It seems to me, that the faith needed to believe this happened spontaneously, without Divine Intervention, is just as great, if not greater, than believing in a Creator.
Disagree. No faith at all is required to believe that the universe was once in a hotter, smaller, denser state and began expanding some 13.8 billion years ago to evolve into the universe we find today. The Standard Model made very specific and unexpected predictions such as the existence of a uniform cosmic background radiation currently in the microwave at a specific wavelength / temperature that was subsequently discovered. Check.
Also, the specific composition of pristine nebulae including element and their relative concentrations was predicted and confirmed. Check.
The standard model also predicted the existence of the Higgs boson at a specific energy and with specific features (spin, parity), which was then found. Checkmate.
What takes faith (and the willingness to ignore evidence) is your belief.
What are the chances that the Big Bang theory made so many unexpected predictions and got them right if the theory was not correct in the main? Sorry, but the Genesis creation myth is incorrect.
Which belief is more reasonable?
The naturalistic one, since it has the evidence just reported to support it, and because it is a more parsimonious narrative, since no god is needed.
Also, the history of man includes countless examples of phenomena once thought to be of supernatural origin that have since been shown to require no god, with no counterexample going the other way.
let me see the repeatable science behind the conjecture of the universe expanding trillions fold, in trillions fold of a second.. this is possible naturally?
Buy a book or enroll in a university. You're responsible for you own education, and it should be methodical, rigorous, and comprehensive, as well as presented by experts. Discussion forums are inadequate.
And has been explained to you before, if you were sincerely interested in the science, you' have already learned it or be making plans to get a quality education. This is a standard creationist ploy - feigning interest in science that the creationist doesn't even look at when presented to him. Why? He isn't interested in learning, just disagreeing from a position of scientific illiteracy.
so very similar to the forced Indoctrination from State Mandated institutions.. who fund THEIR religious beliefs through forced taxation, and present common ancestry as 'settled science!', through constant propaganda, until all nod like bobbleheads.
This tired trope again? You are the bobbleheaded indoctrinee in this thread as you are in all of your other threads. You have no evidence to support your faith-based beliefs, which have been hammered into you by repetition in church. This is what indoctrination sounds like - "Jesus loves me, this I know, for ..." Where's the evidence? None. Just keep repeating until it's believed.
Common ancestry is a belief, with no empirical evidence. It is pounded as an Indoctrination meme, so people THINK there is, 'all this evidence!', but if pressed to present it, they can't do it.
Wrong again. Darwin gave his evidence in his famous book, and more has been added since. Learn some science if you want to argue with people who already know it. You have no chance of changing any rational skeptics mind without an evidenced argument that is factually correct.
That is why many modern graduates from our illustrious Indoctrination institutions, cannot read, spell, balance checkbooks, or critically think at all
I say it's from spending too much time in church, where one is taught to ignore evidence and reason and believe by faith. That's an excellent start to a life that doesn't respect proper education, one that is unlikely to ever learn to think critically. And then they take those habits of thought into other areas, and are set for a lifetime of poor thinking. Do you think that you are a skilled critical thinker?
There is no mechanism that can account for this conjecture.
Argument from ignorance. If we can't answer how nature did it without a god, a god must be involved. Is that good thinking in your estimation? Are you able to spot the flaw in such an argument, and why it is called a fallacy?
But you don't require mechanisms. What mechanism did this god use to create our universe. You don't know and you don't care.
Let me give your fallacy right back - if you can't explain how a god did it, there is no god. If you reject that argument, you might understand why all of you "Well how did this or that" questions are irrelevant. We don't know, and still have no reason to believe in gods.
Edit - since posting this, I encountered the following in an email:
"
The 43% of Americans who oppose impeachment are undoubtedly the same 43% who reliably and unwaveringly support the President, and who are so deeply ensconced in the Fox/Breitbart News propaganda bubble that they willingly believe the President has done nothing wrong (in the face of all evidence to the contrary-- Evidence from which they are skillfully shielded, and which they are preconditioned not to believe)."
Faith based thought uninterested in evidence is not confined to religion. This, too is what indoctrination yields. Also, climate denial.
