Sacred Science: Using Faith to Explain Anomalies in Physics

I concur with EnviroMan - it is a good answer, and I have added my rating. The original author can be viewed as an apologist for the intelligent design crowd: "It's complicated, so it HAD to be designed, so there HAS to be a Designer (and if we are careful never to explicitly call the designer "god", maybe we can wedge it into textbooks and replace the evils of thoughtful Science with the perfection of unthinking Faith)."

Hi,

SciAm knows better and has a program of comments to show the nonsense of creationists.

Religion can be good and can be of the worst imaginable evil.

For sure it was not "God" who inspired the prophets and religious founders to tell about "laws" to obey. If most obey this will tie a community together. This was most important in early nomadic times and from these times the laws and the religions originate: Gilgamesh, Talmud, Bible, Khoran, others in Far-East.

Have a look how much damage did the different fundamentalistic believers of these religions to nonbelievers in the name of the religion.

It was good and it is good that religions exist. But who on Earth or in The Galaxy or Universe is telling us that we (poor little humans) can decide what is happening if something unexplainable is going on.

We may be in a situation much worse than a fly that sees an airplane. We will not be able to distinguish the advanced power of a very advanced ET-civilisation from being "God".

Nevertheless we shall try to explain everything what we see.

And I have not seen a miracle that is unlikely to be explainable.

Except: What was the origin if there was one? Big bang or steady state are not an explanation but a description.

This uncertainty will remain: postulating or believing in Gods existence or denying her/his existence does not solve this.

Sleep well at night, enjoy your time (80 years are nothing compared to the age of our sun), enjoy the beauties of nature, and try to create some beauty in your profession.

RHABE

Rhabe,

I would assert that religion is never good although on occasion it has served good purposes, i.e., English Protestantism and Oliver Cromwell and his New Model Army which subjected the crowned head of Charles I to the executioners ax. Or Lutheranism and Calvinism leading to the rise of the European bourgeoisie and its necessary concomitant the working class, culminating in the not yet fully successful Paris Commune.

But today, in the face of the insanity of the religious outlook of Bush' Christianity and Jewish nationalism's Zionism, religion, even in Iraq where Bush and co. are using it to split the opposition to occupation; it can no longer serve, where ignorance rules, in the place of cold, hard, materialist science, yes inclusive of social/political science.

Some here might conclude this comment is off topic.

Nonetheless, I would insist that if we are scientists, materialists, as many here seem to be, it is essential to purge from our daily existence all religious nonsense, and that is necessarily applicable to the social/political sphere, e.g., the damage done by government to medical science (Stem cell legislation based on religious nonsense), the forcing of alterations of government scientists published scientific opinions in various areas to conform with religious views, or commercial interests (Global warming), not to mention the release of tons of depleted uranium dust in Iraq, or the use of Agent Orange and similar defoliant chemicals causing horrendous biological problems for members of our species, not to mention all the others we are systematically killing and making extinct, etc.

If we are scientists, materialists, we must face reality with the cold hard view that scientific method gives us, not shrink and hide behind such organizational names as Biocomplexity and Informatics, instead of Department of Biology and related Information Technologies.

The point is there should not be allowed any wiggle room to sneak in religious nonsense behind overblown language.

There is no longer, in a world where the products of science and technology threaten to run wild (The Zionists and the U.S. and nuclear capabilities), anything to do but consider, as scientists, the material basis for such insanities, and eliminate it so that collectively the method of science is the means by which we govern our actions.

j.

"Life came into existence in the same manner as did all other things in the universe, i.e., it derived from evolutionary process' of the matter that makes up the universe."

Well, talk about a tautology, and one that is not even accurate. I guess you believe matter is eternal then? Here's a monkey wrench, what about laws? Are the laws of logic derived from the evolutionary process of the matter that makes up the universe since they must be part of the "all other things"? What about moral absolutes, love, mathmatics, beauty, any abstract thought, etc. etc. etc.? The worldview you propose is completely unintelligable if you think matter is all there is because a strictly material universe does not account for so many things.

Our guest spouts nonsense. It has not even paused to think before upchucking.

'"Life came into existence in the same manner as did all other things in the universe, i.e., it derived from evolutionary process' of the matter that makes up the universe."

