“I am not saying there defo is no God btw. Objectivity... not offended. It's only logical consistency that's needed? ..not enough..you must have evidence and God causation. This isn't demonstrated. You guys are Christian... every religious belief thinks they are right and have logical consistency.”
“[L]ogical consistency” between the premise, argument, evidence and conclusions is the only objective standard available to anyone in the absence of observing a claim.
According to your preferred story, the universe stems from a Big Bang event. You have not “demonstrated” any necessary causality between that assumed event and the current facts. All you can “demonstrate” is that the proposed story formulated around the current facts remains consistent with the current facts. Big Bang itself remains a speculation about what might have happened to account for those current facts. Likewise, the Biblical model is consistent with all the current facts (e.g. exposure to the suns light now determines night from day on earth). The current facts no more or less “demonstrate” causality of a Big Bang, than they “demonstrate” causality of a creation event. Both stories could theoretically account for the same current facts.
Where you depart from objectivity is in only presuming your premise to be logically viable. You are judging our arguments from the perspective that only your preferred story and your preferred interpretation of the facts is true. Now it is the epitome of logical consistency to think yourself right – we all do that. But when considering opposing arguments, objectivity requires you consider the possibility of their premise – and judge the rational quality of their arguments in the context of the premise within which the arguments are formulated. I also think you depart from objectivity in failing to understand that your preferred models contain the same inherent weaknesses as those you point out in the Biblical model. So you are reluctant to apply the same standards to your model, that you apply to ours.
“The brake discussion...i could just think it's wiring...cable..disks or pads or anything else but I'll not know the reason. It might seem logically consistent I think it's a brake cable but until I can demonstrate with evidence and cause it's not rational to assert the cause.”
You can no-more “demonstrate” a Big Bang, than I can “demonstrate” God. The brake analogy is flawed because the state of the brakes is available to observation and experimentation. Such is not the case for supernatural claims or claims about the distant past (i.e. things you can't "demonstrate with evidence and cause").
“1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.This text sounds like day and night to me....prior to sun and stars text.”
Yes. They are explicitly “day and night” – before the sun. A supernatural Creator of light could be reasonably assumed to be able to manifest light apart from the subsequent creation of the sun. But then the model explicitly goes on to say that God created the sun to take over that purpose – and that is consistent with what we observe today (i.e. consistent with the current facts).
“If that's your view then your rational answer should be you have no explanation... you don't know...yet you assert a God did it”
If in the absence of direct observation, we cannot make claims, then both positions are irrational. But rationality is a measure of logical consistency, not a measure of empirical justification. You “assert” that a Big Bang “did it”. That is not irrational, but only one possible story accounting for the current facts. Where we depart from rationality is in claiming scientific confidence in our respective positions. But I readily acknowledge the role of faith in my conclusions. I don’t think you do.
“In your view gaps you perceive or issues with evolution.. big bang is just more work to be done.. more to learn.. that's a starting point.”
No. you can no more verify or falsify Big Bang than I can verify or falsify God. It doesn’t matter how much "work" goes into them. They are beyond the logical scope of the scientific method. They will always require faith. I have no empirical reason to assume Big Bang or Common Ancestry as a “starting point”
“adding another layer with God claims opens a whole load more issues on top that we can't even investigate”
You are still not understanding that God is our starting presupposition – not an addition to our model. You presuppose a purely naturalistic reality – by faith. We presuppose the existence of the Biblical God – also by faith. Both are faith assumptions about what exists (or doesn’t exist) beyond physical nature – neither of which can be empirically “demonstrated”. These are our starting premises. They are the lenses through which we view reality. They are not supplemental to our arguments.
“microwave background didn't have to be discovered it was a prediction that could have been falsified”
That there is energy at the microwave level throughout the universe is hardly a stupendous, unlikely “prediction”. The universe is saturated with various forms of energy, so finding energy in the microwave spectrum is less than extraordinary. Creationists predicted that functions would be found for the human appendix – that “didn't have to be discovered” either. And whilst the existence of CMB was predicted by Big Bang theory, the homogeneity of CMB across the universe was not predicted. It was, in fact, a major problem for the theory for a long time – until a fudge factor called inflation was hypothesised; i.e. a purely conceptual notion that fits the mathematics of the model, but has never been observed.
I assume you understand the logic fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. Attributing scientific confidence to a past claim based on a predicted outcome is the very epitome of this fallacy. You are assuming that since we found CMB, and that since it is a prediction of the Big Bang model, then Big Bang must be the only cause of the observed CMB. That reasoning is fallacious.
“If hubble had seen no red shift galaxies or opposite shift then that could have been a problem for big bang theory and could indicate a static universe.”
