Hey everybody, I tend to lurk here(probably 2 years before joining) because I'm young(28) and inexperienced in most things and enjoy soaking up your wisdoms in areas where I'm undeveloped. Thank you for your time; sometimes, people do change.
A common theme seems to be cropping up that often pairs the belief in a Creator God with an inherent cognitive dissonance on a grand scale. Honestly I believe in God and the Bible, but I feel like from my learning so far, the cognitive dissonance might be on the other foot. For what it's worth, I probably share many of the same views with most of you regarding religions with 'Biblical roots' as seen in the western world today, just so you don't put me in a preconceived box too quickly. I'm interested in truth, even if that means I have to change. People who know me now would probably hardly recognize me from long ago in some ways, and I fully intend on living the rest of my life in the pursuit and changing towards truth, even if I'm a little slow on the uptake some times.
So, if I am wrong in a major way, then what is everyone's theory of the very beginning of origin the universe, and how it sprang into being, if it had a beginning? I'm expecting there has to be a purely naturalistic and materialistic answer that is complete and consistent with proponent's worldview, or this should be allowed to be at the discussion table to be actually considered. After all, it's either the ultimate reality or waste of time, so for the risk hedgers, it's hard to imagine not focussing on it somewhat.
For what it's worth, here are a few key issues I've come across so far that I have not been able to find an answer without going outside of the natural, observable laws we deal with today, without invoking some sort of law bending or breaking to get to the stable point we see today:
-from absolutely nothing to something
-something to life
-single-celled life to multi-celled forms with all the modular systems in place so that everything required to build, function, and reproduce all happen simultaneously to solve all the chicken-egg problems
-a reason and mechanism for creating the information programs all this is predicated on, that we now just take for granted since they are already in place.
-the fine tuning of the universe after such an explosive beginning to hold it all in a ridiculously narrow balance that supports life as we know it
-fit in with what is proven and observable with genetic entropy (edited for clarity and because I forgot to include first time. Obviously this only applies to the biological aspects of origin)
Very interested to hear, thanks for your time and being willing to be vulnerable with me, since it's a lot easier to hide in the crowd without putting yourself on the line with whatever you tie yourself to.
I'm currently reading "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Dr. Dawkins (not my first introduction for what it's worth) alongside "The Greatest Hoax On Earth" by Dr. Sarfati side by side. I have not finished either book (about 5 chapters in), but this is not the first time I've looked into either side of the subject so hopefully I won't be wasting anyone's time with absolute beginner questions. I chose these books largely because it is handy to have an outline covering the same material on both sides for an easy, logical comparison (without having to deal with the 'show' of a debate).
***FREE BOOK OFFER***For anyone interested***, it's well worth a few bucks for me to buy both of these books and cover shipping for every person here who finds the topic even mildly interesting if you're willing to share a bit of your perspective after. The offer stands as long as you're willing to write down a bit of your thoughts and conclusions regarding the material covered in this thread for transparency and to help me see what I might be missing, since I have a bias just like everybody else( even if our biases change and flipflop, like they do.) It certainly wouldn't have to be a book review, but a bit of honest thought would be expected. This is well worth a few bucks for me to be able to sample a variety of thinkers who don't necessarily agree with me, to help me see if I'm wasting my time. Just put yourself down on the list and pm me preferred shipping location and I'll order them up. I fully acknowledge that the books don't cover everything, but if this proves to be productive, I may try another thread like this to cover some of the things missed, but as a start.
Thank you for your time, and I'm looking forward to seeing what comes up(even if it's difficult to hear at first).
PS, I don't have internet at home besides on my phone, so 2 things. #1, I won't be checking every 5 minutes so it may take a couple days to get orders out etc, (I won't necessarily respond to each and every post for the same reason, but I will certainly be reading and considering carefully, and I encourage everyone else to as well, like they would if was a different topic.)& #2, please keep related questions to another thread because I'm not retired and can't be on here all day haha
I can't answer your questions. I don't believe that we will ever know everything there is to know and I'doubtful that we can. But I tend to accept uncertainty of perception as part of the natural order of things and am ok with it.
It has its own set of pendantic reasoning issues, but the big concept you should get from it is that the idea that religious ideas and scientific ideas are necessarily at odds is just a wrong-headed popular meme that is convenient for both science-haters and religion-haters who are looking to make names for themselves by declaring their absolute truths. I would place the authors of the books you are reading in those categories. I think they are both pretty much a**holes in their own vain ways.
Unfortunately, conflict seems to sell more books and air time and attracts more followers than tolerance, introspection and reconciliation. But that is a product of human psychology -- people like certainty and narratives, not uncertainties and possibilities.
"-single-celled life to multi-celled forms with all the modular systems in place so that everything required to build, function, and reproduce all happen simultaneously to solve all the chicken-egg problems"
Matsya, fish sea-life
Kurma, tortoise amphibian
Varaha, boar animal
Narsivha, half-animal half-human
Vaman, dwarf human
Parshuram, primitive human who first used tools
Ram, the moral man, embodiment of morality, purushottam, ideal man
Krushna, duty bound person
Buddha, the enlightened person
Kalki, yet to take avatar.
If I understand your post correctly...
These are the Dash Avatar, 10 avatar of Vishnu in order. If you take away Vishnu being miraculous, it still makes sense if you know the order of evolution of life, we are concerned with humans here.