'"Well, talk about a tautology, and one that is not even accurate. I guess you believe matter is eternal then? Here's a monkey wrench, what about laws? Are the laws of logic derived from the evolutionary process of the matter that makes up the universe since they must be part of the "all other things"? What about moral absolutes, love, mathmatics[sic], beauty, any abstract thought, etc. etc. etc.? The worldview you propose is completely unintelligable[sic] if you think matter is all there is because a strictly material universe does not account for so many things.

'"For example "moral absolutes, love, mathmatics [sic], beauty, any abstract thought."'

This represents a point of view that has not even thought beyond its immediate navel, much less the near million years that homo has existed on this planet, nor of the many social forms through which these "moral absolutes" have evolved therefore understanding there is no such thing as a "moral absolute" or even a material absolute except that of evolution, i.e., the constant motion and hence transformation of matter and energy throughout the universe.

Our guest, who has obviously been educated by small minds, takes the small point of view, or more correctly the local (Time and social) chauvinist view without recognizing that what we are today is the result of a long process, both material and social so that today, devoid of an educational system that should have taught him otherwise, he can posture here as to "moral absolute[s]."

It is obvious that our guest has never considered that different material conditions might give rise to different social conditions as one social commentator (Marx) has said "Men are the product of the manner in which they create their existence."

This guest has never considered that there is plenty of evidence that our "moral absolute" of monogamous marriage is only a few thousand years old. Indeed, in some places on this planet, there is yet to be found dual languages for familial relations, one representing (In the city) the "modern" system of monogamy and patriarchy, the other (In the country village) representing group marriage and matriarchy; matriarchy because in group marriage the only relationship you can know is to the female, hence a society in which the language posits all others as uncles.

This guest has gone to school, as have most of the rest of us, where it was not taught that Montezuma's long house was not a castle, as the Spaniards who lived under a monarchy thought, but rather the communal house of an earlier communal form of society.

I could go on and on and...

But one last thought. "Are the laws of logic derived from the evolutionary process of the matter "

The answer is of course yes if you include as part of that process the necessary evolution of human thought along with the evolution in the way he created his existence. After all, commensurate with the time in which he lived, Bishop Berkeley believed that none of this existed except as it existed as a thought in the mind of god.

Change, evolution, is the rule for all things in the universe including our thoughts. Otherwise, like our guest, why bother thinking?

Nonetheless, I think my purpose is served if I stop here. Our guest has not done before holding forth here with his "absolutes," any thought as to what is the source of those absolutes. Where is the data that supports absolutes instead of what we do know, that human beings and societies are the products of evolutions, and yes to be hard nosed and pugnacious earlier forms (Apes), social existence, and colors (Black) insofar as we all originated in Africa where melanin is an essential component to protect against equatorial ultra violet.

Now let us see what I have scratched.

j.

You sure seem acrid Jack. Sorry I'm too simplistic for you as to think there is right and wrong or good and evil, though not by evolutionary consenus. I sure wouldn't want you living next to me if society broke down and your "morals" turned into convenience. What makes anything wrong Jack, because 5 say so or 50 or 50,000? Maybe Germans really are the superior race? No, why not, because a consensus was taken? Constant motion and transformation of matter and energy just doesn't cut it and certainly quoting Marx as the authority in the matter at least shows your consistant inconsistancy.

"This guest has never considered that there is plenty of evidence that our "moral absolute" of monogamous marriage is only a few thousand years old."

I never once brought up any moral particulars so your bluster here is just wasted energy in motion, a spinning red herring if you will. You certainly could go on and on knocking down straw men that you erect at will.

The laws of logic are not the product of evolutionary human thought as if the laws of logic are conventional, given to pliability by the minds of men, but then you perceive a universe without absolutes until you have them wittled down to fit in your pocket, unless of course you really don't KNOW anything for certain. Did I mention Bishop Berkley? Another strawman perhaps?

I have given plenty of thought to the source of those absolutes, you just hate my source.

Yes, Virginia, there really are no moral absolutes.

Guest, who ought at least differentiate himself by some sort of avatar or name,

The plain, hard, cold fact is that you can demonstrate no material, concrete basis for your "absolutes." Hence one must conclude that your "source of those absolutes" is Bishop Berkeley's god or your solipsist personal view.

