This may be true, but Science doesn’t say something is true until it can be proven, where the belief in God starts out saying God is a fact when it is just belief, and then there is the problem of what the meaning of the word God is, there are many translations. Even in the same belief system there are differences! Look how many factions of Christianity there are,and all claiming to be true, based on their interpretation of the writing or story passed on from people who thought the world was flat When there is a difference between Science and religion, Science came out the winner.
No one can say in truth anything about God, only believe another human or feel that way them selves, because they want it to be true. I still ask the question of; who created the place for God to be, if God is a being, place had to come first. If one isn’t in existence then it doesn’t exist!
One could well say life is purpose, one is born to live.Just as any life on earth does. LIfe is a continued thing, each species tries to keep life going as long as possible, it is a built in instinct for all animals and even plants, each species helps another to survive and evolve to a stronger entity.
I agree on most of yur points, but the difference between Science and Religion is Science doesn’t make any statements about God, they just simply look for truth. Religion justs asks for belief not fact.
These are perfect examples of the fallacy in your arguments. No Answer exists for any of these.
Many people may feel that they have an answer, grounded in religion or philosophy or any other subjective feeling, but millions of answers is exactly equal to no Answer. You cannot find anyone, no matter how close to you or how much religion or philosophy is professed to be shared, who will answer every one of the millions of these questions with the same set of answers.
No subjective answer ever will be The Answer to any of these questions. None. Ever. You and I both agree on this, because there is zero chance I will ever agree with your answers to them.
Yet there is a chance, however small, that science will find The Answer. The definition of The Answer as opposed to an answer is that it will work no matter what your beliefs are. That’s the fundamental difference between Science and all other bodies of thought.
If you want a serious question that cannot be answered by science, and to which the overwhelming majority of religions do claim an answer, try “Do moral propositions possess objective truth-value?”
Science can only answer real questions, not subjective assessments. Science can tell you what “life” means; the “meaning of life” in the philosophical sense is a human construct, not an objective truth. Similarly science can’t answer questions like “Who was worse, Hitler or Stalin?” or “Is this a good song?”. These are inherently individual judgments.
“Is there a God?” is borderline. Depends how you define God.
…the question ‘What is the meaning of life?’ confidently presupposes that the question ‘Is there any meaning to life?’ has already been answered in the affirmative, and all we need to do now is thrash out the gory details.
Any ‘meaning’ in life is purely subjective (as i may well be demonstrating by spouting a load of subjective opinion about this so called ‘meaning’ in life). Life itself (biologically speaking), being a process, has no more ‘meaning’ than a snowflake forming on a winter’s day…
Wow, I’m thrilled to see so much discussion around what we can and cannot know with respect to this reality. Admittedly much of the talk goes in directions I’m not really able to get into myself, but it is good to share what we think.
My original concern, if you will allow me to present it again, is that first cause is generally accepted by most people regardless of their metaphysical stance, be it atheist, agnostic, religious, skeptic, sophistic, soliphistic (sp?). I really hope I didn’t miss any perspectives and offend anyone.
So if we can begin a discussion with first cause as a priori, and proceed carefully from there, then we can really hash out some tough steps. First question, can first cause have a default value? Seems one poster insists the default value is no sentient first cause. And I suggested it could be sentient or non-sentient, essentially that we cannot know. While I don’t intend to equivocate, I simply want to honor the scientific principle of not taking any position that cannot be logically and/or evidentiarilly achieved.
How can a non-sentient first cause be logically or evidentiarilly (is that a word?) achieved? While I am not sure how it can be done, I am eager to hear some suggestions on this.
I fully contend that the nature and properties of the first cause are not yet knowable to us. While we can have theories, and ideas, we do not yet have the evidence required to make any firm definitions.
Given the as yet unknowable properties of first cause, we must allow all possibilities into consideration.
Even assuming there was a “first cause” to begin with, given the as yet unknowable properties of first cause it is impossible to focus on any of the wild guesses(I sincerely hesitate to call any of them “possibilities” because we have no way as of yet to know what was “possible” at the supposed beginning), because this lack of knowledge makes all guesses equal, and by all I mean far than you could possibly count. it could be that an all-powerful intelligent entity we now refer to as “God” was the cause…but at this point in time it is equally likely that a small child from a previous universe caused the whole thing by being the first to attempt to make a peanut butter and fffolschiiit sandwich.
Take from it what you will. IMO stating that anything other than a non-sentient principle caused the universe is a revision from the term “first” since any thought (and sentient beings must have that capacity) woud have indicated a causal chain. So there had to be several causes preceding the universe, none or any of which we can demonstrate any evidence for, nor the possibility of observing. Saying that the causal chain that preceded the sentient thought that conceived (or perhaps comprehended) the universe must have an end would be special pleading.The video explains the absolute horizon of observable evidence that diminishes further every Planck second. Sure we can posit and explore further using thought experiments, but we shouldn’t assume any more than logic or evidence can support. We definitely shouldn’t base our lives on assumptions unsupported by logic or evidence.
The “answer” given in this video is the phenomenon of Virtual Particles.
But that still doesn’t explain how you get something from nothing.
The phenomenon of Virtual Particles is a MECHANISM that must be in place before virtual particles can even arise.
And there are two problems with the phenomenon of Virtual Particles…
A pre-existing mechanism is not nothing, it’s something.
Science still has to explain how you get something from NOTHING – no physics, NO MECHANISMS, no energies, no matter, no virtual particles, no quantum fluctuations, no subatomic particles, no “aether”, no Superstrings – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Assuming virtual particles do exist, they existed BEFORE the Big Bang – they “created” the Big Bang – and they exist today AFTER the Big Bang.
But Science tells us that Physics breaks down at the Planck Time.
So somehow, Virtual Particles survived the creation of the universe – how does that happen?!?
Do not be mistaken – I happen to LOVE Science and I wouldn’t be reading the Straight Dope if I didn’t.
(I’m a computer programmer and have had to write several algorithms involving physics and mathematics, so I have to know at least a little bit about them. Not that that necessarily “means” anything, and if you want to compare me to “Kyle of DeVry Institute”, go ahead.)
It’s just that I’ve had several personal experiences over my lifetime that have “proven” to me that Science – at least in its current form – is not a panacea.
I know that personal experiences don’t fly with most Scientists but I’m not going to ignore those experiences just because everybody else hasn’t had those same experiences.
At some future point, our understanding of Science will evolve to incorporate those phenomena we now label “Magic” and “Metaphysics” but that is at least decades, if not centuries away.
And even then, I believe there will still be phenomena and personal experiences that cannot be explained by Science, even in its “evolved” form and there will still be room for subjective considerations.
How typical…
You didn’t even touch the 2 issues I raised about Virtual Particles.
All you can do is try and disparage me for a couple of words I used in my post.
Typical. So typical.