From nothing to something = If there was "nothing" before, there would be no evidence of it, so its hard to prove. There is a great lecture online by Dr. Paul J. Steinhardt called "Inflationary Cosmology On Trial" that is the best explanation for why String Theory is a better explanation for the universe than the Big Bang. That said, the evidence for the universe expanding is strong. Einstein realized that if every piece of matter and energy exerted gravity on every other, the whole shebang would eventually collapse on itself. Unless there was an "antigravity" expansionary force that was causing all matter to expand away from each other. Later, Edwin Hubble proved that all galaxies ARE flying away from each other, and the further away they are, the faster they are receding. Proving that the universe is expanding and all of it was once condensed in a single point. The cosmic microwave background further proved that 1)all the matter and energy in the universe was once close together, hot, and dense, and that 2)the space between us and the furthest reaches of space is expanding which causes the high frequency light from the hot, dense, clouds of the past to be stretched into cold, long wave microwaves.
something to life = the RNA world hypothesis is the most popular right now. RNA is both a DNA-like hereditary information template, and can do enzymatic reactions. So its possible that RNA (which can form spontaneously in certain known geochemical conditions) was the first version of life. Those molecules that were able to self replicate and survive did so, while those that didn't didn't. Mutations that made them better at this became more prominent. Those that didn't didn't. Natural selection.
single celled to multicelled = Read David Peters "From the Beginning" for the best summary of this (with beautiful illustrations) I've ever seen of the total history of our evolution. The book is a few decades old now, but its still truly accurate. Despite the frequent fossil discoveries in the science press, the core story hasn't changed since the early 20th century.
a reason and mechanism = "Reason" in the spiritual sense of "why are we here" is, I think, a flawed question based on inborn human cognitive biases. The mechanism is Natural Selection for the biological stuff. As I said above for the RNA world, if a replicating "thing" is better at replicating and surviving than another "thing," then it will grow in numbers. If not, then it wont. Mutation will either make it better, worse, or the same at replicating and surviving. Wash-rinse-repeat. Hence evolution.
the fine tuning of the universe = One of the selling points of the Multiverse hypothesis is that it answers this question with inevitability. In infinite universes, SOME of them will have laws and conditions amenable to thinking things that ask these questions. We only exist in those universes, not in the "non fine tuned" ones.
...genetic entropy = genetic entropy or occasional mutation leads to natural selection.
Woohoo! Surprise day off today! I suppose it's good either way, although I certainly don't always appreciate it in the moment, but I digress..
If my question was unclear, I'm basically asking for a viable theory of the origin of universe and life and mind, that doesn't bend or break the natural laws of physics that are observable and testable today or evoke anything beyond materialism(the mind is already at odds with materialism).
Dragline,
-I appreciate the honesty about not knowing. If I understand you correctly, than I agree that the multiverse seems to well out of the trend toward 'kicking the can down the road' of tough questions we don't like(or don't like where the previous answers have pointed) into a sea of everything is possible and nothing can be proven either way. An expression of the notion that there are no absolutes(except that one) and that nothing can really be known (except this). This obviously isn't proof against it, just seems to be the cooking pot it was birthed in.
As far as the religion vs (operational) science conflict; my stance completely. Although there are issues I haven't yet understood, all the known issues I see now are a matter of interpretation of what the facts mean, not the facts themselves, coupled with a confusion over operational science and origin/historical 'science'. These will come up again.
Dr. John Lennox said it well(as he often does): “Faith is not a leap in the dark; it’s the exact opposite. It’s a commitment based on evidence… It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding intelligent discussion.”
― John C. Lennox
As far as people being assholes, have you heard from Dr. Sarfati before? I've never heard that said about him before, nor did I get that impression when talking to him, listening to him, or reading his work.
I don't think either author is an asshole. Having listened to both of them a good bit, Dawkins is doing what is common to man when inflamed and speaking out of an angry place (at Someone he no longer believes in) but is much more skilled at catering to his audience. Sarfati on the other hand, reminds me of other socially awkward scientists. Maybe not the best people skills, but not for assholeish reasons.
fitby41,
-I appreciate the post, but that does not solve the origin problem without evoking a the miraculous like you mentioned. I'm afraid I may have been unclear in my first post so I tried rephrasing it in my response to Dragline. I'm interested in the evolutionary theory once everything came about, but even if true exactly as described, it does nothing to solve the origin questions that it was instituted to do. It its merely a descriptive theory of how things have progressed (regressed) since then. It also does not deal with many modular problems and I am tempted to go down this road (and many others) but for the sake of staying on topic, I'll try to leave it as much as possible, atleast for this thread.
ThisDinosaur, (good name by the way! I do love dinosaurs)
-I like your opening musings and how you are looking at multiples sides and leaving it there for now. This is admittedly a topic that holds little interest to me, but the bit of research (1 book and a few lectures) I've done have been to see if there were logical inconsistencies that I was overlooking in my own views. Even within the most generally accepted theories there are some major issues like high-redshift quasars that are not supposed to happen. -see below
*special request* For any astrophysicists or enthusiasts that have an easy time with this stuff and are willing to help proof read a few articles linking this thought line, maybe these will be of interest. I don't know enough to see potential holes in these Creationist's theories in this area, here are a few articles talking about the implications. http://creation.com/high-redshift-quasa ... -surprises
I'm familiar with the RNA world theory, but this is starting to get to be where I am trying to buy people books. Dr. Sarfati (as as others no doubt) goes into much of the biochem about potential DNA and RNA worlds, and the background would be very useful when assessing the potential of these theories.
Here is an excerpt of a short article by Sarfati where he briefly touches on the RNA world model.
"RNA World?
To avoid this conclusion(*referencing paragraph before this one, talking about DNA World.* The obvious conclusion is that both the DNA and proteins must have been functional from the beginning, otherwise life could not exist.) some evolutionists have theorised that one type of molecule could perform both catalytic and reproductive roles. A recent discovery of some catalytic functions in RNA has led many evolutionists to postulate an ‘RNA world’. The idea is that the first life consisted mainly of RNA, which could not only reproduce but also carry out many of the functions now carried out by enzymes. But this model has several dubious postulates:
A pool of exclusively ‘right-handed’ ribose molecules could be produced, separated from a jumble of other sugars, and remain stable long enough; the bases could be produced in large quantities; and a high concentration of phosphate (PO43-) would be in solution rather than precipitated out.
Ribose could combine with the bases and phosphate to produce β-D-ribonucleotides.