I see no sense in your accusing me of hating your source, i.e., your god. There is no sense in hating anything that has not been shown to exist as neither your "absolutes" nor their only possible source, god of whom there is no evidence.

It is an easy out to insist that you never "brought up any moral particulars." But when you insist that "Constant motion and transformation of matter and energy just doesn't cut it" what is there left except moralizing without any basis in material reality.

I deliberately cut back and forth between material reality and supposedly moral issues because everything you say reeks of moralisms rather than any attempt to recognize that the very nature of our thought is inextricably related to the material evolution of the manner in which we manufacture our existence, of which scientific method is thus far the highest expression, and since it is based in reality, hardly sacred.

You don't dare say so, but I suspect my choice of social subject matter, again based in the historical, material data, sends you up the wall.

If that is "acrid" so be it. I am not interested in your personal opinion of me but rather the way in which you think as a means of teaching materialism and scientific method using your "thinking" as exemplar of the opposite.

j.

"Pure nonsense. The only anomalies that exist are those we either create in our minds or because we as yet don't have all the data to resolve them."

Jack is a man of faith. Remember, the truth is out there.

The subject is "Using Faith to Explain Anomalies in Physics", so I believe that this Post of mine qualifies for the topic.

A short story about me, and how my experiences may help you.

I was always interested in what makes things work, and was the terror of my Science, Chemistry, and Physics teachers, because they did not have the answers to my questions, at College.

As you may be well aware, Engineering type persons really just want to know what makes things work, because that desire for truth and reason is designed into all true Engineers and true Scientists.

Faith is an interesting thing, because all people have faith, in something.

Please accept, kind reader, I am trying to help you, not condemn you.

If a person is really wanting to know God, and truly desires to that end, above all other desires, then be assured that there is a way to know God with certainty, because He has promised exactly that.

In today's present World, talking about God is not popular, nor was it really ever popular, because people have the inbuilt desire to do the wrong things = that short 3-letter word which most hate = Sin.

I grew up in New Zealand in a religion, and attended religious schools of that Denomination, in which we were taught by mostly Irish teachers much about God, but I never understood, nor did those very dedicated teachers, that it was really possible to know God as a person, on a 1:1 basis.

Well, as I write this, I am aware you, the reader, may write me off as "just another religious crank", and that is your privilege to think what you may, and I have no intention of forcing you to my viewpoint, because that would be quite wrong of me.

The Latin word "religare" means to bind, or throttle, and is the word from which the English word we get is "religion".

Religion is Man's way to God.

Jesus Christ is God's way to Man.

I spent some 30+ years of my life, trying to prove God exists, and was unable to do so, in spite of my earnest efforts, so I gave up trying, and decided to just accept life as it was, mostly miserable.

Then someone explained how I could come to know God as a real person, and it was very evident that this person who explained that, did know someone whom I didn't.

That helpful person took the time to explain that the only way to know God, was to believe that God says who He is, God will do what He says He will do, and that I could only know God by placing full trust in someone I had never met.

You may well think that is a crazy thing to do, place your trust in someone you don't really know, but most people do exactly that, every day.

We trust that the person who bakes our bread has used the correct ingredients, not added some rat poison perhaps, and we trust many others we don't know, so many times each day, if we really think about it, do we trust our lives to others.

We are given our power of reasoning, so that we may carefully use it, and come to understand the truth behind what we perceive on this Planet Earth, and elsewhere.

It is written in the Bible, that God says: "Come reason with Me", and He expects that each person should do so.

And so, in other words, to truly know God is real, requires Faith.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - The Bible; Hebrews 11 v1.

To each person is given the measure of faith, or else God would not be fair, and He has proved that He is very fair indeed.

So, if we do not use what we have been given, it is like a set of muscles which waste away, like a leg or arm which will then wither away from non-use.

So I did as that helpful person back in early 1978 recommended, and read the Bible.

Now some of you really may have your fuse lit, and may run off, sputtering, but that is really not my intent you should do so.

I read the Bible, starting as recommended at the Gospel of John, because that was written so that "the reader may come to understand Jesus Christ was truly the Son of God".

