The problem you're faced with is that your argument rests on the idea that everything ultimately has a cause that can be proven and explained by science. And I'm saying that science is inherently not up to the task. Science can only study natural phenomena, and by science's own rules, all natural phenomena have causes, and beginnings.

I'm saying that science isn't capable of coming to the answer, because the answer is outside the scope of science.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"My life and the lives of those around me is as good or bad as we make it."

But generally, it's pretty bad, isn't it (I'm talking about all of us). This existential view is a pretty bleak one, leaving us completely untethered to anything eternal or transcendant -- it's all up to us (in that view) and yet we are by and large inclined to screw things up, aren't we?

The universe declares that it's all no accident, that there is a Desiger, and yet we flee from that because we realize that if there is a creator who ordered things, then we are accountable to how we respond to that.

It's clear, though, that we don't exist by our own choice. We were born into this world with a discrete soul (consciousness/conscience/self-awareness), with which we experience the world and through which, I would submit, we intuit a transcendant existence beyond ourselves.

Such as? Give me an example that isn't explained by science. Haven't I already? The ultimate beginnings of the universe.

One other thing: Earth has been around for 4.6 billion years, give or take, and the Universe for 13 billion or so. Man has been around for approx. 1 million, and organised religion for 3-4000. So, what has god been doing all that time? What is his relevance when the human species becomes extinct? What are you saying, that God only exists to serve us? That's a rather human-centric view of things.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Interesting. Actually, one night I had this rather ominous and frightening thought or fear: I don't really exist. If I died now (then) no one would know, no one would care. My cats would step over my body until their food ran out, then start meowing.

So it occured to me- the only person that defines my existence is me. In abscence of someone else, it is just me that confirms I am alive and real. I read with interest the Alan Watts book "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are" It proposes that we are all God or Gods, since our own existence is contingent on us.

Suddenly, a big light went off in my head- duy. If I choose to not exist- I sort of won't. But I choose to exist, get involved, see the world, try to contribute and do some good- then I do exist in my own eyes and the eyes of others. "

Um. . .I don't get it. How, exactly, can you choose not to exist? Could you then choose to exist again? Can you demonstrate?

If you died, you would still exist. We seem to agree that you're body would still exist, since your cats would have to step over it to eat, right?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"What are you saying, that God only exists to serve us? That's a rather human-centric view of things."

That's exactly what I'm not saying. I'm saying that God is a creation of man. Man thinks that God created the universe. His only relevance to man is ulitmately to decide who gets eternal life and who doesn't.

What I'm asking is, if god is not a construct of man, what does he/ has he been doing all this time?

Yeah, ahh, I hear what you and bub are saying. I have to think on this for a while. I'm going to take a shower. I do my best thinking in the shower.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I'm saying God has more to do than watch over man. If you assume for the moment that God does exist and is the Creator of the universe, I don't see how it matters how short a time man has existed for. There's more to Creation than humans.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Science can only study natural phenomena, and by science's own rules, all natural phenomena have causes, and beginnings."

And the Big Bang is the beginning. Time, space and matter didn't exist before the Big Bang. Even assuming that there was a "nothing" which it sprang out of is meaningless.

Now, to argue that there wasn't a "cause" for the Big Bang, that therefore science is wrong, and that there then must be a supreme creator is absurd.

OK, so he does other stuff. Like what? He created the universe. Does he interfere with it, to keep it running the way he wants to. What is god's purpose? To decide who does/doesn't get eternal life?

"And the Big Bang is the beginning. Time, space and matter didn't exist before the Big Bang. Even assuming that there was a "nothing" which it sprang out of is meaningless.

Now, to argue that there wasn't a "cause" for the Big Bang, that therefore science is wrong, and that there then must be a supreme creator is absurd. "

Come again? Does science state that every effect has a cause, or doesn't it? Now you're saying that the Big Bang wasn't caused by anything? It happened all by itself? Am I reading you correctly?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"OK, so he does other stuff. Like what? He created the universe. Does he interfere with it, to keep it running the way he wants to. What is god's purpose? To decide who does/doesn't get eternal life?"

God keeps the universe running, period. If he wasn't actively "thinking" about it, it would blink out of existence.

God is. He isn't the One who needs a purpose.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Does science state that every effect has a cause, or doesn't it? Now you're saying that the Big Bang wasn't caused by anything? It happened all by itself? Am I reading you correctly?"