These β-D-ribonucleotides could spontaneously produce RNA polymers of the proper form.
That if such polymers form, they could replicate themselves.
That such self-replicating RNA molecules would have all the functions needed to sustain an organism.
That such an RNA organism could give rise to a modern organism with protein catalysts, coded on the reproducing material, and the means to decode them.
These postulates are all contrary to experimental evidence.5 It is no wonder that one of the leading researchers into ‘RNA World’ models, Gerald Joyce, wrote:
The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA …. The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data.6"
-Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, http://creation.com/self-replicating-enzymes(*bold is my emphasis)
We also cannot invoke natural selection (books) this early in the development of joining strands of RNA for the beginning. Natural selection only has an effect once systems are in place and things are in motion. This is why it is as far as observable, repeatable 'evolution' will ever go, and why nobody has an issue with it, because it's actually scientific. The relationship between this and entropy is an interesting one, and I strongly encourage everyone to take me up on the offer to see what the trend pattern of mutations actually looks like in terms of positive vs negative, whether information is ever added on only ever subtracted (hint* it's only ever deleterious!) Sometimes this has benefits in certain environments but it is always a break down, never a build up; a reduction and never an addition. As soon as this is well observed and grasped, one can never look at these theories the same again
As far as the reason and mechanism, again I didn't write clearly. I'm trying to hint at multiple levels of issues, which is just muddying up clarity. Crap.
To start off, I mean the theories you've mentioned can only hope to describe a program, not write one, or describe how one got written. I've put a couple quotes at the end to begin to address mostly the information/language side, but there are many other startup issues and chicken/egg issues biochemically that I won't get into right now. Once again, books will be much more thorough than I can be here. If requested, I can point to some shorter articles and stuff, but sometimes I give too much unsolicited help so I am trying to refrain. Alternatively, if you find those authors hard to swallow, I can find/buy other books covering same material if that is preferred.
If I'm understanding the meaning behind the phrase "inborn human cognitive bases" correctly, I'm understanding it to be a name for the can of worms that basically leads to not being able to trust our thoughts to be rational (if only stemming from unintelligent, materialistic unguided processes) and then would apply to both the notion of a creator as well as the flip side. Along with not having a rational basis would include not trusting ourselves to be able to do science in a rational way at all. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but this actually comes up a lot and is a huge issue that undercuts science as a whole for those who support the theory (whether they've thought about the implications or not)
“If Dawkins is right that we are the product of mindless unguided natural processes, then he has given us strong reason to doubt the reliability of human cognitive faculties and therefore inevitably to doubt the validity of any belief that they produce – including Dawkins’ own science and his atheism. His biology and his belief in naturalism would therefore appear to be at war with each other in a conflict that has nothing at all to do with God.” -Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame
“Evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously, including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends." -Thomas Nagel
“Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.”
Norbert Weiner – MIT Mathematician
"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.4"
-Sir Karl Popper
“One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin?
And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce.
In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires.
Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.”
-Dr. Stephen C.
As far as string theory goes, the multiverse is an inherent part of it. This does not necessarily mean that there's an every increasing number of universes like in the "traditional" Everett interpretation but rather that that our particular universe just happens to obey the laws that are describable by on particular instance of the set of a gazillion possible ones. In so far that string theory goes, the multiverse idea is not kicking the can down the road by making the anthropological principle-excuse. We simply can not know.
Note that this is not unique to physics. Mathematicians have similar issues with Godel's incompleteness theory.
String theory supersedes quantum field theory (in analogy to the correspondence principle) and my knowledge of the string theory is pedestrian/layman at best. However, I do have more than a passing understanding of quantum field theory and one of the coolest things about it is that way it describes different particles and forces all map out to what are just about the simplest kinds of groups (think operators--think "experiments") e.g. if you demand that the universe obeys certain restrictions like rotational invariance (e.g. physical laws don't change if you rotate your experiment by 46 degree/it doesn't look different just because you're standing to the side of it) and Lorentz invariance (laws doesn't change either just because you watch them at different speeds) and THEN consider "what are the simplest possible mathematical objects that are consistent with that?" ... then out pops electromagnetism, out pops the weak nuclear interaction, and out pops the strong interaction as well. Even gravity comes out. The only problem with gravity is that one tries to unify it with the other three, then one ends up with a constant that's too big ... That's a big problem. If that hadn't happened, I suspect nobody would care that much about string theory.
In any case, the success of field theory suggests we're pretty close to the true understanding of the laws of the universe.
fair enough. I have not even a layman knowledge of quantum field theory, and unless it contains something that counters what I believe to be true, I don't intend on 'getting into it' for lack of interest honestly (blush, I'm not the academic many of you are). I've read a couple articles and a wiki page and that is it.
From my current understanding, quantum mechanics appear to be a very interesting and useful framework to understand the laws of the universe, now that they are established. I'm not sure about the quantum fluctuation, but again I am ignorant.
Here is one thing I've read about it referencing Krauss (who I recognized only from watching him debate), but again, I'm not well versed enough to see beyond the basic logic of the arguments.
"Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:
… spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. … Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation … the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.16
But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’ Also, theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’. So this is another equivocation.
However, Krauss is still resorting to these fallacies, as Luke Barnes points out, explaining in more detail how the term ‘nothing’ is misused:
Now let’s look at Krauss’ claims again. Does it make sense to say that there are different types of not anything? That not anything is not stable? This is bollocks. What Krauss is really talking about is the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum is a type of something. It has properties. It has energy, it fluctuates, it can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, it obeys the (highly non-trivial) equations of quantum field theory. We can describe it. We can calculate, predict and falsify its properties. The quantum vacuum is not nothing.