So you do understand that current facts can only serve to “indicate” causal relationships. Would such a failed prediction have warranted a rejection of Big Bang theory? What about all the times the theory has had to be 're-worked' to conform to new facts – those are ostensibly failed predictions of the model. Red and blue shifts would always be observed regardless of the expansion of the universe – as all cosmic bodies (including the earth) are in relative motion. Even if galaxies were somehow “static”, the earth is not.
“Adding religious claims onto explanation has never helped our progress or understanding for centuries of science... in fact it's hindered it...less so now as it's forced to receed or accept”
I think this is you believing a rewritten, secular version of history. There has been scientific investigation for thousands of years – including much of the last 2 thousand. Science has flourished under the Christian paradigm because Christianity provides the foundational scientific assumption of a rationally ordered universe – where natural laws can be trusted to be consistent across space and time – such that experimentation has meaning. Scientific advancement was stifled in other cultures because their beliefs could not sustain this assumption (i.e. their gods could change the rules on a whim).
The Christian church funded the earliest scientific institutions and research. Most so-called “fathers” of scientific disciplines were explicitly devout Christian. The motive of early scientists was to glorify God through figuring out how He ordered the universe. Along the way, the motive has flipped to interpreting the world without God. But without God, there is no justification for the premise of a rationally ordered universe – apart from extraordinary good fortune. To have confidence in scientific investigation, you have to accept the premise, but you deny the logical foundation of that premise.
How much time was lost to research through assuming non-coding DNA to be leftover evolutionary junk? I don’t think this adds anything meaningful with regards to which model is correct, but secular hands aren’t exactly clean with regards to hindering science either. It is noteworthy that in Galileo's own correspondence, he actually blamed the non-church academics for falsely amplifying the conflict between his claims and the church's teaching.
“Thankfully people aren't executed for heresy in 2017 as they were.”
The Christian model has never advocated executing people for heresy. Heresy is not the same as scientific disagreement – for which no one has ever been “executed”. Admittedly, certain powerful, historical representatives of Christianity have behaved in a manner clearly inconsistent with the Biblical model. Your impression of this as typical speaks to bias, rather than an objective historical perspective.
“I'm just not getting the rational on presupposing a God then looking at evidence”
Presupposing a reality without God is no less faith presupposition. Everyone approaches the facts from a particular faith paradigm. That presupposition influences how the facts are interpreted. There is nothing exclusive to Christianity in this approach. You just think your faith has more rationally validity. But everyone thinks that what they believe is correct (otherwise they wouldn’t believe it;). That, in itself, is a matter of logical consistency.
It is, at least logically possible that either could be correct. That is especially true for claims that can’t be falsified (both past and supernatural claims). Therefore objectivity requires that both be fairly considered. But your approach stacks the deck so that you only fairly consider the weaknesses of the opposing argument – even though the logically identical weaknesses exist in your own position.
If a claim can be theoretically falsified, then the scientific method is an appropriate standard. When a claim can’t be falsified, rationality is the only objective standard.
“Then presupposing one in particular... based on what? Seems kinda obvious it's based on culture... where you were born and what religion you were born into... and where in humanities history till this point you happened to be born. You disregard all the others bar one...i just go one further.... until demonstration and causational links otherwise based upon where and when I happened to be born I could easily be accepting any of them.”
People have different stories for how they come to faith. I was brought up secular and converted to Christianity as a young adult. I didn’t even know there was such a thing as creationism until after being Christian for a couple of years. Before my conversion, I studied a variety of beliefs (including secular beliefs). I came to the conclusion that, of the beliefs I studied, Christianity is far and away the most consistent with the reality I experience - by every standard.
The Bible teaches that if we seek God sincerely, we will find Him. Certainly, context plays some role. That is why the Bible emphasises the importance of relaying knowledge of God to your children – as the Biblical history of Israel attests, people have a tendency to forget God and pursue more carnal, ego-centric endeavours. So having a Christian heritage is an advantage, but lack of Christian heritage is not accepted as an excuse. There are Biblical examples (such as Abraham) who had no upbringing in the knowledge of God – but still found Him.
“If you mean I'm arguing against Christianity...i see them all the same for reasons I've said”
You stated that the Bible’s claim of light existing before the sun “conflicts with science”. It does not conflict with any available fact. It conflicts with certain claims of the unfalsifiable secular model – which you have mischaracterised as “science”. In doing so, you have assumed scientific confidence in the unobservable (i.e. Affirming the Consequent) and arbitrarily rejected consideration of the Biblical premise of a supernatural Creator with the capacity to manifest light before the sun.