Well thank you for your acknowledgement of that "fact," dear kosta!
The problem is you refuse to acknowledge a basis, a cause of the structure and order we both perceive.
Do you suppose that such can be a product of a random, purely "natural," "accidental" development? Or that some sort of purposeful mind has specified such?
In human observation and direct experience, all instances of design and order can be traced to a creative mind. All purpose-built "machines" (or more generically, systems) are the result of the creative mind of the person who built them. We have never seen an example of a machine (or natural system) that built itself....
You have to go with what you know....
Or do you insist on remaining "agnostic" on this point? If so, WHY???
Because you don't "know everything there is to know?" Who does? If we had to wait until we "know everything," there would never have been any human progress, in the arts or the sciences. Even Newton, say, or Einstein would have been mute, had they followed you prescription.
An observer can see only what he can see from where he stands. Some observers believe the only things that are "real" are things that can be directly observed and measured. Which leaves God out of the picture in principle.
I think you want to see as God, the Ultimate Observer, sees.
But as a mortal human, stuck in the four dimensional block of normal human awareness, you can't. Get used to it!
Meanwhile, you have to live your life according to your own best lights.
If you have no light from the Holy Spirit, I doubt you will ever see the most important things in the world of human experience.
Cataclysmic events do not change the underlying structure of the universe. They are temporary departures from it. And when they blow over, we get back to the status quo ante. Cataclysmic events, in short, in no way permanently change the essential order of things.
You wrote, "Perception of order does not say whence came the order. We simply don't know why." Jeepers, kosta, I think you don't want to know WHY; for in your heart of hearts you already know that the order comes from a Source you don't want to acknowledge. For whatever reason.
My sense is you know ever so much MORE than you are willing to acknowledge publicly. Privately you know it; but you don't like what you know.... Again, for whatever reason.
You wrote: "...there is no guarantee that the holders of the Big bang are any closer to the truth either." To believe that is to believe that scientific evidence for the Big Bang is nonexistent. But this would not be true. Indeed, quite the contrary increasingly is the case.
You wrote: "The problem with the 'original problem' begins with the invocation of the "cause" which is not supported by any observed evidence and cannot be even defined."
Often it's the case that we infer causes from their effects. Effects are actually observed. Thus they constitute some kind of evidence regarding their cause. Though it's true that causes are identified through a process of induction, not deduction. But this is how science goes about its business. Do you have a problem with that?
God is not "man-made." You've got that exactly backwards. :^)
And not only that, but you can offer zero evidence that your view is correct or true. Such evidence simply does not exist.
Thus I regard the following as a complete non sequitur:
Beliefs tend to resist evidence to the contrary. They also accept as "fact" that which is by necessity imaginary. The "value" of such a belief has to do with the degree to which one's whole existence or life depends on it. If you invest all your hopes in one belief, if that belief is a sanctuary, discovering that it is false would be extremely threatening to one's psyche and the mind would tend to tenaciously hold on to it despite the evidence to the contrary. In other words, a denial.FWIW.
No, the problem is that you seem to refuse to acknowledge that the cause is unknown.
Do you suppose that such can be a product of a random, purely "natural," "accidental" development? Or that some sort of purposeful mind has specified such?
If we knew all the facts we would know, wouldn't we? But guess what? We don't!
In human observation and direct experience, all instances of design and order can be traced to a creative mind.
Really? You mean God gave fireflies their lights?
We have never seen an example of a machine (or natural system) that built itself
DNA
Or do you insist on remaining "agnostic" on this point? If so, WHY???
Sheer honesty, admission of ignorance, acceptance of my limited human capacity to know everything, unwillingness to make a leap of faith into blind faith or blind atheism.
Even Newton, say, or Einstein would have been mute, had they followed you prescription.
I am not advocating lack of learning. Discovery should not involve seeking God trough science.
