Science has now discovered that a 'Divine' would have had to make the universe, and also man.
It is proving that man is too complex, and also so is how the Earth is positioned at the most perfect place to the sun, for life to live and survive.
That's not a question that science ever could settle (and it hasn't, that would have been very big news), it's philosophy's domain.
Re. the "complexity" of man, humans and other animals are amazing, but explicable. It can be hard to get your head around for us non scientists but there are some good books out there about it. Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker has a great explanation for the layperson of how the process works. I hear Bill Nye's Undeniable is also pretty good.
Re. the position of the earth, to quote Douglas Adams:
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
Life arose where it did because it could. All of humanity's discoveries about our origins and those of the universe don't prove that there wasn't a creator, but they certainly don't show that one was necessary.
I didn't write the thing about the puddle, Douglas Adams did and it wasn't in a children's book, nor is it meant to be insulting. It's from The Salmon of Doubt, which is a pretty interesting collection of stories and essays. Breaking things down into analogies is pretty common practice in philosophy, and in religion for that matter. There are tonnes of them in the Bible. Do you consider those insulting to the reader? I know I find them pretty helpful sometimes.
Part of what you were saying there is the fine tuning argument religious apologists use a lot. The idea is that the Universe, or just Earth, is "fine tuned" for life, and that therefore a creator must have made it that way. Some counter arguments go that most of the universe is not suited to life (as we know it), and that a fair chunk of Earth is pretty inhospitable too (too cold, too hot, too much pressure etc.) and if it were designed for life it is bizarrely inefficient for that purpose, that it's arrogant and anthropocentric to regard humans as the purpose of existence... It's kind of been done to death. I'm painting in very broad strokes here because I don't know how familiar you are with this stuff and I don't want to use long words when short ones will do, but there's a balancing act between sounding patronising and not being confusing, and between trying to keep things simple and being precise enough. That doesn't mean I think you're unintelligent. Not at all. I think you are maybe using the wrong terms or not saying quite what you mean though, when you say things like "science has discovered that a Divine would have had to make the universe". If someone had discovered something like that (and I don't know what kind of discovery that could even be, I really think it's more a philosophy thing than a science thing) you'd be able to point to news articles about it. I'm not saying there isn't a creator, though I don't believe there is, I'm just saying that science has not proven there must be one, and if you're going to say it has you should be able to provide proof of that. Maybe you didn't really mean that it had been proven, but just that you believe it?
The idea that humans are too complex to have evolved without a creator has been made a lot of times too, but it's been countered many times by people a lot smarter than me who explain stuff better than I could, which is why I recommended those books. I'd hardly suggest reading them if I thought you were thick.
Astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces were determined.
Alter any one value........ and the universe could not exist.
For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction by
even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 then NO stars could have ever formed at all.
The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions.
It was not conjured up from the creationists’ magic hat to prove the existence of God (although it does that quite well).
The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause.
That non-material Cause is God.
If natural forces created the Universe, randomly selecting themselves, then morality in humans never could be explained.Along with Love, compassion,
desire etc etc....
Physics is not my field, but it sounds like you are just making the same basic argument again without actual proof. I was actually looking for a link or the title of a book you read or a documentary you watched to give what you were saying some context. If someone has actually proved that there must have been a God that would be big news and it would be recorded somewhere. You just saying you believe it isn't proof, and there is a big difference between saying that science hasn't proved that there isn't a God and saying it has proved that there is one, or must have been one (side note: I suppose that wouldn't even prove that there still was one, let alone which of the infinite possible creators it might be). If you want to just argue it philosophically, which is different from proving it scientifically, then you get the standard response: If God created the universe, what created God? Usually people then say God was always there. If that's enough of an explanation you might as well say the universe was always there.
For the rest, evolution can certainly explain desire. Sexual desire is the result of the instinct to reproduce, which is pretty fundamental to natural selection (that's such a basic thing I'm not even sure what to suggest a source, probably any high school biology text book would do the trick, and The Blind Watchmaker gives a great explanation of natural selection). Other desires for things like food are likewise from survival instincts. Love is perhaps a bit more complicated (or I'd like to think it is because it's nice to think of it as a poetic thing), but it can be at least partly explained by brain chemistry. There is a chemical called Oxytocin, also known as "the love hormone" which a mother's body produces during childbirth that helps her to fall in love with her baby when she sees it. It plays a role in childbirth, lactation and bonding and in other interactions between adults. It's quite fascinating. I don't know what other chemicals might be involved. Brain chemistry can certainly affect moods, and things like mental illness can affect physical desire and how people interact with each other as I'm sure you know.
Morality certainly can exist without religion (and to say it can't is pretty offensive to non religious people). It arises from empathy.
Compassion and empathy can have an evolutionary purpose too, causing members of herds or tribes to look after their weaker members sometimes, which could benefit the group as a whole. I would have to dig it up but I have read about evidence that cave people used to chew elderly tribe members' food for them when they no longer had teeth. There is probably more to the story, but I think it is mistake to say that since we don't understand something fully yet it must be God's doing, instead of seeking to understand it further. It's okay for the answer to just be "we don't know yet" sometimes.
Another side note- the theory of evolution and natural selection have have nothing to do with the creation of the universe or the arising of life from non life (there are other scientific theories for those), and natural selection isn't just random. It's a bit more complicated than that.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't a god. Well, I don't believe that there is, but I'm not saying science has proven there isn't one (I don't think that's a question for science at all) or that you shouldn't believe what you believe.The only reason I replied in the first place is because you claimed that there was scientific proof. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs, but not to their own facts.
Even if I did the extra work to bring to light what they have found, it would be of NO use.
I am twice your age, and it's all too much.
I shall pass on this one, you keep believing no God...I will keep believing in God.
I can tell you one thing, you can 'nothing' from 'nothing'.
If I was to believe that all we are, and have was a product of a Big Bang.....that would 'fry my brain'.