This suggests a very simple test for those who wish to talk about nothing: if what you are talking about has properties, then it is not nothing. It is pure equivocation to refer to the quantum vacuum as nothing when a philosopher starts asking the question “why is there something rather than nothing?”. She is not asking “why are there particles rather than just a quantum vacuum?”. She is asking “why does anything exist at all?”. As Stephen Hawking once asked, why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
We can now see that this question cannot be answered by any of the methods we normally call scientific. Scientific theories are necessarily theories of something, some physical reality. Equations describe properties, and thus describe something. There cannot be equations that describe not-anything. Write down any equation you like—you will not be able to deduce from that equation that the thing that it describes must exist in the real world. Existence is not a predicate, as Kant memorably explained.17
The fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.—Physicist and philosopher David Albert
Barnes’ objections to Krauss’s equivocations are shared by philosopher David Albert, professor of philosophy at Columbia University, NY, who also has a doctorate in theoretical physics. He reviewed Krauss’s book critically in the New York Times, not known for friendliness to orthodox Christianity:
Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted. …
Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument—or thinks he does—that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.
But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states—no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields—what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.18" -http://creation.com/god-created-not-quantum-fluctuation
I keep focussing on origin because anything else that describes what we see doesn't necessarily answer the full question, and I don't think that it could. For example, if you look at a Ford car, and explain how it came about. You can talk about the mechanical components and the engineering required to design it that work with the laws of physics to propel it and sustain it. Or you could say Henry Ford made it. Both are correct, but both answer different aspects of the same question.
here is an introduction article by Dr. Sarfati about quantum mechanics (the guy that wrote one of the pair of books I'm trying to pimp out lol) wrote to help laypeople like myself understand it and see how it may fit(or not) with whatever framework we're carrying into it. If this doesn't describe you it may be a bit annoying to come across those aspects, but he is not one to linger outside of his main points. Anyway, it is not his field so perhaps he has made errors here? Either way, I don't see an issue with my beliefs, but I also don't see an answer regarding the 'architecture' and 'law making' of the universe and all within it. http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics
I certainly haven't gone too far down the rabbit hole with string theory or M theory, although I don't see it answering the origin questions either. again, perhaps I am mistaken, but trying to use it practically seems shaky at best for now
freedomseeker wrote:
As far as people being assholes, have you heard from Dr. Sarfati before? I've never heard that said about him before, nor did I get that impression when talking to him, listening to him, or reading his work.
I don't think either author is an asshole. Having listened to both of them a good bit, Dawkins is doing what is common to man when inflamed and speaking out of an angry place (at Someone he no longer believes in) but is much more skilled at catering to his audience. Sarfati on the other hand, reminds me of other socially awkward scientists. Maybe not the best people skills, but not for assholeish reasons.
They are both didactics -- from Merriam's "—used to describe someone or something that tries to teach something (such as proper or moral behavior) in a way that is annoying or unwanted"
Meaning that they are intellectual assholes by definition, at least in my view. A lot of "I'm right, you are wrong and you are wrong because you are misguided and/or stupid and are probably also an evil scourge on society. Now let me count the ways."
Sarfati spends a lot of time and effort arguing with his fellow creationists over which aspects of science they should accept and which ones they should reject. His whole "schtick" -- and that is what it is -- is to go around "refuting" things ("Refuting Evolution", "Refuting Compromise", etc.) and claiming intellectual victories.
At some point you may come to realize that all these people are doing (on both sides of this so-called "debate") is setting up an endless series of straw-man arguments and knocking them down in favor of preferred narratives of their own construction.
Dragline, I get where you're coming from, but i think the motive of upholding truth (likely on both sides) is not necessarily always as ugly as it looks. I'm not saying the motive is only coming from one place and pure, but I support the notion, even if it disagrees with me, provided it is done in a respectful way.
The process may not always be pretty, but as Riggerjack (edited*, I had written your login here, but alas I remembered incorrectly) had mentioned in another thread recently: If I am wrong, I want to know and correct it. You seem tired of the topic(fair enough if you've been around this block before) so I suppose maybe I'm talking to the wrong guy, but one of the most important questions in my life is if there is a God or not, because the implications are so vast. For me, finding and testing the truth is of huge importance because of this, even if I often have to take breaks and go back later on because I find the flavour of the presenters often off-putting.
As you mentioned in the respect and religion thread, sadly most people don't get to far into thinking some of the biggest questions mankind has been pondering since we got here, and for the reasons you mentioned (+unknown other ones), it's now difficult to do so now for those who want to. And besides pride or rock throwing reasons, I still think the grand implications of it all make it worthy of some effort and frustration, in the same way that I think learning about and applying knowledge about health and fitness is worthwhile, even though there is a lot of garbage and infomercials out there.
I agree that the strawmen are frustrating, but I have yet to see anything hashed out without some logical fallacy been thrown in at some point, wittingly or otherwise. Maybe I'm blind to it because I agreed with his overall stance before reading or listening to Sarfati, but I seem to be blind to much of the straw-men on his side, having seen so many of the arguments that he refutes. Why I suggested both books would be to cut through the strawmen and bullshit and cut to the reality of what is being discussed on both sides to judge for one's self, preconceived notions and he said/she said's aside. After all this is specifically supposed to be Dawkin's 'evidence' book, unlike his other philosophy and world view books. Even for those who don't like Dawkins, many seem to agree with his overall base, without the poo-throwing and whatnot.
I'll ask again, have you read his work or listened to his lectures? (say at least an hours' worth)
Cognitive Bias is just a bias; a tendency. It can be overcome. But it is true that I think our brains are not optimized for logic. There are some things that we simply cant know. Either because the information will never be available to us, or because our minds are only slightly different from chimps and dogs in degree, but not in kind. A chimp is smarter than a dog, but it doesn't help the chimp learn calculus. We are not thinking machines that feel, we are feeling machines that sometimes think. The purpose and necessity for the scientific method is to come closer to the truth in SPITE of our false prejudices and squishy, non-direct thought processes.
