept not a theist one,.

Maybe you could address it this time.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Not at all. Science, when done correctly, points very clearly to God.

Evidence?

Big Bang - something outside of the known universe instigated this creation event.

Does not follow, and there is no evidence to support this notion.

fine tuning - everything is set just right

Does not follow and this is a subject of much dispute. Also, seeing as you have a statistical basis of one (1), making brash statements is meaningless.

irreducably complex molecular machines - natural selection only preserves things that function - irreducably complex systems perform no function until the entire system is up and running, like a car engine, without all the parts, it's useless.... there are many molecular machines which are irreducably complex.

Irreducible complexity has been debunked many times over, including in the court room for example in the Kitzmiller VS Dover trial where exactly the kinds of molecular machines of which you speak were dealt with. So far each and every example of IC has been shown to be wrong, but if you feel that there is some that hasn’t been explained sufficiently I’ll be happy to take them on.

Cambrian Explosion - huge jump in complexity which happened too quickly.... The massive amounts of new biological information needed had to come from somewhere.

The Cambrian “Explosion” took, as mentioned, place over many millions of years which would have been ample time for evolution to do the job. Also, these kinds of “explosions” of diversity are not uncommon after large scale extinctions, one of which preceded the Cambrian Explosion.

origin of information

You will have to define more accurately what exactly you mean by “information” for it to make sese in this context.

origin of life...chemical reactions produce self-ordered crystaline structures, problem is, amino acids do not demonstrate the bonding affinities which produce proteins and DNA.... even if it did, you would end up with something like a crystal of salt, something repetitive, self-organization does not yield a genetic message, only a repetitive mantra... and salt crystals do not "evolve" over time. Salt now, is the same as it was billions of years ago.

While we’re not completely sure of how life originated on this planet yet, we do have a few rather good ideas that fit the bill. I recommend reading the first chapter of Nick Lane’s book “Life Ascending”.

theism provides the best explanation for origins.

Theism provides Bronze-age myths with little basis in reality and no evidence for its claims.
As always, science provides the best explanations because it is the only source that provides ANY explanations that is founded in evidence.

origin of self-awareness

Consciousness is an emergent property from the cognitive and neurological processes taking place in your brain. I recommend reading a book by Susan Blackmore called “Conversations on Consciousness”.

the simplest solution... perhaps it all looks designed, because it is

Sharper minds than mine have dealt with this many times already. Paley’s Watchmaker is a redundant argument with no merit. Bring some evidence and maybe I'll listen.


Cheers

Jarofthoughts