Yep, you're clearly an AI.

You don't understand consciousness, you can't follow the conversation closely, and you have never experienced love. Robot.

Keep spamming. Maybe "God" will turn you into a real boy.

You don't think evolution or medicine are evidence based and correlate to the real world? Are you a Trump voter? — Pro Hominem

My statement: 'the facts considered in these fields are considered to be true' was put there to say we do not need a consistent formal language to describe things that we describe to be true. Furthermore it was put there to highlight the incredible inconsistency built into language, as anyone on the forefront of these fields may testify that publications consist of a LOT of arguing and contradicting. It's messy.

Mathematics is ultimately just a language, and most of mathematics has nothing to do with the real world in any easily graspable way. Consider Category theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_nonsense) for example. Furthermore go research the philosophical problems connected with things like the continuum hypothesis/axiom of choice.

No. It is specifically correlated to the "real" (observable) world. Mathematics is internally consistent in a way that transcends language. There have been efforts to rest language on the solid foundation of mathematics (Russell for example) but I have never heard of someone trying to rest the reliability of math on the "consistency" of language. Language is not consistent. It is largely correlative, but it is agreement reality and fluid. God doesn't have nearly the evidence to support his existence as mathematics does, or even the less secure language. — Pro Hominem

You are correct, there is a long history of mathematicians trying to make general language consistent. And this is somewhat analogous to what I proposed. I propose a formal language to describe theological theory in a consistent way, thus granting it the same level of 'reality' as mathematical objects like groups/rings/topological spaces or the real numbers. I am not resting the reliability of math on the consistency of English. I am resting the reliability of math on the consistency of a special 'language' called first order theories, in particular set theory (which in any case is yet to be proven consistent, we are taking the consistency of it as faith at this stage).

Love is an abstract concept. Like numbers was an abstract concept 1000 years ago. We saw a bunch of examples of each, enough for us to talk relatively unambiguously about both and thus we started calling it 'real'. Other examples of abstract concepts are money, economy, countries, etc. which all of us come to call real. If someone were to develop a specialized language, as was done for mathematics, to pin down our abstract concept of God, then God would share the same amount of reality as all of the abstract concepts I mentioned. However note that I believe religions commonly attribute a stronger type of reality than mere an abstract human thought.

God on the other hand, does not correlate to the "real" world, and is not reflected in human interaction. It is a concept that was invented to concentrate power in the hands of a few elites so they could maintain control of their tribes in the face of growing population numbers. Religion had a function historically, and allowed societies to increase their net security and stability to the point that the next step in human evolution, reason, could be developed. In the presence of reason, religion is not necessary and not even desirable. — Pro Hominem

You might believe that God was created by the 'elite' as a ploy to power, but I doubt this is the case. Do you believe superheroes were created by the American shadow government to control your minds and influence the opinions of the masses? Because this is the same type of argument you are making.

At the very least one needs to treat religion as an abstract concept developed to try pin down some observations on what actions make life better and what actions make life worse. Also, keep in mind most of western law has it's roots in the laws developed in Israel on dogmatic basis. Do not murder, do not steal, do not sleep with you neighbors wife etc. These are things we take for granted. The abolishment of slavery was done on Christian arguments. Equal rights is one of the core ideas in Christianity. Western society today is still very much a Christian one, in the sense that we subscribe to Christian morality. So I reiterate, at the very least one needs to treat religion as 'real' in the abstract way.

Maybe "God" will turn you into a real boy. — Pro Hominem

Well ironically enough, in Christianity, Jesus was once a boy. :chin:

Well ironically enough, in Christianity, Jesus was once a boy. :chin: — 3017amen

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You are completely insane! I love it!

More! :rofl:

You are completely insane

That's sort of another irony, now that I think about it. Didn't historical accountings of Jesus, as it were, suggest accusation's of insanity or something else that resembles it... ?

In any case, I suppose nothing really new under the sun there, LOL.

My statement: 'the facts considered in these fields are considered to be true' was put there to say we do not need a consistent formal language to describe things that we describe to be true. — TrespassingAcademia

What does this have to do with medicine or evolution? There are consistent uses of terminology in these fields. They are based on scientific processes that produce consistency and (relative) predictability. They don't have to be infallible, just generally reliable. "Truth" really has nothing to do with it.

