Who knows? You may believe something about what happened before the big bang but this, obviously, is not demonstrable knowledge. I do know that there has never been a scientific discovery that has supported a theistic explanation of anything. From geology disproving a world wide flood to carbon dating showing the Earth to be 4 billion years old to cosmology to a helio centric planetary model to DNA to a consciousness that, for all the evidence we have, seems to be the sum total of physical processes occuring in the nervous system/brain. Laplace’s words ring as true today as they did over 200 years ago, “I have no need for that (God) hypothesis.” It seems that physical laws are sufficient reason for the manifestation of all that we can observe and predict. Simply because science can’t account for phenomenon x doesn’t justify arguments from ignorance when there is, in fact, no certain knowledge to point in any direction at all. A god of the gaps is a god waiting to be disproved and gods like these began to meet their demise with Copernicus.
Gravity, perhaps. I’m not a cosmologist but matter attracts matter and we can witness stars forming in nebulae, suggesting that over time matter becomes more compact and dense until planets and stars form.
Refer to the previous answer.
The fossil record speaks for itself.
My parents made me when they had sex. This process is no different than it is for the other millions of mammalian species living on this Earth.
Again, the general process is precisely this: 1.) Find an X that you can’t explain. 2.) Use a belief held on faith to describe in no precise or methodological way how X came to be. 3.) Flaunt your superiority for having a more comprehensive hypothesis that, in fact, explains nothing and, therefore, explains anything you need it to. Notice that you offer no explanation for how amoebas came to be other than the implicit “god did it”. How did god do it? How can we be sure god exists? Did it take time for god to create the amoeba or was it an instantaneous event? Why did god bother to create it at all? Why haven’t amoebas always existed indefinitely into the past if god is omniscient? Did god forget that amoebas were important for something and need to create them for that reason? Did god simply will it into existence? How do we know?
I’m sorry, but what we call coincidence is actually what you use as a thinly veiled argument from ignorance that you call god. The difference between us is that we see through your fallacies and you don’t. Rather than trying to figure out a problem whose solution could proffer genuine benefits for humanity, as scientific advances have done countless times, you prefer to exchange one mystery (say, that of abiogenesis or existence before the big bang) that we may have a chance of solving with another mystery that is permanently unsolvable and, by such a virtue, contributes nothing to the knowledge we have of our world, though it may assist you in holding a speciously argued belief system that ensures some sense of comfort and absolutes. Just imagine if Gallileo and Newton would’ve taken the same approach (Newton did, to an extent, but bear with me)! Newton, “Hm, these planetary orbits sure are interesting but rather than trying to figure this out I’ll just believe that god did this and put my mind at ease.” So much for the space program and the advancement of science.
Faith is not a valid epistemology, as faith is held necessarily when a belief is retained without evidence or reason to support itself. Beliefs held in faith, then, can neither be proved or disproved as they are outside the realm of knowledge and, therefore, confer no benefits to humanity other than the sake of tenuously held comforts and absolutes. Faith justifies anything and by such a characteristic, justifies nothing. I can as easily posit the existence of an invisible pink unicorn or leprechauns that live in the center of the Earth as I can a Yahweh or an Allah or an immortal soul. There are an infinity of concepts that can be justified using faith, but, of course, as soon as faith becomes the keystone for a belief then that belief can never be taken seriously. While beliefs held on faith could turn out to be true we would never have any way of knowing or testing their validity, and hence, they are invalid and I am an atheist. If god is all knowing then god knows that people like myself will never be convinced of its existence, precisely because god created people like me and then refused to offer any solid evidence for its own existence. I don’t worry about my fate after death, for if I have one then surely it will honor god more to see one of his creations striving to become the creator rather than merely giving up the only gift - his intellect - that seperates him from the countless lower animals that inhabit our planet. This is assuming an anthropomorphic god, of course, which seems quite absurd given the problem of evil and of free will. If you’re a pantheist then why call “everything that is the case” god when you could simply call it everything and be less ambiguous?