In this context, if you are wondering, yet already have knowledge that denies same, then you must already possess metaphysical properties that allow you the sense of wonderment to begin with — 3017amen
For some Theists, scientific evidence is irrelevant. But for Intelligent Design advocates, the discovery that the expanding universe can be traced back to the beginning of space-time validates their belief in Special Creation. They also make much of the implication that all the finely-tuned initial conditions and the governing Laws of Nature were pre-set at the beginning to produce a "flat" curve of expansion. Which may be one reason why Alan Guth developed a mathematical theory of Cosmic Inflation to explain how matter & energy got evenly distributed, so that life & mind could emerge and replicate. But that even more radically instantaneous pre-bang event (fractions of a second) just added more evidence that it was a miracle. From nothing, a new world appeared : Presto! Voila! So the Big Bang theory "grants them" physical evidence of a super-natural creation event, that doesn't depend on Biblical support, but can be interpreted as a 21st century technical description of an ancient mythical explanation for how & why the world exists.It still could be a creation event. I'm just not sure what theists think this grants them if it is. — CeleRate
What other options do you see to explain the BB besides : A> Random Accident by Coincidence (quantum fluctuation) in a self-existent Multiverse, or B> Intentional Instantaneous Creation of Nature by a self-existent SuperNatural Creator? In "A" the Universe is contingent upon a self-existent eternal process (e.g. Multiverse). In "B" it's contingent upon a self-existent eternal immaterial BEING. Both assume that the Potential for Life & Mind was inherent in the pre-BB existence. "A" assumes the existence of something like Democritus' eternal imperishable Atoms as the physical substance of reality. "B" assumes the existence of eternal immortal Memes (Ideas) as the metaphysical substance*1 of our world.This is a false dichotomy. It's not as if it has been established that the only two options are a non-contingent (world or universe?), or a contingent one that depends on an immaterial creator. — CeleRate
Check out my non-theistic thesis of Enformationism. It requires a Deistic G*D to get the ball rolling, but then the process of Intelligent Evolution keeps it moving in the right direction. The theory may or may not be "true", but it makes allowances for Life, Mind, & Qualia that are unexplained by the conventional theories of modern Science.I'm all for learning new arguments if there's one to present. — CeleRate
So the Big Bang theory "grants them" physical evidence of a super-natural creation event, that doesn't depend on Biblical support — Gnomon
What other options do you see to explain the BB besides — Gnomon
Check out my non-theistic thesis of Enformationism — Gnomon
Consider you are by yourself in the jungle. How would you survive by asking those questions? — 3017amen
By simple Logic. If the First Cause is prior-to and has the power to create a process of Natural Causation, it is by definition superior to Nature, hence "supernatural". But that definition also applies to the hypothetical Multiverse : if it exists, it is supernatural -- above and beyond Nature.How has it been established that the cause is supernatural? — CeleRate
Theists "establish" the personal characteristics of their invisible God, by Faith in the revelation of their sect's scriptures. But, since I have no faith in their scriptures, I have no knowledge at all of my so-called G*D except logical necessity. An effect must have a cause, and a beginning must have a Starter, hence the BB must have had a First Cause : either Dumb Luck or Intelligent Creation.theists still have to establish that the primer mover is a personal God — CeleRate
As I asked before, what other logical options are you aware of? If you are not scientifically serious, you can make a sci-fi list of a> god-like aliens from outer space, or b> ancient high-tech civilizations like Atlantis, or c> a pantheon of super-human gods like the Greeks and Hebrews. Wikipedia has a list of creation myths from around the world. if you want to believe in one of them, you are free to do so. But if you prefer a philosophically cogent answer to the First Cause question, you will have to choose from two opposite solutions : Accident or Intention. :nerd:I'm questioning how it is justified that there are just two options — CeleRate
Okay I'm winning at 5 to nothing... maybe this question is easier :razz:
Why do we have two ways in avoiding falling objects in the jungle? — 3017amen
If the First Cause is prior-to and has the power to create a process of Natural Causation, it is by definition superior to Nature, hence "supernatural" — Gnomon
hypothesis is unanimously accepted by scientific experts, — Gnomon
As I asked before, what other logical options are you aware of? — Gnomon
Why do we have two ways to avoid falling objects — 3017amen
Explain the metaphysical features of consciousness, namely our sense of wonderment. — 3017amen
What explanation are you looking for? No one knows how the brain produces experiences. — Malice
Because you cannot use math to dodge an already falling coconut. Now, if you want to make good use of a catapult in a war, then you'd be on to something. — Malice
We're not talking about experience are we? — 3017amen
You seem to be on to something there. So, are you saying that if one were to run calcs prior to avoiding a falling object, that they would likely perish? — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.