Hare Krishna

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

I'd like to make a slight adjustment to your timeline, though...

? -> singularity -> big bang -> universe -> ? -> life

Nope. We have a pretty good understanding of your ? tis called chemistry.

But lets be real: you being cool with that is based on a leap of faith. There's no reason to be cool with that. You just have to believe.

Accepting that which we have evidence for and disregarding the things that have no evidence is not a leap of faith. We don't have to believe anything. We just accept the things that have been shown to be accurate.

Adding some kind of god to the mix has no evidence. Yes there are things we don't know but you don't jump in and fill the blanks with magic we instead learn and find out what we don't already know.

Someone else on this forum today told me that maybe in a million years scientists could create life from chemicals. No scientist can create any living thing from raw chemicals. They've tried. Nor can scientists can bring any dead organism back to life.

I watched Richard Dawkins say we don't know how life started. Watch him, maybe 10-15 minutes in:

http://youtu.be/YUe0_4rdj0U

In my opinion, without evidence that life can be reduced to chemistry, you can't say the foundation of reality is only to be understood by physics and chemistry. Life comes from life - that's what I think makes sense.

I'm fine with the fact that you have no evidence for God. Just be real: you don't have evidence for lots and lots (and lots and lots) of things that you believe.