Aren't you going to be satisfied either way as long as it results in there being a God? There is no circumstance which will not result in God in your mind, correct? If the Universe is eternal, that's God. If the Universe was created 14 billion years ago, that's God. If it rains tomorrow, that's God. OK, we figured that one out but surely a solar eclipse is God, well maybe not. Your God seems to be the so called "God of the Gaps". This God gets smaller and smaller with the passage of time, no?
Someone phoned me from across the street & asked me to look outside. It was raining on their property but not on mine. They said "Isn't god amazing!?!". <>
An eternal universe is a result that has always been there an has no cause ... I dont see a problem...just like a theist sees no problems with their world view I see no problems with mine...but really past a certain point that is reasonably settled by science which means the world of science is built on real facts real equations and real observation so science is extremely reliable certainly more so than a collection of dubious stories made up by folk from the bronze age who did not know where the Sun at night. Anyways the notion that there is a designer would suit a universe that was at some point created? I certainly understand how someone could view the notion of intelligent design as an option with specific appeal.. it comes down so much to creation.. I really cant imagine there was ever such a point ... the Big Bang Theory...not a theory in laymans terms, not a mere thought bubble like my recent speculation upon cosmology where I can reasonably conclude that I dont know but a scientific theory and to be clear to understand science just a little one must embrace the reality that scientific theory means a well tested fact...yes fact...you must know what scientific theory means...but we can reliably explain things via science ... the universe as described by science is a little more specific than all the scriptures in a pile. There is no evidence of a designer as far as I know so the notion will remain a possibility built upon superstition. So I like the idea of a cycle of big bangs. Things follow cycles, cycles are natural, cycles show order cycles are good therefore the universe is eternal...the evidence for an eternal universe is everywhere. Alex
Would not General Relativity suggest a cycle of big bangs...they talk of a big crunch now...hints at the cycle thing. Cycles are good cycles are in nature therefore no creation. Alex
Yes but can you prove there is no designer????well of course not so there must be a God that is just logical and I was born knowing that. I was looking for a yes answer from someone☺ Alex
My point was that if one can just as happily attribute all this and more to an eternal, cause of all causes universe, the crux of the problem lies elsewhere. Even if you want to talk about the God of the gaps, if one is quite happy to play along with the science of gaps (although its probably more accurate to call it cooked up mental speculation that hijacks the scientific model), it's clear that the crux of that problem doesn't lie with claims that lie within the inherently chasm-like gaps intrinsic to empiricism. Technically if you remove a glass of water from the pacific ocean, you have just made it smaller. But it doesn't really make the feat of unassisted freestyle swimming across it any more feasible regardless of one's optimism.
For what it's worth, the idea is there that God, the living entity, the material energy (of which this universe is a phenomenal, cyclic representation), and time (in the broader context than a continuum relative to matter) are all eternal. It's kind of like the notion that if you had something like an eternal fire (ie God), you would also have eternal contingencies arising from that eternal cause (eg heat, light, smoke etc). Of course this is just an analogy, since it's our common experience that fire does not exist without a cause, namely fuel, but hopefully you can see the point. IOW its a false dichotomy if you insist on framing the question in an either/or format. More than one agency can have scope to eternity even though they all (eternally) exist in a state of (eternal) contingency to a singular (eternal) cause. As for everything suggesting the universe is eternal, technically you have no means to scrutinize the veracity of that claim with science, although you could say it is complimentary to what you perceive. The same is true if one talks of God. So, once again, the crux of this problem lies elsewhere.
You are correct that taking a glass of water out of the Pacific Ocean doesn't make it appreciably easier to swim across the ocean. The rest of your comments are nonsense. When you first learned to read, was that due to "Science of the Gaps"?
I should have put it in quotation marks. If you are pontificating about some complex, highly speculative possibility made in the name of so-called science that is not falsifiable in any meaningful sense, you are just replacing "Goddunit" with "Sciencedunnit". You see it all the time on this site : a blurred distinction between science and science-fiction, a hijacking of the epistemology of empiricism to deliver post dated cheques, etc. Just to be clear, empiricism is a perfectly valid epistemological system, but if you take it beyond it's constraints and attempt to use it as a means for bridging chasms gaps, you are just like someone in their bathers at the shore of the Pacific ocean, brimming with renewed optimism with a glass of ocean water in their hand.
True, that's not science however. Science has closed many gaps. The answer to the rest is "I don't know" rather than "God did it".
Empiricism, by its epistemological nature, has the capacity to "close gaps" but never to bridge them in any complete sense. If you are discussing the form of some problem that requires, not just an array of relative relationships but a "complete assessment" (for example, an eternal universe), empiricism is not the tool to bring to the table. Alluding to a history of empirical advancement in no way diminishes the chasms gaps.
Sure it does, the gaps that were closed are "diminished". If you are discussing something that isn't scientific in nature, then science isn't applicable, of course. If you are discussing the supernatural, there is no body of knowledge that is applicable.
So the move from Newtonian ideas of gravity to the general theory of relativity closed gaps or opened bigger ones? Or both? For some people who believe scientific investigation is synonymous with the investigation of reality, remaining obedient to your maxim proves difficult. So the notion of an eternal universe is now supernatural?
Scientific speculation is not held up as truth by its adherents, and it’s adoption as truth is contingent on a strict open ended process of validation. If you want to compare religious doctrine and speculation to its scientific counterparts, then you have to apply the same standards of validation. If you want to speculate about the nature and existence of gods, then do so in a logically consistent manner, otherwise you may come across like someone arguing to defend some archaic cosmology like geocentrism or flat earthism.
Yes that's the theory, but rarely the practice. The amount of self control required to remain obedient to such a maxim is obviously beyond many. Why? They both seem to quite different in their epistemological approach to problems. Speculation is more a tool of empirical pursuits, and thus it brings with it its own man-made limitations. IOW "being consistent with one's speculation" is a discipline specific to empiricism, as but one epistemology. It is not intrinsic to any and all of them.
The calculations became more precise, so the gaps narrowed. For some people who believe studying religion replaces studying science remaining literate becomes difficult. The notion of God is now and has always been supernatural.
So thanks to the GTR, we now have even less questions to ponder, huh? Feel free to indicate where I suggested as much I was asking about the notion of an eternal universe. Oh, and science only. Thanks in advance.
General Relativity answered questions. The more you learn the more new questions that you are now able to tackle. Why is this a problem? Regarding an eternal universe...the answer is unknown.