Yes, I can hear the shouting in the distance....

I was really intrigued, because although we had to attend a Service every Sunday, under severe penalties if we missed it out, I decided to read more, then more.

After a few weeks, I decided that I was ready to ask God, if He was truly real, to show Himself to me.

I asked God if He was truly real, to show me, waited, and waited, for a thunderbolt from Heaven, or some sign that God was real, feeling dreadful inside, what has been termed in the Bible as travail of spirit, at 1:30am I remember thinking that "if God was real, I was prepared to give Him another chance", and very sadly I went to sleep.

At 3:30am I woke up, and all was changed, I knew I had a Father in Heaven who loved me, so I woke up my dear wife, and we talked the rest of the night.

Now you are perhaps really thinking I was off my rocker....

Since then, since February 23 1978, I have had an interesting walk with God, each day there are new trials, because He does not promise an easy road, but one which is straight and narrow, which leads to Eternal Life.

Most people are on a different road, one which is broad and easy, which leads to Eternal Destruction.

Each person has the freedom to choose where they will spend Eternity, and we do get only the single life here, to choose our destination.

Please remember: "Sincerity of Belief is never a Substitute for Truth".

It would be good for you to think about it, gentle reader.

Now I had always wondered how Eternity worked, and the answer is there, written plainly in the Bible.

I shall write how I found that answer to my question on "How does eternity Work", in another Topic soon, which I shall place in the General Forum.

Marvellous design requires a Designer, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

I trust you have read this short story about part of my life, and how it bears on my understanding of Anomalies in Physics, how the entire visible Universe works, and the true meaning of Time (Time which has been sadly misunderstood by so many).

I do wish you well, dear reader, and trust you now have some things to think about.

You may always contact me via PM at CR4, if you have a specific question you would rather not share in a reply Post here.

Kind Regards, from far away....

I totally disagree with some religious scientists who are trying to prove the existence of God through scientific observations, theories, experiments or whatever... I could respect a religious person who just believes in God without any proof for that... But there are "scientists" who say: "look at the complexity of life... this means that there is God..." or say: "look at the accelarated expansion of the Universe... this must be God's work..." The real scientists must say: ""look at the complexity of life... this must be so due to evolution..." or say: "look at the accelarated expansion of the Universe... let's find out an explanation..." This is how a real scientist must think and act (even if he goes to the church after work)...

I concur. You can accept anything you want on faith, but Deus Ex Machina is not an explanation for everything. In fact, I doubt it's an explanation for anything. It's a failure to have the courage to think, to explore, to wonder. Without Aristotle, without Marco Polo, without Van Leuwenhouk, where would we be today? I'm sure each had some kind of religious belief, but none allowed it to stop them from thinking, exploring, wondering, and DOING! "Intelligent design" is just a reason to admit that failure. And if, at end, we find that by investigating the infinitesimally small, the incalculably large, and the incredibly complex universe, we discover that there actually IS an intelligent designer, would we not be welcomed to the club?

"I'm sure each had some kind of religious belief, but none allowed it to stop them from thinking, exploring, wondering, and DOING!"

This kind of slanderous insinuation of contemporary scientists who are Christians is the very reason why the discussion does not get to far. Scientist Christians think, explore, wonder and do, often times with more passion than their colleagues.

I'm convinced that the point of contention reaches far far below the surface, in that the atheistic scientist is not really worried that the scientist Christian won't think and act and perform experiments with integrity, but that if the scientist Christian's worldview is correct, then accountability has entered the picture. This debate is truely a philosophical paradigm between Atheism and Christian Theism.

No, if the scientist Christian's worldview is correct, then the reason to pursue further inquiry has vanished. Sorry, but that's the way it goes. At least in my worldview...

"No, if the scientist Christian's worldview is correct, then the reason to pursue further inquiry has vanished."

Please clarify your reason or the "neutral scientist" to pursue further inquiry.

If one does not depend on given wisdom, one must perforce seek answers, or lack curiosity. If the curiosity is present, answers will be sought. If the answers are accepted as given information, why would one seek further? Waste of time. As is this discussion, quite frankly. Neither of us is likely to change the other's mind, and I don't really care to try. You are entitled to your belief system. I have mine. Therefore, all's good. Enjoy.

