Dear Cauf,

I enjoyed your text, especially the extensive research you based it on.

Congratulations for the quotes from elite philosophers, such as Aristotle, Bertrand Russell and others, showing that you have read and understand classical philosophy; perhaps you are not following the development and theses of philosophers of the new generations.

Here are the comments from a midwit,

"I base my fundamental Creationist faith on Aristotle. The Philosopher single-handedly invented the Western idea of monotheism when he proposed the concept of an “unmoved move”, which goes like this: everything that is in motion was set in motion by something else ; if A is in motion, there must be a B that set A in motion; then for B to be in motion, there must be a C, and so forth…".This is true, as you can see in https:/ /brasilescola.uol.com.br/fisica/principios-dinamica.htm, of which I highlight:"One of the several aspects of this law said that a body would only remain in motion if a force continued to exert a certain force on it ."

Therefore, Aristotle had already formulated this part of Newton's first principle centuries before him. But he did not proceed to elaborate a theory of Action and Reaction.

"Of course this series cannot go forever and you must come to a halt at a X, which is a cause for movement, but does not move itself: an unmoved mover, a primary cause, the mover of all motion in the universe. Aristotle gave to this X the name “God”, which Aristotle describes as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: self-contemplation".

No, friend: the first object is that needs a "push" to move and eventually hit another that is in a straight line of its trajectory to reach the "X" and continue eternally if there are other objects in front of it. All this in a fictitious environment where there is no frictional force. Therefore, the thing that gave the first push and caused the "domino reaction", received a push unlike the first object with the same intensity of the blow that applied to it; and "if a force CONTINUED to exert a certain force on it". So many reactions this initial thing took that it was being pushed into the past; and there in the past it is, where it must be, in primeval legends of the creation of the world, and later, like the story written by many unknowns who make up the Testaments, Old and New. Permanent curiosity to this day.

I'm glad you didn't bother to read this nonsense.

I, who was born and raised in a family convicted and practising the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, was a fervent "Apostle of Christ" and, therefore, had to read and reread the "Books of Truth".

"First of all, we need to clarify one thing: Atheism is a religion. In fairness, 99% of self-professed Atheists are actually agnostics, they are just not smart enough to realize that. The other 1% are just clinically insane".

I totally agree! And from what you've described, Agnostics are selfish, navel-worshippers.

I am a Doubtist, one who doubts even of his certainties; and so I continue, midwit following luminaries like Benjamin Cain, Hotse Languerar, Bicho do Mato, Michelle Loucadoux, and other philosophers here on Medium.

Ben Cain has hundreds of exellent works on phylosophy; one that relates with your post is: For Those Who Are Neither Vulgar Nor Wise: https://medium.com/grim-tidings/philosophy-for-those-who-are-neither-vulgar-nor-wise-367760aaf0dc .

The proposition of the Big Bang theory was made by astronomers, physicists and mathematicians: 'The theory itself was originally formalized by Belgian Catholic priest, theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and the professor of physics George Lemaîte".

No glory to the Church: glory to science!

"The creation of the universeThe creation of life The creation of the human psyche"

1 - Science has to strictly obey the epistemology of science: a theory is only accepted (temporarily) if it is proven by several and different real experiments that prove that it answers the reality; and this same one will continue to be explored, criticized, until another represents reality with greater accuracy.

"what we know as the Big Bang was sparked by something else happening before it — the Big Bang was not a beginning, but one part of a larger process". (https://www.space.com/what-came-before-big-bang.html#:~:text=In%20the%20beginning%2C%20there%20was,for%20the%20past%20several%20decades ) ;

From the text I emphasize:"As cool as this sounds, early versions of the cyclic model had difficulty matching observations — which is a major deal when you're trying to do science and not just telling stories around the campfire."

"In the last year , however, there has been a return of the Cyclic Universe in a new 21st century version based on recent ideas developed in fundamental (superstring) physics (5, 6). The new cyclic universe appears capable of reproducing all of the successful predictions of the standard big bang/inflationary model with the same exquisite precision even though the key events that shape the large scale structure of the universe occur at different epochs and temperatures and entail different physical processes".

E la nave va...

"The creation of life and The creation of the human psyche" are both just the same theme.

Me, doubtist, I published texts based on Darwin's theory

1 - History of the Earth and the predators that developed on it - https://blogflaviomusa.medium.com/history-of-the-earth-and-the-predators-that-developed-on-it-e4a8a4180e1d and

2 - History of the Earth — Part Two: https://blogflaviomusa.medium.com/history-of-the-earth-part-two-275dcc6b6ee8

Several criticisms of the Theory of Evolution have only served to confirm it, this one for example: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the- theory-of-evolution/

The origin of consciousness was already in the DNA and its development started from there. Look:

1 - The Conscious Cell - https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05707.x , and

2 - DNA consciouness - https://books.google.com.br/books?hl=pt-BR&lr=&id=162zCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA116&dq=when+organisms+began+to+develop+consciousness+-+dna&ots=gcLLZXvZwr&sig= UkcT_cn0aFoNh673IgJg2sX_lqU#v=onepage&q=when%20organisms%20began%20to%20develop%20consciousness%20-%20dna&f=false

Congratulations, and thank you very much, Cauf, for publishing this text!

As I wrote, thought-provoking: it instigated me to think, to think about my doubts.

I make no pretense that my comments will alter your beliefs; on the contrary, I know that you will keep them and know that they are right and suitable for you.

Thank you so much for the honor and joy you give me by following me.