RNA world is weakly supported, and the "Metabolism First" crowd of abiogenesis researchers make strong arguments that organic energetics could come to exist independent of heritability. I'm inclined to believe that both processes happened independently of each other, and later merged into the first cells. The same way Horizontal Gene Transfer and Endosymbiosis of mitochondria represent merging and blending of different types of single celled organisms. However it happened, natural selection would only have become important AFTER you have a self-replicating system. Not before the RNA strands, simple cells, or whatever, formed.
With respect to the assertion that mutations are always deleterious, never constructive, that is incorrect. Most mutations are, in fact, neutral; neither harmful nor helpful. But what is relevant to natural selection, is that even if beneficial mutations are exceedingly rare, they will come to dominate a population rapidly.
> one of the most important questions in my life is if there is a God or not, because the implications are so vast.
How so? Are you really going to live a different life? If you find an answer, how will it affect your interaction with the world and, more importantly, other people around you? What if there is a god (or gods), but not the Christian one you were expecting and, say, the Norse got it right with an endless cycle of multiple deities tugging the strings of humans and, despite their power, the deities weren't really in control of the universe's cycles?
I once thought that the Big Bang theory had a major hole with trying to ignore pre-big bang state due to the lack of Time dimension immediately prior to that. It's good to see that String Theory is changing that idea.
I wonder if the question "what is the origin of the universe?" may end up being considered as an irrelevant one. It's clear we normally have the expectation that there's always a causal effect for any "something from nothing" effects. But that may not apply, especially since in this context, even "nothing" could be arguably be considered a something after all - so the very concept may just be circular reasoning (arising from our cognitive biases?).
As a kid, I once sat with the book of Genesis and a National Geographic article about the Geological History of Earth opened side by side, trying to make them the same story. If "a day is like a thousand years for the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day," then maybe the week of creation really took millennia? But the order of events just didn't match up. It is evident that grass and green plants could not have come before the sun in the sky. So, I gradually gave up religion, because the scientific answers were so intellectually satisfying. I dare anyone to really evaluate the ideas in the Origin of Species honestly and not realize that it is brilliantly, obviously, correct. Unlike General Relativity or Newtonian physics, you don't even have to be smart to get this. Its just painfully self-evident.
Now turn to all of the old religions, and most of the new ones. Are there any ideas there that lead to testable predictions? Are any of the predictions more accurate than what science offers? If God, god, or gods made the universe, wouldn't studying creation itself be the ultimate test of the reliability of scripture?
In terms of life ... look up Craig Venter's work in terms of building synthetic lifeforms. He built the first one in 2010 and has now built a few more. The latest one was/is the smallest self-replicating life form in existence by building the genome from scratch out of genetic sequences believed to be useful/fundamental to life. That is, it's an artificial "minimalist lifeform". It has some 470 genes. Humans have about 20000. Wheat (the plant) has 10x as many as humans.
I suspect that the 21st century will see a similar revolution in biology to what the 20th century saw in computing. OTOH, I don't think we're going to see much further progress in physics (of course that was the prevailing opinion around year 1900 as well). Then again, physics is almost there. In terms of the standard model, experiments agree with theory within experimental uncertainty and the amount of precision is astounding. The only snag is reconcilling gravity with everything else.
freedomseeker wrote: You seem tired of the topic(fair enough if you've been around this block before) so I suppose maybe I'm talking to the wrong guy, but one of the most important questions in my life is if there is a God or not, because the implications are so vast. For me, finding and testing the truth is of huge importance because of this, even if I often have to take breaks and go back later on because I find the flavour of the presenters often off-putting. . . .
I'll ask again, have you read his work or listened to his lectures? (say at least an hours' worth)
I have read/listened to Sarfati's stuff. It's pretty worthless, because he takes on a fundamentalist position that admits only things that he decides do not contradict HIS interpretation of the Bible. He's just a vain asshole trying to make a name for himself and attract a following. A false prophet if you prefer that phraseology.
If you believe in God, you should understand faith is not about knowing -- its about accepting uncertainty and making a go of it anyway.
"n this quest to seek and find God in all things there is still an area of uncertainty. There must be. If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble. Uncertainty is in every true discernment that is open to finding confirmation in spiritual consolation." -- Pope Francis 2013
The people you ought to be reading on this topic will never be famous and do not aspire to be. Read all of the material in the link I provided above. Have you done that yet? It is way better than the thoughts in Sarfati's little finger. It was written by religious brothers who also have degrees in physics and biology from places like MIT, Caltech and Stanford. They understand that their goal should be to harmonize religious thought with science, not create conflicts and a name for themselves.
Besides the scientifically knowledgeable but obscure, I would also read Merton and definitely some Eastern religious texts. But focus mostly on people who have been dead for many years. Time tends to weed out most of the assholes.
ThisDinosaur,I fully agree with what you're saying about there being some things we can't know and science's role in trying to close that gap. However, this is a vastly different issue than what I outlined in the quotes I had described, which for the record is recognized by some atheistic and theistic philosophers. These certainly are not my own ideas, I just agree with the logic as it follows all the way through. This lack of rational basis means we cannot give a reason to trust our brains to be rational, not that we are simply unoptimized for it and need to pursue it. It's the very basis of how can we know if we are pursuing it rationally when our own thought processes themselves have no basis to be trusted on. It is the very same problem as not having a rational basis for moral law, or absolute truth. I can try to explain further or post more links from different authors who have a better way with words if I'm still not making it clear.
freedomseeker wrote:If Dawkins is right that we are the product of mindless unguided natural processes, then he has given us strong reason to doubt the reliability of human cognitive faculties and therefore inevitably to doubt the validity of any belief that they produce – including Dawkins’ own science and his atheism. His biology and his belief in naturalism would therefore appear to be at war with each other in a conflict that has nothing at all to do with God.” -Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame
“Evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously, including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends." -Thomas Nagel
As far as organic energies coming to exist without a cause, whether on their own or not, RNA, DNA, whatever, again I encourage deeper research into seeing exactly how impossible it is, and how many things that are utterly codependent need to all spontaneously combust (via miracle) at the exactly the same time since they all depend each other, repair each other, and know exactly what to do and how to coordinate with each other without any programming or programmer to 'tell' them what to do, etc. This information is available.