"... I could respect a religious person who just believes in God without any proof for that... But there are "scientists" who say: "look at the complexity of life... this means that there is God..." or say: "look at the accelarated expansion of the Universe... this must be God's work..." The real scientists must say: ""look at the complexity of life... this must be so due to evolution..." or say: "look at the accelarated expansion of the Universe... let's find out an explanation..." This is how a real scientist must think and act (even if he goes to the church after work)..."

George,

What about the scientist that says "look at the complexity of life... the theory of evolution and all that goes with it just does not satisfy." The problem is you seem to believe in the "fallacy of neutrality" as if "true scientists" come to the debate with a clean slate. This is just not the case, as everyone has their presuppositions that they read the "facts" through. If you think that presupposing Atheism is being neutral than the discussion between the Atheists and Christian Thiests is not open minded and not how "true scientists" should act.

Some people have the silly notion that if three Christian Theists who are scientists are sitting around the lab and an Atheistic Scientist comes along and says lets explore the topic of gravity and they turn to him and say "God does it, lets go get a coffee."

The presupposition of the Christian God in no way hinders the pursuit of true science because this particular God has particular attributes and everything is based on His unchanging character. It is nowhere near the same as an individual saying I believe or presuppose an unknowable entity called a Flooble.

Now the person researching the Old and New Testaments may come to the conclusion that they don't like the God contained within its pages, fair enough, but there is no lack of description of Him and not liking Him does not mean He doesn't exist.

The Christian worldview far better explains the totality of the reality in which we find ourselves then the anemic worldview of Atheistic Materialism.

"The Christian worldview far better explains the totality of the reality in which we find ourselves then the anemic worldview of Atheistic Materialism."

Perhaps for you. To me, the Deus Ex Machina worldview has far less sap in it than trying to use our puny powers of reason to understand the fundamental principles of our universe and the workings of nature. Sorry, I was apparently not raised in the same tradition as you. And I've seen far too many examples of people saying close enough to "God does it. Let's get a coffee." to ever let me believe the religion one has will never cloud the reasoning one (should) uses. Besides, if I want to believe or presuppose an unknowable entity called a Flooble, that's my concern, is it not? Don't be so hasty to belittle other's beliefs, eh? I resist criticizing your Christianity and resent those who do not resist, but that does not mean I accept it. But I do appreciate the art...

"Besides, if I want to believe or presuppose an unknowable entity called a Flooble, that's my concern, is it not? Don't be so hasty to belittle other's beliefs, eh?"

My point of bringing up a Flooble (I don't think anyone believes in a Flooble) was to contrast a nonsense word to the word God as referenced from the Old and New Testaments, not as a criticism of Flooble believers.

Your reference to Aristotle and Deus Ex Machina is interesting as the main point of criticism seems to be an introduction of something improbable to the play, ie an increadible plot twist. So lets put a couple of interrogatives side by side and wonder about probabilities within this play we find ourselves in.

Did something come from nothing?

Does God exist?

"Did something come from nothing?"

Maybe - I'm no big fan of the big bang, but even if God created it, then supposedly it did. Unless "God" counts as "something", in which case the point approaches the unanswerable anyway. Maybe more to the point, "Did everything come from somewhere?"

"Does God exist?"

Depends on who you ask. You ask me, I say "insufficient data". Please don't mistake me for an Atheist, it takes as much faith to deny as to believe, and I don't have it either way. But I'm starting to like the Flooble...

"Maybe - I'm no big fan of the big bang, but even if God created it, then supposedly it did. Unless "God" counts as "something", in which case the point approaches the unanswerable anyway."

Remember, in the Christian worldview God is eternal so something comes from something. The point is answerable, I would surmise that it is not satisfactory to you because of the lack of mechanics, ie how did He do it, but it is an answer that is not irrational none the less.

The mechanism doesn't so much matter, as the fact that the answer begs the question. Where did God come from? He's eternal. OK, so it's turtles all the way down. Nope, sorry, that's no answer, it's a cop-out.