You are correct, there is a long history of mathematicians trying to make general language consistent. And this is somewhat analogous to what I proposed. I propose a formal language to describe theological theory in a consistent way, thus granting it the same level of 'reality' as mathematical objects like groups/rings/topological spaces or the real numbers. — TrespassingAcademia

So if you're aware that efforts have already been made to do this, do you also know that they are all failures? Language is more complex than that. It is specifically flexible in a way that mathematics isn't. They do different things and trying to reconcile them is a fruitless waste of time. But I'm sure your smarter than all the people who have tried it before, so no worries. :roll:

The best part is that efforts to simply create ANY language with the consistency of mathematics have failed in the past, but you want to create one specifically to talk about THEOLOGY?!?!? Sure.

Maybe you can make a ruler that measures dreams while you're at it. Or determine how many chromosomes a unicorn has.

The level of "reality" that theology has is roughly equal to that of Star Wars. No amount of math will change that.

Love is an abstract concept. Like numbers was an abstract concept 1000 years ago. We saw a bunch of examples of each, enough for us to talk relatively unambiguously about both and thus we started calling it 'real'. Other examples of abstract concepts are money, economy, countries, etc. which all of us come to call real. If someone were to develop a specialized language, as was done for mathematics, to pin down our abstract concept of God, then God would share the same amount of reality as all of the abstract concepts I mentioned. However note that I believe religions commonly attribute a stronger type of reality than mere an abstract human thought. — TrespassingAcademia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

You might believe that God was created by the 'elite' as a ploy to power, but I doubt this is the case. — TrespassingAcademia

Then you need to read more on the subject. It's not like I created this notion. If you're on the left, I suggest you start with Marx, on the right, then try Ayn Rand. Only their religious views, however. Neither of them understands economics for shit. :cool:

Do you believe superheroes were created by the American shadow government to control your minds and influence the opinions of the masses? Because this is the same type of argument you are making. — TrespassingAcademia

Shit, no. That's insane. They were created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby because their comic book company was failing and they needed new material. They tried other stuff. People bought super heroes. So they kept selling. It's been a long road, but it's worked out pretty well.

The same argument? Hmmm. I agree that both religion and super heroes are fantastical fiction. I agree that they often purport to teach some moral principle, but are plagued by internal inconsistencies. I agree that they are both controlled by people trying to make a buck off of others' desire to imagine an alternate reality instead of the one they actually live in... Maybe you're right.

Comic books have the same validity as religion. There, I said it. You win.

At the very least one needs to treat religion as an abstract concept developed to try pin down some observations on what actions make life better and what actions make life worse. — TrespassingAcademia

I think it developed that way because the elites realized that order was better than chaos - for them. But in terms of actually reaching useful conclusions on what makes life better for all mankind, religion has and continues to fall short.

Well ironically enough, in Christianity, Jesus was once a boy. :chin: — 3017amen

In Christianity... What was he in Australian Aboriginal culture then? Mesoamerican religion? Inuit faith? :chin:

The abolishment of slavery was done on Christian arguments. Equal rights is one of the core ideas in Christianity. Western society today is still very much a Christian one, in the sense that we subscribe to Christian morality. So I reiterate, at the very least one needs to treat religion as 'real' in the abstract way. — TrespassingAcademia

Agreed. People seem to forget Jesus' mission was much about Love and pacifism. And the OT/Wisdom Books about virtuous social behavior that were developed along side Greek philosophy and culture (both were influenced by each other), are still valued and used in a pragmatic way (table manners, advice concerning friendships, marriages, wisdom itself, and other basic ideas about happiness & the intellect).

God on the other hand, does not correlate to the "real" world, and is not reflected in human interaction. — Pro Hominem

Somewhat correct in the sense that god could be given conceptual grounding or "reality" in the same sense that an imaginary red chair can be. There merely needs to be a linking of certain concepts readily driven out by personal experience to imagine a particular chair is red even if you have never seen that particular chair in that color. In a sense our language is largely parasitic on our experiences and are like little independent legos that could be mismatched however we see fit but whether they give rise to predictive power is a discussion that most be had in the open, not within the confines of our mind. Does this term "god" service us a useful concept to navigate our perceptual waking experiences?