An observer can see only what he can see from where he stands. Some observers believe the only things that are "real" are things that can be directly observed and measured. Which leaves God out of the picture in principle.
That is correct. God cannot be observed or measured or, for that matter, defined.
I think you want to see as God, the Ultimate Observer, sees.
Ultimate Observer?
But as a mortal human, stuck in the four dimensional block of normal human awareness, you can't. Get used to it!
You are preaching to the choir. I am the one who says man is limited and cannot know the truth because he cannot know everything. I am perfectly at home with that. Others, however, have to invent god so they can "create' their own version of truth.
If you have no light from the Holy Spirit, I doubt you will ever see the most important things in the world of human experience.
You just made an unsubstantiated presumptuous leap. Where does the Holy Spirit come from if not form man's own head? Man invented God so he could claim to know the truth.
Cataclysmic events do not change the underlying structure of the universe. They are temporary departures from it. And when they blow over, we get back to the status quo ante
Sweeping generalization. And exploded star does not go back to status quo ante. Cataclysmic events change the reality irreversibly. That includes death.
Jeepers, kosta, I think you don't want to know WHY; for in your heart of hearts you already know that the order comes from a Source you don't want to acknowledge. For whatever reason.
Want to know? How can I want to know everything? In 857 you wrote "In effect, the holders of such views are attempting to make their own preferences the measure of what the universe is." It seems to me that those who insist to know everything are guilty of it. In condemning the non-bbelievers, you have condemned the believers, and rightfully so!
We can only surmise that the universe was at some point in time a singularity. What existed prior to our existence is a postulate, a hypothesis, a blind belief, and not a fact that you can just "want" to know or freely invent. Certainly not even your God existed since only the created things exist. God, not being part of existence, cannot even be spoken of as existing because that which exists does so in terms of time and space. That's why the eastern Orthodox speak of God in apophatic terms as "beyond everything," ineffable.
My sense is you know ever so much MORE than you are willing to acknowledge publicly. Privately you know it; but you don't like what you know.... Again, for whatever reason.
That's very kind of you, betty boop, but I really don't. If God is, we cannot even speak of him. In the word of Archbishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of the Russian Orthodox Church, spiritual ascent by necessity becomes "the Divine abyss where words fall silent, where reason fades, where all human knowledge and comprehension cease, where God is." He continues It is not by speculative knowledge but in the depths of prayerful silence that the soul can encounter God, Who is ‘beyond everything’" and who reveals himself "as in-comprehensible, in-accessible, in-visible, yet at the same time as living and close to her — as God the Person."
I have nothing to hide, betty boop, but you must understand that my agnosticism is not directed against God. I am not on a crusade against him.
To believe that is to believe that scientific evidence for the Big Bang is nonexistent. But this would not be true. Indeed, quite the contrary increasingly is the case.
Scientific evidence is a small part of the puzzle. It must never be believed absolutely. Big bang will be replaced in another generation or two with a new theory, each having a little of the truth but none all of it.
Often it's the case that we infer causes from their effects. Effects are actually observed. Thus they constitute some kind of evidence regarding their cause
True.
Thus they constitute some kind of evidence regarding their cause.
In the case of the Universe, the only evidence is that it was caused. It doesn't reveal how, why or how many times. It also says nothing of the nature or the attributes of the cause.
Though it's true that causes are identified through a process of induction, not deduction. But this is how science goes about its business. Do you have a problem with that?
The only problem is inferring the nature or character of the cause, because the effects seem to suggest none.
God is not "man-made." You've got that exactly backwards. :^) And not only that, but you can offer zero evidence that your view is correct or true. Such evidence simply does not exist.
The universe itself does not say anything about God, so God must come from us. Everything we 'know" about God is through man-made words.
Thus I regard the following as a complete non sequitur: Beliefs tend to resist evidence to the contrary
You are certainly entitled to that, bb. People believe in talking donkeys despite the fact that none has seen one, or that no such phenomenon occurs in the real world. :)