It is so nice to believe in a loving and just God... A God who takes care of us and listens to the wishes of good people and keeps us safe... But whenever I see on TV small children being dead because they had the misfortune to be the target of a bomb (in a war that they never choose to be around them) I wonder how is possible such a loving and just God let this happen... Those children even had no time to enjoy the gift of life... Sometimes I think of the possibility that, maybe, the human beings "need" such a God as they feel so small, weak and lonely in this infinite Universe or just because they are relieved to have a ultimate (and easy) answer on everything... I don't say that it is necessarily so (and maybe God realy exists) but I just wonder... Anyway, the religion is a very personal issue... The point is that the personal, religious beliefs of a scientist must not affect his scientific work... It doesn't matter if he believes in the christian God, the cosmic turtle or the spaggeti monster (or he is just sceptic like I am)... His work is to explore the reality and trying to find the scientific truth in an objective manner (as far as possible)...

(We are so lucky that we live in these civilized ages and we are able to discuss such issues... If we were living in the Middle (dark) Ages, probably, I should be tortured and killed by the Inquisitio Sacra... ...)

That's pure sophistry.

"Remember, in the Christian worldview God is eternal so something comes from something"

Assume what you can't prove, i.e., "God" who "is eternal" and then conclude, in order to walk away from the obvious necessary question as to god's origins, that since you have declared without evidence as the original existence, his existence "something comes from something."

You ought to put your pants on and stop showing your butt. Okay. god exists and is the source of the all. But pray please tell, what was the process of his creation of all this?

Pure sophistry. We are not freshman philosophy class students here.

For scientists "the all" is always bound up in our practice of determining how things come into existence and the cause is inextricably bound up with the how which is also partly a question of history.

Outrageous sophistry! You must be a preacher.

j.

"That's pure sophistry."

Listen Jack, there is no sophistry here as I was speaking about the internal consistency within the Christian Worldview of the eternality of God. The context was clear as the contention was:

something from nothing

or

something from something

WITHIN the Christian Worldview creation comes from something. This is pretty simple stuff, but if you need the conversation to slow down a little, we'll do our best.

As I said to Enviroman the answer may not be what he is looking for, ie how God did it, but obviously you are fixated on that. How would you like me to answer you? You want the physics so you can go test it out? The mechanics are not part of our experience Jack as the Old and New Testament say all was created by the Word. He spoke and it was. Are you jumping up and down yet, saying what nonsense.

Jack wants an audience with God to be given sufficient proof that He exists. Don't forget to bring your notepad to jot everything down.

Lets go back in time for a moment, back to pre-bronze age and meet Jethro and explain to him how man got to the moon. Are you ready Jack?

My, my.

Guest is jumping up and down because his internal reference to a system of thought that as far as can be seen is based on pure gas, is not accepted by me or I know others here.

Hence "something from nothing or something from something" remains pure sophistry insofar as it requires acceptance of mental masturbation asserting that the something from which something came, has itself no something from which it came.

Now I know speaking of mental masturbation is not nice but what else can one call puerile nonsense offered in support of a being there is no evidence ever existed.

What Guest objects too, what is sending him up the wall, is continuously rubbing his nose in the hard fact that he has no evidence at all for any of the sophistry he spouts.

If there is any reason science is not sacred it is because it is based in cold, hard facts, and the extending conclusions, hypothesis, that seeks to determine if conclusions drawn from hard facts, are provable, something sophistry never gets involved in.

j.

GA from my worldview!

I have studied and attended services in most of the world's major religions, including nearly all of the Christian denominations or sects. What I have found in common is much, including the belief that each one has all the "right" answers. Since it is logically impossible for all to be "right", and theoretically possible for all to be mistaken ("wrong" may be too harsh a term, they ARE trying, after all), I remain unpersuaded. If the Christians are correct and there is an omnipotent loving God, I think I'll be forgiven for also trying to be rational. If not, I'm screwed anyway, so, no worries!

Good answer RHABE

I keep a point you made, that we cannot prove the existence nor the nonexistence of God. We will never have a mathematical certainty of either 0% or 100% about God, either because our axiomatic set of reasoning won't allow it, or because we are so unimportant and naive as compared to God himself to fathom Him. So we can relax and philosophize until the human race gets extinct (maybe self-extinct during arguing on such matters). I find it highly unlikely that one day God himself will appear to tell us about His presence. Anyway, he has to do quite a fancy show to prove it is really Him, maybe by having a pointing arrow on his head with neon flashing lights saying: "That's me, God", and do some persuasive magic tricks, leaving aside any effort to talk about difficult ideas, like Unconstrained Love, Humbleness, etc. otherwise, he runs a very serious risk to be taken as a heretic and get crucified by any priesthood currently on power.