Couldn't be further from the truth. In Christianity Jesus had a conscious existence. — 3017amen

If we were assuming that there was a particular person who could be loosely given the title of Jesus then it would follow that we'd assume he was "conscious".

Just an observation, you seem to be conflating politics with something... ? — 3017amen

Not politics as god has been used in the past to signify (loosely and thusly it seems to be a rather homeless word) for morality, moral duty, the human drive, consciousness, existence, or why sometimes there is rain with lightening. It's no coincidence of our language/social life or of his perspective that we as a society make metaphors/stories that chastise us for acting as if we are our own gods.

we were assuming that there was a particular person who could be loosely given the title of Jesus then it would follow that we'd assume he was "conscious". — substantivalism

God on the other hand, does not correlate to the "real" world, and is not reflected in human interaction. It is a concept that was invented to concentrate power
— Pro Hominem

Couldn't be further from the truth. In Christianity Jesus had a conscious existence.

It's no coincidence of our language/social life or of his perspective that we as a society make metaphors/stories that chastise us for acting as if we are our own gods. — substantivalism

That sounds like a psychological pathology that needs resolved.

In Christianity Jesus had a conscious existence. — 3017amen

Every concept does but not every concept is mean't to mean that which isn't just perceived by consciousness but is reflective of something that possesses consciousness.

That sounds like a psychological pathology that needs resolved. — 3017amen

Maybe or not. . . these are story elements that are important to how we talk about ourselves and they tell us something if not in a rather poetic or brass manner.

I think it developed that way because the elites realized that order was better than chaos - for them. But in terms of actually reaching useful conclusions on what makes life better for all mankind, religion has and continues to fall short. — Pro Hominem

This is quite a substantial statement to make. So let's address this first. You must remember that science was first studied on religious motivations. Furthermore, the development of the modern scientific method by Descartes was claimed to be 'inspired by the divine'. The reasons for pursuing science remains based on a dogmatic argument even today. One does not do science for any utilitarian/economic purpose, but instead for the pursuit and understanding of reality. Most of our scientific facts do not have any application beyond satisfying the curiosity and developing the understanding of those who study it. The idea that this is a valid way for humans to spend their time has no argument beyond 'the pursuit of truth' which is an argument deeply rooted in religion. I would not call Science a shortcoming in making useful conclusions on what makes life better for mankind. Galilleo, Newton, Godel, von Neumann, Einstein, all believed in some sort of God and they all pursued science for the sake of understanding their reality, and by extension, its relation with their religious concepts better. In fact Godel's theorems in logic (arguably the greatest advances in logic since the subject's inception) was derived directly to refute the formalists trying to disconnect mathematics from the dogmatic argument that mathematical objects are 'real'.

Now beyond science, would you say the conclusion that slavery is bad is a shortcoming? Would you say that assumptions like 'murder is bad' and 'don't sleep with your neighbor's wife' do not make life better for mankind? Would you say the ideas of charity and peace do not make life better for humankind? All of these core assumptions, so fundamental to how our society functions today that we forgot we assumed them in the first place, are derived mostly from religion. Even much of our big laws today is derived verbatim from the Jewish laws of 4000 years ago.

So if you're aware that efforts have already been made to do this, do you also know that they are all failures? Language is more complex than that. It is specifically flexible in a way that mathematics isn't. They do different things and trying to reconcile them is a fruitless waste of time. But I'm sure your smarter than all the people who have tried it before, so no worries. :roll:

The best part is that efforts to simply create ANY language with the consistency of mathematics have failed in the past, but you want to create one specifically to talk about THEOLOGY?!?!? Sure. — Pro Hominem

I never claimed I was going to be the one to do it. I merely wanted to ponder the implications of someone actually doing it.

