Cosmology Quest - Critique of Cosmology - Pt1 of 4

do you know that petting a dog lowers your blood presser?
You can even pet a fake robot dog, and it will lower your blood pressure. My point is that my idea of the causality of the existence of the universe is not ineffectual. I can just believe that there is a god, and it effects my physiology. I can even believe in a god that doesn't exist, and change my physiology. So in the end their is a very real change in me that can be quantitated.

also there are lots of things that exist that are in fact transrational. Beliefs do not need to be rational to exist and are often not. Sexual selection is a good example of this, and it is something that we share with all animals. Do you think a girl picks you to mate with based on logic or rational consideration?

You're right in saying that lots of things don't require logic or rational thought. However, I do hold the requirement that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary explanation! Just because the belief in god makes you feel good does not make it objectively true. That just makes you close minded and addicted to irrational beliefs. For your example on girls, I have lots of plausible reasons for why this occurs and all are logical and reasonable even though the choice itself requires none.

Funny Newton made some extraordinary claims about something we all feel. But science is still not sure what gravity is, just how to explain what they see.

If I believe in a god and it makes me feel good, then I can say that it is true, I feel good. There is no such thing has objective experience, the grand canyon doesn't experience you looking at it. So "objectively true" does not apply here. The glass is half empty or half full, those are both objectively true. Ideas of god are subjective.

Uh, yes, there is something called objective truth. If your god only exists in your head, then I can be fairly certain that it didn't create the universe or any crazy BS like that. Also, gravity is not subjective (nor is it about something we "feel"), so your comparison holds no water.

the perception of gravity is subjective.

it's objective experience that does not exist. Or just explain the glass analogy. Both statements can be true simultaneously. Also science is full of paradox, which no more discredits the whole of science. I think there are more questions in science now than in religion, considering most religion is made up of old ideas, and science is exponentially growing.

Well, damn! If we only figured out that gravity is subjective sooner, we'd have no need for rockets!! Thank you so much from freeing me from my faith in gravity, Imma gonna jump up to the moon nao!!!

*facepalm*

I do know why humans diverged from primates, all of which are very good and plausible reasons. And they are reasons that all animals use, we just happened to be really good at it. But, just because we are able to do other things that other animals can not, does not separate us from the animal world. We're just really damn smart mammals that walk on two legs and can speak.

we diverged from other primates when we captured fire. This allows us to cook our food. Cooking is totally inherent to humans and no other animals. By cooking our food we get more calories from it, by breaking down the raw food first our bodies can absorb more of it. We have smaller mouths and guts than other primates. We spend more time doing other things than chewing plants all day to get our calories.

Cooking also gave us our socializing skills. A group of people doesn't make multiple fires to cook each individuals meal. They just have one fire, so we evolved social skills.

If you study archaeology you can see that we captured fire about 1.8 to 1.9 million years ago. Homo sapiens used fire.

so man has been around along time now, if you belief the fossil records. And I assume you do. We are also coming into the era of capturing electricity and all that implies for our future.