I don't want to be taken as a hubrist, I am raised as a Christian and I value all moral teachings of the Christian faith and all. Only that on discussion like the one we are having now, we fail to make the distinction about the possible necessity of a God to explain various vague aspects of the cosmos and the validity of various doctrines that appeared throughout the history of the human race.

It seems, everybody who follows a certain doctrine, waits impatiently for science to reach a conclusion that e.g. Big Bang might have been initiated by a intelligent being. Then they will jump gaily to the conclusion that their holy book is at last vindicated. Only that the fact that a God may have a chance to exist in phenomena we haven't yet described (until of course we do sometime describe them otherwise), doesn't mean we have the right, at least as scientists, to attach certain extra and arbitrary attributes to this God just to match our human vanity and desires. For example, if we ever discover that God is indeed behind Big Bang, the issue is why this specific God has to be exactly the one who is explained in a specific book, e.g. the one who is omnipotent, eternal, loving, etc., the one who created Eve from the rib of Adam, the one who has a son and a pigeon, the one who has created Hell and Paradise to wait for us humans (only), the one who constantly enlightens the Pope so that he is always infallible, and the list goes on.

The paradox of the almighty God who cannot be eternal or the eternal God who cannot be almighty is an old and good one, which proves how arbitrarily we have labeled God. It is funny, how often we humans fail to reason impartially: Whenever things are going our way (e.g. we are cured by a serious illness), or appear to us as amazingly beautiful (e.g. a nice flower or woman) we claim we found a proof of the existence of God. Whenever we see injustice, ugliness and suffering around us, we attribute it to the nature of us humans (so it is the God who punish us or tests us), or maybe, God has a plan in mind that we miserable humans won't even get a grasp on. So, in one instance we claim we know all the truth about God (and maybe kill to pass it along), and then in another instance we raise our hands hopeless of explaining His Will... The point is that with this mindset and some good leaps of logic, one can "prove" the existence of Spaghetti Monster as the ruler of all, or the Satan, or whatever.

I'm sorry to say that, but whether there is a God or not, whether we enjoy such discussion or not in this forum, there's one thing for sure: all the religious doctrines who tried to give an explanation of the cosmos have failed badly. Moreover, they are incompatible not only among each other, but very often, the doctrines contradict even themselves.

One can as well believe in a better world as envisioned by a certain religion, follow a lifestyle that will make him feel more happy and "whole", but on the other hand, it is as unconceivable for one who claims that follows the scientific method to resort to "holy" scriptures to explain any physical phenomenon.

I haven't seen G.K.'s post #22 when I wrote mine; We say more or less the same!

Give it up Rhabe!

Kant's "unknowable thing in itself" is so past.

The biggest unknowable, i.e., the so-called duality of mind and matter, dual because matter can't possible know the unknowable mind, falls daily before the practice, remember that word practice, of biologists and medical scientists, who with their computed tomography scanners, MRI machines and such, actually watch the brain/mind in motion and it's responses both for medical purposes as well as research purposes.

Physicists, with their electron scanning microscopes, are today taking pictures of those so-called "models not to be confused with reality" of molecules and electrons, which pictures even show the haze of electrons (Haze because we cannot yet "stop" the motion with our imaging technology) as they follow their orbital paths around the atom nucleus.

Interesting because Kant was developing his "unknowable thing in itself" even as science was starting up all around him. Even later the physicist Earnest Mach prattled on about knowing only "complexes of sensations."

There are no "unknowable thing[s]," only unknowns. Agnosticism, as someone once said, V.I. Lenin, "is shame-faced theism."

That is important because agnosticism, instead of demanding evidence for an assertion, covers up for an assertion based on pure un-adulterated air, thus leaving open as an area of speculation what should be closed off for lack of evidence.

j.

EnviroMan...

"I'm starting to like the Flooble..."