Yes, you are reading me correctly. If nothing existed prior to the big bang, then nothing could have caused it. However, as I have stated previously, the big bang is right at the limits of current scientific knowledge, so if it appears to be contradictory, then so be it. I'm comfortable with that, as I never claimed there weren't holes/inconsistencies in scientific knowlwdge.

What I do claim is that I prefer to accept certain inconsistencies/unknowns rather than believe in something for which there is no evidence, and in my opinion, no necessity.

Religion has always been about explaining the unknown, or rather providing a non-threatening explanation of the unknown. I'm happy to accept that certain things are unknown at the moment, but that there is a framework in place by which we might come to know them. That framework is science.

Yes, you are reading me correctly. If nothing existed prior to the big bang, then nothing could have caused it. That is completely inconsistent with scientific principles.However, as I have stated previously, the big bang is right at the limits of current scientific knowledge, so if it appears to be contradictory, then so be it. I'm comfortable with that, as I never claimed there weren't holes/inconsistencies in scientific knowlwdge.

What I do claim is that I prefer to accept certain inconsistencies/unknowns rather than believe in something for which there is no evidence, and in my opinion, no necessity. You already are accepting something for which there is no evidence. You're accepting the idea that there is scientific evidence for the cause of the Big Bang, even though we haven't seen it yet. And even if science could come up with something that caused the Big Bang, the question would be "What caused that?"

I'm happy to accept that certain things are unknown at the moment, but that there is a framework in place by which we might come to know them. That framework is science. Unfortunately, that framework is wholly unsuited to providing the answer, ultimately, without violating its own precepts.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The premise of my mock religion, designed mainly as a pamphlet for door-to-door religion salespeople, is that everyone will ask about this religion from the happiness on their face.

That being said, when I was a member of an organised religion, the mandate was to tell the world about so-and-so. I felt that it was not a subject for polite conversation. I am certain that I am going to my former religion's version of hell for this, but it did seem contradictory to the religion's other teachings. I would evangelise only when one would ask me how I handle things so well. But then I studied religion at a more literal level and my faith changed considerably as a result.

Maybe I should not have responded to this question.

Religion is not strictly about explaining the unknown; it is, among other things, about revealing and connecting to the unseen. The unseen, in this case, being God -- although theists believe God is revealed AT LEAST by what is seen: the universe.

It's rather myopic to assert that science explains (or will explain) everything. Intangible things in our own lives such as thought, self-reflection, remorse, memory, all point to an unseen element to existence, an eternal Other, that aren't part of the meat 'n' molecules equation.

As science has shown, order cannot arise out of disorder. Science has never been able to demonstrate the opposite. The universe is rich with rhythm, balance, minute detail, harmony (human behaviour notwithstanding -- blast that free will!!) -- ALL of which point to a design, which in turn suggest a Designer.

If you walked along an empty beach and found a wristwatch in the sand, you wouldn't conclude that it was impossible to determine how it came to exist; you would see the hallmarks of design and conclude it was made for a purpose.

"You're accepting the idea that there is scientific evidence for the cause of the Big Bang, even though we haven't seen it yet."

Man creates gods for stuff he doesn't understand. The Egyptians had sun gods, Greeks had gods for love, war etc. and now we have "one god which answers everything".

I'm saying that I reject all that and believe in man's ability to provide an explanation which can be tested/proven. Sure, it's not perfect, but man's knowledge is expanding/improving and it is a lot less fanciful than accepting a mystical being which provides a catch-all answer for all our unknowns, tells us how to live, requires worship, promises punishment, etc.

I don't recall science saying that order cannot arise out of disorder? Science does say that entropy tends to increase in systems, but that doesn't mean that order cannot arise. It just means that over time, order will tend towards disorder, and since we will die, and the earth will be destroyed, then that still holds true.

---

_______________________________________________

well, ask an anthropologist, but. . .

this entire thread seems awfully ethnocentric. the assumption that relgions are necessarily in competition with others, or opposed to science, or etc etc - these are all assumptions rooted in an american catholic/protestant/etc worldview, and more broadly a judeo-christian/islamic view of religion.

let's not forget that a good billion hindus and buddhists (hinduism in particular being an older tradition than christianity, judaism or islam) comfortably tolerate difference and even cultivate it, adding deities from various systems into their own pantheon. further, there is an entire world of small-scale tribal religions which have no interest in mission work or conversion.

to paraphrase hamlet, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of by your christianity.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Did you catch the special a year or two ago regarding the scientific expose on when it will all end? The premise being the big bang and this big explosion and this stuff being flung out into the universe, creating the universe. The stuff being flung-out would one day start returning from whence it was once sent -- that gravity thing. Predicatbly, therefore, one could calculate the day it all comes back together. The trouble was in the evidence. The universe should have been collapsing long ago but the evidence is just the opposite. The universe contiues to expand, defying gravity, in fact it is not only expanding, but accelerating in its expansion. There is no model that explains it. Einstien had a premise that there was another unknown force in the universe at work. He later dismissed it as his greatest mistake. Seems he was right after all. You believe in an explanation that the world's greatest scientific mind could only concieve and later reject and all scientific evidence does not support and you call faith fanciful...? I'm not on your case, just trying to understand.