As far as natural selection and genetic mutation, I'm sorry but I am not wrong. When I said deleterious, I meant literally deleting genes, not necessarily saying that the affect will be seen as a negative in certain circumstances. I specified that this sometimes causes a positive effect in some environments, but then distinguished between positive/negative benefits (ie "fitness" to a certain environment) and addition/subtraction of information, which is only ever subtraction, the opposite of cross gene evolution) You're right in saying that most mutations are near net neutral, and that beneficial mutations (which are still deleting information that was there, never to be retrieved again because it is lost, and not added) can sometimes be of huge benefit in certain circumstances. This is still not taking into account that all these things are losing what was already there, not adding. There is really no debate in regards to human genetic degeneration with leading geneticists. It is happening, at a much faster rate than any positive mutations could make up for (because they don't add new information, only subtract information in a way that sometimes helps in some environments, -ie sickle cell anemia case)This is the beginning of what shows that every species has an ultimate cap to how long it can survive ( the previous links go into further detail and examples for this like the Lenski experiment and other good ones.
Edited.Sorry,I think I may have either missed your last post or answered it mixed with some of the others. My brain is absolutely mush now haha, but I do think that creation should be a testament but the issue of science is that it's done by humans who don't always interpret correctly, particularly when doing historical science which is not a true science. Most of the scientific founding fathers (Newton is a notable example but really, many others did their science on the foundation of their belief in the Bible and the firm support for being able to do science with a rational intelligent mind to seek ou the glory and mystery of the universe. This was not a hindrance, but this is why intruding to provide resources to help show that there are irreconcilable holes in some of the theory and assumptions that we account the facts as supporting or not. I'm sorry if this post makes less sense. This one is on my phone after much time. Feel free to rephrase if i didn't answer something or address it fully (I know I haven't provided evide ce. I can in a variety of fields. just ask, but again outside scope of thread, so I can pm you or do a separate thread on the subject you'd like)
Last edited by freedomseeker on Sat Apr 30, 2016 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
***********Bottom half of post not relevant to main thread question***********
George the original one and Dragline, (sorry, it's kind of a cluster because you two had some overlapping questions/comments)
Of course it would change the life I live!! How could it not? I know many people in North America don't want to hear about it, but if you actually believed (true or not aside-that's next point) that an apartment building is on fire and the inhabitants didn't believe you, wouldn't it make sense to try to tell them anyways, even if it made you look foolish in the process, in the hope that you may save some?
Now I'm not talking about speaking out in blind faith and ignorance.
“Faith is not a leap in the dark; it’s the exact opposite. It’s a commitment based on evidence… It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding intelligent discussion.”
― John C. Lennox
For what it's worth, I don't get any credit for supporting Sarfati, he just suits my personality(uhoh, haha). I like his dry humour and the quality and thoroughness of his work. If there is a hang up, don't worry, because he is not even one of my typical go to's in who I spend most of my time listening to or reading, I just incorrectly thought he might be a good fit for this forum. If the education is an issue, the guy I reposted from my earlier response to reiterate my view on 'faith' should be qualified. I figured the arguments should speak for themselves so I didn't bother to list qualifications for all the people posting. Most were phd's, some Atheist, some Christian, etc. There are many I could have used, but i tried to get a bit of a sample spread so you were under the impression I was just following one guy.
I think most people would have a hard time not enjoying listening to- he's humble, brilliant, patient, compassionate, witty and has a great grandpa-ish irish accent that I quite enjoy. but I digress
No disrespect to Mr. Francis, I don't know anything about him but I would have to ask him more to see if it's simply a matter of words I'm hung up on over your quote of his or if I disagree. I'm not saying my faith is boundless (it isn't), without doubt, or desire to confirm. But I still think faith is intended to be grounded on what we are already certain of to have a stable foundation. This is the exact issue in the quotes directly above with doing science without having the faith that we can trust our minds with the rationability to do science. Many philosophers recognize this as a root issue with the trend away from absolute truth (or any foundation for).
Anyway, nor am I saying that religion can save you. It can't. I wholeheartedly accept & support this.
Nearly all religions (I'm aware of) are a record of man's attempts and failings at trying to breach their natural boundaries, achieve communication with Something beyond the scope of natural law, and then attempts to please It. Mixed in with this, is a very telling picture of the depravity of man as he uses the name of his religion, like everything else, to exploit others to his own gain. Many modern day 'churches' fall directly inline with the religious leaders that Jesus came down so hard on in the Bible, in the same vein as the religious leaders fixated on laws and the outward appearance of holiness in the old testament while persecuting the prophets. The trend continues, and most miss the picture again(see Jesus). Anyway, I digress.
So, knowing what we know of religion, how can this save anyone? It would have no more power to save beyond philosophy, which also has no power to save. If there is something beyond the scope of natural law (which you can't have a beginning without,-which is why I keep asking this question, incase I'm missing something), than the only way to bridge would be if Somebody not confined by the natural realm made first contact to breach the natural realm (theoretically, this direction would be possible since it would be the source of creation of what we view to be natural) and for us to accept His way, since we do not have the power within ourselves to see or grasp beyond the natural, which is what one would expect. One within the confines of the 'natural realm' cannot possibly know or discover what is beyond unless it is revealed to them by someone not confined by what we think of as 'natural law'. In all fairness, this is exactly what you would expect from minds confined to this realm. It would be more of a self-discovery of the nature of man than an outward discovery of our surroundings if we could explore beyond the natural realm in a quantifiable way.