Your flooble could just as easily be one of the many god's, rooted in the necessities of their every day struggle to exist, air, fire, water, animalistic gods, etc., that many different groups of humankind believed in before technological and social development created the basis for monotheism, i.e., Judaism and Christianity.

This business of arguing from the point of view of Chritianity only underlines, in a world where the vast numbers of people believe in Islam, Buddhism, or any other numbers of beliefs, the complete lack of any scientific approach to this discussion.

The Jews even have a word for it "Chutzpa" meaning "balls." Where does anybody get off proposing that their simple religious views cast the slightest light on the huge amount of detailed knowledge we have gleaned, and have yet to acquire, about this vast unknown, but knowable universe in which we are but a tiny speck.

j.

"This business of arguing from the point of view of Chritianity only underlines, in a world where the vast numbers of people believe in Islam, Buddhism, or any other numbers of beliefs, the complete lack of any scientific approach to this discussion."

Sometimes I just have to shake my head, maybe next time this Christian will debate from a Islamic worldview, what a silly thing to say Jack. Maybe YOU'RE really a Christian playing devils advocate? By the way, the amount of historical and linguistical research and labor that has been focused on the documents of the Old and New Testaments show that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

"Where does anybody get off proposing that their simple religious views cast the slightest light on the huge amount of detailed knowledge we have gleaned, and have yet to acquire, about this vast unknown, but knowable universe in which we are but a tiny speck."

I know, I'll just say you're wrong by concensus, because us "religious" folk far out number your tiny clic. No, I can't do that because I want to be rational and logical.

Guest,

I won't even be nice. Plain out you are a fool to assert 'I know, I'll just say you're wrong by concensus [sic], because us "religious" folk far out number your tiny clic [sic]. No, I can't do that because I want to be rational and logical.'

Nothing "rational and logical" in that. Your church burned folks who although they were in the minority were correct.

Only a fool would argue that way when at one time the vast majority of the earth's population believed the earth was flat.

Only a chauvinist Christian fool, so involved in personal insupportable beliefs, would fail to see that he was being accused of chauvinism, of placing a priority on Christianity, just as the Zionists place a priority on Judaism (Although together they represent a vanishingly small segment of humanity), thus demonstrating clearly the narrowness of his views and the attempt to attack science and scientists for defending their scientific method as though it were "Sacred."

It is just that sort of narrowness that leads to religious attacks on scientists and indeed, such things as shooting and bombing medical personnel who seek to aid patients instead of preaching religion to them.

j.

"The Christian worldview far better explains the totality of the reality in which we find ourselves then the anemic worldview of Atheistic Materialism."

If it explains anything "far better" it does so because it sees no need to explain the facts in detail.

After all, as I pointed out earlier that far better explanation at base devolves to Bishop Berkeley's assertion, because as an honest man he could do no other given the unknowable mind of god, that "All that exists, exists only because it exists as a thought in the mind of god."

When your thesis dismisses the possibility of real, concrete, material knowledge; of course its better insofar as nothing else is necessary.

EnviroMan grapples with the materials of reality not religious ignorance elegantly primped and dressed up by the academic Bishop Berkeley's of the world. Therefore he has substance and motivation, and material, provable, truth on his side.

j.

EnviroMan

"If it explains anything "far better" it does so because it sees no need to explain the facts in detail."

Preacher: Something comes from something (Christian worldview)

Jack: What is that something?

Preacher: The Eternal God (Christian Worldview)

Jack: Sure, what sophistry, ok how did he do it.

Preacher: He spoke it into existence (Christian Worldview)

Jack: AHA...got you! You can't speak things into existence

Preacher: I can't, God can (Christian Worldview)

Jack: AHA...Something comes from nothing then

Preacher: No, God is the something creating something (Christian Worldview)

Jack: I don't believe it, I prefer science and evolutionary matter in motion

Preacher: Fine, I wasn't trying to persuade you

Jack: Simplistic religious nonsense

Preacher: By the way, where did matter come from?

Jack: I have my scientific theories

Preacher: Did something come from nothing?

Jack: Maybe, maybe not

Preacher: Is matter eternal then?

Jack: Maybe

Preacher: Your science sounds pretty arbitrary

Jack: At least I have the facts on my side

Preacher: LOL