All Things Point To God!

[ataraxia]

You're denigration of the spiritual life of others is not an argument. Your two choices are bogus. The second is cynical.

And that makes it false because...?

The first denigrates spirituality and dog-whistles for laws as our ethical "guide" in life.

Sure. Do you deny this is how it's been traditionally used? If not, then why would the founding fathers of this country want to separate church from state?

So life on earth is "really all about" constitutions and criminal and civil codes according to you. Good luck with your secular liberal democracy. It's bringing us closer to social anomie every day.

Life on earth, the universe, consciousness, etc... are, as you point out, mysteries. Doesn't mean "God musta done it" is the default answer. There could be lots of other answers.

In fact, not having all the answers in a pat and smug way is not the way to "anomie", it's actually the only way we humans have found to advance, and not stagnate in ignorance. After all, if "God did it" was always a good answer which satisfied us, we would never know even the little bit about the universe that we know now.

Here is the late Nobel laureate in physics Richard Feynman on the importance of knowing when to admit we don't know some things, and leaving the question open:

"God was always invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand...

If we take everything into account — not only what the ancients knew, but all of what we know today that they didn't know — then I think that we must frankly admit that we do not know.
But, in admitting this, we have probably found the open channel.This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. This is the philosophy that guided the men who made the democracy that we live under. The idea that no one really knew how to run a government led to the idea that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried out, and tossed out if necessary, with more new ideas brought in — a trial and error system. This method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to be a successful venture at the end of the eighteenth century. Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar....

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained."
-Richard Feynman

So in response to your question: yes, there are lots of questions we still don't know and lots of mysteries.

But no, "God musta done it" has traditionally proven to be the wrong answer in the past, and likely will in the future too. Cynically, but very correctly, it has only been used to push political agendas:

"God created the order of the universe, therefore..." (insert your latest political position here for how humans should order their society: all women should wear a hijab and be refused to vote in political elections, gay marriage is wrong, etc, etc...).

We don't need it. If you don't know, it's OK to just say you don't know.

 

[nota bene]

That is why Angel has created a straw man of 'Scientism' that he throws around in the forum to get reaction from creating tension and conflict.

You oppose his opinions, but this doesn't mean that scientism is a straw man.

 

[nota bene]

There has been and always will be a conflict between science and religion. It isn't the same as saying one will or must vanquish the other. The conflict is real and will continue as science comes up with explanations for things that were once considered in the realm of the supernatural.

Scientists can be quite proficient in their chosen field of science while at the same time holding unscientific beliefs. The human brain is funny that way and can compartmentalize conflicting ideas.

There is no denying the resistance of religion to science through history.

In your opinion.

 

[Logicman]

So? I'm sure there's a myriad of Gods that are yet to be disproven, but we've seen enough to safely assume that no Gods exist. The idea that your three Gods are the only ones that exist is laughable.

Nuts.

You're another one who hasn't done your due-diligence on the subject.

Recommended reading for you:

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel
"The Historical Jesus, by Gary Habermas

 

[Visbek]

Logic has to do with Mind. That was my point.

...yes, and mind requires a substrate. Such as, oh... a brain. Were there brains before or during the Big Bang?

https://phys.org/news/2015-12-big-theory.html

lol

Yes, this is a common misunderstanding about the Big Bang theory. It's unfortunate that Phys, which is not exactly the gold standard of contemporary physics theory, has misled you on this point.

Of course, if you actually read the article, you'll see that the models it describes pretty much operate by the same rules. The conditions are so extreme that the rules operate differently.

As the article points out: One theory is that during the Planck Epoch, gravity overwhelms the other subatomic forces. As the universe cooled, the other forces start to appear, presumably because it's cool enough for their force carriers to be created.

There are also ways to fit the Big Bang into string theory, in which case the rules definitely apply, and predate the universe. Since you like Phys:
https://phys.org/news/2006-03-string-theory-notion-redefines-big.html)

...and of course, a brief discussion of multiverse cosmology:
https://phys.org/news/2014-07-universe.html

The list goes on.

I.e. very few physicists have actually looked at the equations which suggest a Big Bang, thrown up their hands, and said "there were no rules, it's a mystery!" Rather, they are trying to understand how the laws of physics operate differently in that extreme environment. Others are looking into alternatives, including looking for physical evidence of multiverses.

 

[Visbek]

There is no problem. You're again applying physicalism where you shouldn't. God does not need a cause.

...yes, and claiming that everything needs a cause except God is pretty much the poster child for special pleading.

You're saying that everything needs a preceding cause... except this thing over here, which is awfully convenient to be something you want it to be. Yawn

At best, all you're doing is personifying "The Mystery." E.g. let's the universe had a discrete beginning. Either the universe was created ex nihilo without consciousness ("it's a mystery!") or... the universe was created itself ex nihilo with consciousness ("it's a mystery!") All you're doing is declaring by fiat that no more questions can be answered, and projecting some type of consciousness or intentionality onto the process.

And again, it is entirely plausible that there is no uncaused cause, because -- say it with me now -- if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it has always existed, in some form or another.


Now, you can claim that God is the uncaused cause anyway. However, you are now saying that God can do the impossible, which means God is not consistent (not bound by the laws of logic). Nor can you contain this to some mystical pre-Big Bang period, because inconsistency cannot be contained; if God was impossible before the Big Bang, you have to engage in all sorts of additional impossible tasks to restrict it to possibility after the Big Bang. At the very least, you're weakening the powers of God in order to jam it into the restrictions imposed by logic, which seems a tad counter-intuitive.

I.e. by claiming God is an "uncaused cause," while everything else in existence requires a cause, you're throwing in the towel on applying logic to God. And in doing so, you invalidate pretty much all of those logical arguments which claim to prove the existence of God -- Anselm, Aquinas, Kalaam, Godel, and so on.

You yourself swore fidelity to the Law of the Excluded Middle. Either you accept logic, or you don't. Either choice has its own set of consequences. So which is it?

 

[Quag]

Man has wrestled with that Mystery throughout the history of man on earth. It has inspired poetry, philosophy, drama, music, literature, art, and religion. Let the Mystery be? And live longer pointless lives through science? No thanks.

Not only has mystery inspired poetry, philosophy, drama, music, literature, art, and religion it has inspired people to use science.
No one said to leave any mystery be and science most definitely doesn't do that. However you cannot claim a mystery is proof of the supernatural. It is just proof that we dont know the answer yet.

 

[spud_meister]

Nuts.

You're another one who hasn't done your due-diligence on the subject.

Recommended reading for you:

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel
"The Historical Jesus, by Gary Habermas

For you: The Case for Christ: What's the evidence for the resurrection?

The tall tales of Christ's disciples cam only be taken on faith.

 

[Gina]

Moderator's Warning:

Closing this thread. The OP was inviting discussion that goes against the spirit/rules of the forum. Moderator action may still occur on posts made before this notice.