For some reason scientists and non-scientists alike believe that that there has to be a single unifying Theory of Everything (TOE). This goes back to before Plato and is even reflected in the modern belief in the “one true God” rather than accepting the Greek concept of multiple deities or the Zoroastrian notion of dual deities, one good, one evil. Scientists feel the need to reconcile the classical theory of gravitation and its force with the other three forces defined by quantum field theory (QFT). Several interesting lines of investigation are under way including a holographic model that treats gravity as an emergent behavior of lower dimensional quantum processes. I look forward to their ongoing research. What I am virtually certain of is that whatever creation story scientists come up with, it will be the result of natural and not supernatural causes. There is simply no need to posit the existence of supernatural causes to explain the observed data. The mistake that scientists make is to think there is only one objective truth that everyone must accept rather than individual perspectives. People who must live and eventually die (truth) don’t want truth, they want meaning.
I’m a believer in the one-truth concept.
To use a silly example: A manager once tried to use an analogy to point out how there could be multiple interpretations of events and someone doesn’t have to be the one that is “right”.
He asked me to imagine a scenario where one man is walking down the street and he sees a rattle snake in the road in front of him. Now, what is he going to do? Maybe call animal control, or shoot it, etc.
Now, same scenario, but a different man, and he sees the same object. What is he going to do? He might pick it up and throw it out of the way so someone doesn’t trip over it.
This manager then asked if I could see how different people see the world differently. I said, “Sure, but if it is a snake, the second guy is gonna need to go to the hospitial, and the first guy was right.
He wasn’t a very good manager, in my opinion.
I think you see what I am getting at here.
There is simply no need to posit the existence of supernatural causes to explain the observed data.
And if that full knowledge does come, it will probably be long after you and I are dead, so we’re left with the alternative.
BTW, this Alternative has, within my life, answered three prayers with bonafide miracles. So, as Bill Murray would say, “I have that going for me.” :-)
On my reading Aristotle did not think that the Greek gods were an explanation for the existence of things. He saw a need for an uncaused cause, which he called the the unmoved movers or a single unmoved mover--even though he thought the natural world was infinite into the past. But this was an entirely different concept to him than the greek gods, who were reputably powerful beings but were contigent on causes external to themselves like the rest of nature.