Now as to which account of this actually stands up to argument, reason, and historical accuracy is another important topic, but one for another thread. This thread is merely to affirm whether anything exists beyond what we consider the natural, or not. If we can't accept that there is something beyond the materialistic realm, than any further discussion would be pointless (sorry if this doesn't apply to you personally, I'm generalizing because of the purported cognitive dissonance required to believe in a God)
This is why this stuff is a big deal to me, not because I'm more interested in the science or philosophy of many of these things compared to driving fast-ish (cheap) cars and rock climbing and big mountains and the things that naturally fire me up. But I try to educate myself to check myself to 1.make sure I'm not wasting time on a lie, and to make sure I'm not self engineering ideas and 'responses' and 2. also that if that's a hang up for somebody else, I am in a position to reason with them.
The more I learn and see how well everything fits together, the more interesting it has become to me, but anyway. If I try to tell friends of miracles I've seen or been a part of, and the way God has been active and personal in my life and how good it is, how can they if they are under the impression they must reject logic to do so? I want truth, not a fairy tail, and if I'm wasting my time, I want to know, hence why I find it important to explore, looking for holes. I expect others to think the same way(everyone will have a different amount of back-checking they'll be comfortable with to help support their 'faith', regardless of worldview, since faith is belief, not belief in God), unless they just don't want to think at all. That has been written about enough on this site.
But if I really believe that the Awesome, Creator God loved me enough to send His Son to die for me, in such a foolish and humbling way, instead of on a big cloud of glory like any one of us would likely want to do, since all humanity ever wants is pride, glory, to be recognized as intelligent etc, how can that not effect how I choose to spend my life?
[b]***Warning***Novel below is off topic to main question***It is relevant to testing methods for God, Bible, and other religions, as brought up***[/b],
but very brief outline of how one might organize and sort through the different theories of God, if one were to conclude for themselves that the laws we observe and quantify cannot explain how everything began (first post organizes some of the issues it must be able to explain to be coherent) than there must be something beyond what we can observe and quantify, and wanted to start poking around...since it came up*
As far as multiple Gods or whatever, there are two things involved. Defining God and verifying or debunking the text of each one. Starting out would be the power to create, since this is the problem of the beginning. When saying my outline for what I consider to be God qualities, I would right off the bat disqualify anyone or anything who was 1. created, 2. without every exhibiting power beyond what is expected within natural law.
After that, if contact from beyond natural to natural was reported, we can start checking texts. We can verify or debunk prophecies claimed in the texts considered 'sacred' or 'set apart', look at the historical accuracy and support for the texts in numbers and how it stands with other accepted historical texts.
Once we've analyzed the texts to a satisfactory degree(different amount for everyone depending on what they've been taught before, quality of sources, etc etc) then we can check for impact. We would need to distinguish what is inline with the claims in the text to do this, and judge the 'fruit' of it. Ie, when we look at violence done in the name of Jesus, we can see very clearly that this goes against the teaching of Jesus, not in line with it. That is in line with the proud, unloving religious type that Jesus continually rebuked. One can very clearly seen that as a collective, people tend not to change too much, when you look around today (I'll leave that up to your imaginations).
We can check records of burial and resurrection, eye witness accounts, power of impact of either literally the Son of God or a crazed lunatic. You can not say He was a nice guy with some wise teachings and nothing else, He called Himself the Son of God! There is a dividing line to that, and it bears considering the ripple effect both in reverse with the prophecies leading up to it, and afterwards where 2000 years later, some people are still claiming life abundant(feel free to ask me of changes in my life, or some miracles I've personally seen or experienced or from people I'm close to, and I'll drop a hint. Nothing happened in a big auditorium with a guy who puts himself out to be higher than the rest of us lowly humans who is getting rich off of his 'minions'. Of course check both good and bad, but remember, check to see what is inline with the preaching and what is not inline with Jesus before judging Jesus for their actions-we already know people have bad thoughts, and do bad things, regardless of what church or not-church they ascribe to.)
Final step, you can humble yourself and give it a try. Humble is the word because it seems absolutely foolish and simple, when we, like the ancient Greeks, are always looking to complexity and high philosophy. A stark contrast, but it would need to be simple(and true) or it wouldn't be accessible to everyone, but this is a big hang up. Anyway, seeing His example of how lowly He became creates a cognitive dissonance for me and my prideful ways, not wanting to stoop, but instead wanting to be deemed rational and intelligent at all times. For example, writing this stuff goes against that nature since I'm fully aware of how this will appear to most of you, and frankly, I've read a lot of you guys over the years, have come to appreciate your online personality and wisdom, and want to be liked....but my first point of this post regarding the apartment building.
Anyways, you can ask God to show Himself to you if He's there (and really mean it, as much as possible anyways, at that time). It will not not happen as you expect but the whole premise of the Bible and Jesus dying on the cross is that God loves every one of us(*this is where why we say that every person has inherent worth. Once again, since it's the same thought-line, if there is no Creator, there is no inherent worth in people.) and wants to restore us to Himself, at evidently just about any cost(His Son). Regardless of whether or not you understand or accept all the details(I can happily explain for anyone curious, but again, not in this thread of course), if you say that you want to accept the communication request, then He is kind of Self-obliged to follow up and show Himself, and then it takes a bit of humility and patience to listen(note, you will feel stupid if you open up this way haha, embrace it).
Once/if you've recognized to have achieved contact (if you think maybe, but you're not sure, try again. He's been incredibly patient with my lack of faith over the years.), then decide if you want to confess to have sinned (ie pride, selfishness, lust, generally harmful attitudes and traits, that don't promote perfect love) and submit to Him as being Lord over our lives because of our position to being the created ones, or not. You can keep exploring and reading the Bible (His primary way of communication but certainly not only way) before deciding, and Jesus said to 'count the cost' but ultimately this decision is what everything will come down to. Once we understand the grace found in Jesus, it is a game changer though. Again, unlike most other religions where we try to beat ourselves into being good enough, which is a tireless chore without God's grace and help that would drive anyone to insanity), including some key ones today who claim to be following the Bible. It is very easily recognizable if you prayerfully read the Word for yourself.