"You believe in an explanation that the world's greatest scientific mind could only concieve and later reject and all scientific evidence does not support and you call faith fanciful...?"

What I believe in is an explanation which can be tested and can be proven to be false or true. I appreciate that there is no Grand Unifying Theory, and may never be, but science has built up a body of knowledge which can be tested and which has been found to be generally correct. At the fringes of that body of knowledge things are fuzzy, because that is where new knowledge is being acquired, and the process of acquiring new knowledge is fraught with mistakes.

Religion is based on faith, which is based on lack of knowledge. It cannot be tested, and to even do so negates the very thing you are testing.

this is a fun and interesting thread...thanks to all that have contributed.

two or three small things to add to all of this. one is that one might construe the idea that things have to have a beginning and end as human-centric. that is, we are born and we die, therefore everything else must have a beginning and end. if you believe that it is possible for something to be infinite, then you no longer "need" to explain beginnings. i for one can't get my mind around the idea of infinity, but that's probably because i have such a wee little brain.

second, i am a practicing buddhist, and have been for a number of years. one fundamental precept of buddhism is that our basic nature is one of compassion. this is quite different from a concept of morality that derives from "shoulds", imposed by some higher being. i wonder...does christianity presuppose that our basic nature is not so good, and thus we need a big ol' cop to enforce us with a stick (hell) and a carrot (heaven). i don't mean to be flip...just using shorthand. is that what the adam and eve deal was all about?

finally, as a dyed-in-the-wool scientist, think it is important with all this talk about science to discern between science and scientism. science is what it is...hypothesis testing, tentative knowledge, all that rot. scientism is the belief that science is the only conceptual framework for assessing "truth" or "reality". there's a big difference between the two. not all scientists espouse scientism...in fact, many do their work and then go to church. or to the meditation cushion, in my case. science is grounded in skepticism, but the one thing many scientists refuse to be skeptical about is science itself--a form of blindness in its own right.

again, thanks every one for a fun dialog (multi-log?)...regards, toad

---

http://www.kenyawilds.com/faculty.html

Webswim:

It's erroneous to say that faith (religious faith, or at least Christian faith) is based on "lack of knowledge." On the contrary, faith is a certainty and hope in things that aren't seen. It's rooted in a reasonable expectation.

When I set out to follow a map to a city I've never been to, I have a reasonable expectation that I will get there. I've never seen the city, but there's strong evidence that it exists, and the map indicates it's there. I haven't scientifically tested that the city is there, and yet I have reason to have faith that the map is true.

Similarly, faith in God was and is based on compelling evidence, beginning with the universe itself with its indications of design, tremendous detail and consistency. Christianity assumes that God can be known, at least in a basic way, in the same way other things can be known. Whether someone sees the evidence or not is a different story.

Also, the assertion that a belief is valid only if it is scientifically testable is not itself scientifically testable, so it fails as an absolute standard.

Toadpalmer: Yes, Christianity starts at its very core with the assumption that human nature is corrupt on its own, without Divine intervention.

Faith by its very definition is a belief in something for which there is no material evidence.

The reason that you expect to get to a destination by following a map is because someone has been to that destination before and has published a route for getting there. Sure, you may not be 100% certain that the map is correct, yet the mere fact that it is in widespread circulation means that there is a large body of evidence that it is indeed accurate.

I understand why people claim there is a god, for all the reasons you have given. However, I also claim that just because there appears to be a design in the universe does not mean that there is a Designer. The Mandelbrot fractal is infinitely complex and beautiful, yet is produced in its entirety from a simple equation. Simple things can interact to produce a system with wonderfully detailed and complex behaviour without the need for someone to oversee the whole thing.

I know. I hear your point and I was being a dick. Sorry. I really am not down on the faithful. I am the dark duck on all sides of my family and friends. I really do love christians, especaily mormons. I have great times with them.

It's just some christians just don't know when to quit. After about 80 times if I say no dice then I should be respected for that. It is my etrenal soul and there is a point when just letting me be me has to happen.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.