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. :)
Dear man, the cause is not unknown to me.
That's all I can say for now. I have to go make dinner; but I'll be back later.
I beg to differ, dear kosta:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: — Romans 1:20In what way does DNA "build itself?" How do you know this?
A supernova is not a "catastrophe" in my book. A star exploding is simply a star at the end of its stellar life cycle. All things in nature pass away; i.e., die. But the death of a star distributes essential heavy elements into the universe, which, on the large view, has the effect of supporting conditions that maintain life. When humans die, we don't call that a "catastrophe." Why would it be catastrophic for a star to die?
You aver that "Others, however, have to invent god so they can 'create' their own version of truth." To which I reply, God is not "invented." He is discerned. I discern that His truth is already in the world, and that it can be perceived and understood by man. So on this point, we disagree. And probably will continue to disagree.
You know the old saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."
If the horse is thirsty, he will drink. If not, then not. This analogy goes to the recognition that you "are not thirsty," and so don't "drink" the water that is offered to you.
You wrote:
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.New scientific theories do not so much "replace" earlier theories; rather they usually build on the existing theories, making corrections based on new evidence and observations.
In any case, Einstein's general relativity theory did not "replace" Newtonian mechanics. Einstein was careful to build on Newton's magnificent formalism; he just showed, among other things, that at very high velocities (i.e., velocities approaching the speed of light, which are not normally observed in ordinary four dimensional spacetime conditions) that the Newtonian physics will not completely account for the behavior observed. Newton's physics still work great in the 4D spacetime "block." Certainly Newtonian theory was not "replaced" by Einstein's work.
Your position seems to be that if you don't "know everything," then you really can't know anything at all (i.e., with reasonable assurance of validity), so why bother? That is an impossible standard, epistemologically speaking.
BTW, I do not "believe" in talking donkeys.... Although they may appear in fictional works and, thus, have a kind of phenomenal reality — though not that which pertains to real flesh-and-blood donkeys.
I hope you're enjoying your visit to Seville! Lucky you!
Thanks so much for writing, dear kosta!