The gospels(aka good news) (first 4 books of the New Testament) are 4 peoples' historical accounts of life Jesus and is a great way to get a taste and will never ever end in being a wealth of wisdom and truth. Everything before that is pointing ahead to Jesus, with lots of history, prophecies etc, and everything afterwards is pointing back to the the Good News and historical accounts of the early church and explaining what this all looks like and what it doesn't look like. Lots of examples of both sides from the beginning of mankind right up to today.
, seeing something so simple and lowly, when we're like the Greeks, looking for complexity and high philosophy. Unfortunately, I'm sure that comes out even now as I post, alas I'm not perfect, it's a good thing I have a Saviour because I can't do it
Further, once I humble myself to ask Him to make Himself known to me (and give it an honest effort to believe, after as much evidence convincing needed first) and try to do things His way (because I can't break out of the natural, He would have to make the first step) and submit myself (very humbling process!), rather than just trying to do 'good things' my own way because it 'helps *me* feel better', then all sorts of things can start to happen. or pouring out my time/energy/money for others for their own sake, at the cost of my dignity because it seems utterly silly and illogical, and to point them toward The Way like I'm so grateful for being shown, so they can make an informed choice?
-I could link up piles and piles of information here, beginning from first stages of filtering systems to verifying history to all the steps up to and including my own experiences in relation to what I've come to believe and experience, and then compare it all with other religious claims, and I might find it interesting (although definitely time intensive) but I don't know if anyone else would find it interesting or worthwhile, so feel free to ask here or PM and I would be happy to, but not in this thread. Otherwise, I'll leave it at that and go back to sticking to the main question, since, if there is nothing outside of the material realm, this is all for not, just a figment. I hope it's clear how this relates to the main question, and how it either has to fit in a reasonable way that it will impact how you choose to live (how much it will take for this will be different for everyone, granted), or one has to live with the cognitive dissonance as described in the other thread, and have the hole of it burning in their mind all the days of their life!haha
ThisDinosaur wrote:Now turn to all of the old religions, and most of the new ones. Are there any ideas there that lead to testable predictions? Are any of the predictions more accurate than what science offers? If God, god, or gods made the universe, wouldn't studying creation itself be the ultimate test of the reliability of scripture?
ThisDinosaur There should be a testability to any text that is purported to be the Word of God, I agree. I mentioned this in the off topic last half of the novel post above, but the discussion testing itself is fit for another thread. If you're interested, I can definitely send some interesting info your way, or talk about it if you'd rather a personal exchange via pm or whatever.
To assert that it should be more accurate than what science offers, if science at times offers perfectly accurate predictions I don't think is required. The Bible makes lots of claims (ie, earthquakes and calamities happening thousands of years ago that people have verified after looking at sedimentary layers for seismic activity, to aligning historical accounts with other known, but unrelated sources, many many prophecies with specific timelines that are testable regarding whether or not it has happened etc etc) that are verifiable, but I don't think that they should in any way 'unverify' scientific claims that are proven unless directly opposing. Like Jacob brought up the quantum mechanics predicting stuff, that's awesome! this goes back to my previous points about the rationality of the universe, if it spontaneously combusted out of nothing, for no reason, in randomness, but now exhibiting amazing degree of law, order and predicability.
“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
― John C. Lennox, God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
JamesR, thanks for posting. As much as I'm afraid of sounding redundant by stating the implications of a Law giver in all the posts, if there was a beginning, then the laws of physics must have been suspended to allow for this fact. To me this is profound.
Jacob, that's fascinating to hear how far they've come with AI, and I would certainly not bet against you with your thought on biology in the next century.
I could be just blindly missing it, but outside of the quantum fluctuation model (see earlier post if you wanted to see my view) I just don't see how this explains the beginning, before all this architecture was in place any more than I can see it explaining the mind (not the brain) any more than I can see it explain a number of things beyond understanding what we already can observe and predicting based on that, now that everything is in place. I'm not trying to suggest that through much intelligence, we cannot recreate some form of intelligence in the frame we are set it, I'm asking about the beginning beginning, without any intelligence. Am I just being slow and missing the implication of what you're saying?
Faith41, Jesus answered your question saying it's us! We are 'called' wheat but not a plant. He said that we are like wheat, and that the whole gardening principle is a life principle. While the kernel of wheat is alive, it is not in it's full potential form like after being planted, and we who will only really live if we die to self, and experience true life after being put in the ground for a while, like wheat!
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." -Jesus, in John 12:24
Ok, I need a break from the computer, big time . I will try to refrain from answering too much that is not on topic of the main question. I'm atleast somewhat interested on every off topic issue related, but there are nearly multi-verse levels of rabbit holes we could go , but I want to establish the foundation first, since everything else hinges on it, otherwise it'll be forever chasing tails without a base.
**********************************************
so, if anyone has any viable theory that is completely without magic or miracle that explains in reasonable detail (not a theory of the gaps) from the transition of absolutely nothing(not even a framework, as the order, language, information, mind etc are all huge things to explain without a programmer) to what we can observe now that everything is intelligently and orderly established(regardless of how long it may have taken to establish things) without breaking or bending the laws of physics, naturalism and materialism, I'm all ears.Anything but this involves the 'super'natural and would leave anyone who believes our origin came about this way, but that there is no such thing as 'extra'material or 'super'natural as having to deal with the cognitive dissonance of this.
***********************************************
otherwise, the cognitive dissonance may well be mine and I need to do some deep searching and most likely change, because my belief in God does affect my daily life to a high degree, because if He's real, He's the biggest thing out of anything, and of course this should top my priority and interest list! However, if there is nothing beyond materialism I want to know asap to realign myself with truth, go through a big pile of checks(because it's that big in implication it would be worth the effort) with the new information and test everything and stop living with the 'grand illusion'.
, but I want to establish the foundation first, since everything else hinges on it, otherwise it'll be forever chasing tails without a base.