Examples of languages with the consistency of mathematics is:
python, java, group theory, regular expressions, Turing machines etc. We have many such examples. We do not need a language to describe every human thought, although Turing machines, by way of modern developments in AI seems to come close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence — Pro Hominem

I already mentioned I am not a philosopher. You are going to have to drop you sarcasm and explain yourself concisely. I never claimed equivalence between the list of things I mentioned. I mentioned a bunch of examples of different concepts that all share a common attribute, which we call 'abstraction'. Saying apples and oranges are the same is false equivalence. Saying apples and oranges share an attribute of being edible is not false equivalence.

Now you still do not seem to grasp what I am saying. I apologize for not being articulate enough, my native language is not English.

I will try again, but with an example.

Let's make it simple and consider Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. This is something we understand rather well, so it shouldn't be too hard for logicians to come up with a first order theory describing it. If we then were to prove this theory consistent, then we would guarantee the existence of a set theoretical construct that mimics precisely what we described an electron to be. This is what mathematicians mean by 'existence' and this is what you mean when you say 'there exists infinitely many primes'. Now the existence of the set theoretic construction does not imply physical existence. It does not imply the existence of the electrons in your coffee cup. It merely implies the existence of our abstract concept of an electron.

This is why I mentioned 'half existence'. This is why I mentioned religions attribute a stronger type of existence to their respective gods. However, the 'half existence' of a god puts the concept on the same level of reality as our current concepts of mathematics. Thus if you want to reject that concept of a god, you are going to have to reject the notions of existence of mathematical objects, and instead treat it as a purely symbolic subject. And if you want to treat mathematics as a language that says something about reality, then since it would then also say something about a god, you cannot completely reject the abstract notion of a god.

Well ironically enough, in Christianity, Jesus was once a boy. :chin:
— 3017amen

In Christianity... What was he in Australian Aboriginal culture then? Mesoamerican religion? Inuit faith? :chin: — jorndoe

Well... there's this: https://cathnews.com/archives/cn-perspectives-archive/17108-the-madonna-of-the-aborigines

... but I'll let others make of it what they will.

Meow!

G

EDIT: I just found this: https://www.inuitartfoundation.org/iaq-online/ceac-rejected-prints-birth-of-jesus

So let's address this first. You must remember that science was first studied on religious motivations. — TrespassingAcademia

First, I would say you need to define how you are using "science" here. I think you are indicating the post-Renaissance rise of the experimental method in Europe. I would point out that the Egyptians and the Romans, just to name the prominent examples, were heavily engaged in observational science.

Regardless, I don't see how you can make the generalization that the motives of these people were purely religious. They may have identified culturally with a religion, in many cases it would have been deadly not to do so, but that doesn't require that religion was their motive.

Furthermore, the development of the modern scientific method by Descartes was claimed to be 'inspired by the divine'. — TrespassingAcademia

Descartes appears to have been quite devout, but there is a certain mysticism to his words that demonstrates spiritualism, as opposed to devotion to a religious institution. Again, you must remember that creative people like this were forced to pay lip service to organized religion at that time, or face a wide range of negative consequences up to and including painful execution. Also, Descartes is not the sole creator of the scientific method, and as someone living at the beginning of science's application, he was not the beneficiary of its accumulated results, which demonstrate that the fiction of god is no longer necessary to explain the universe, its processes, or its origins.

The reasons for pursuing science remains based on a dogmatic argument even today. One does not do science for any utilitarian/economic purpose, but instead for the pursuit and understanding of reality. Most of our scientific facts do not have any application beyond satisfying the curiosity and developing the understanding of those who study it. The idea that this is a valid way for humans to spend their time has no argument beyond 'the pursuit of truth' which is an argument deeply rooted in religion. — TrespassingAcademia

There are a host of unsustainable ideas here. MOST science being done today is in pursuit of utilitarian and economic purposes. It is paid for and done by corporations who seek to profit from their discoveries, from mobile phones, to pharmaceuticals, to video games, to space travel, etc. etc. etc. Most of our scientific facts are part of a huge and complex weave of knowledge that allows us to cure disease, send selfies, go to the moon, bake a cake, etc. etc. etc. The facts support that it is a valid way for people in the modern world to spend their time because they are handsomely compensated for doing so.

Even if this were not true, to the extent science is done for simple curiosity about the universe surrounding us, that does not require those scientists to be religious practitioners. Also, your presumption that "pursuit of truth" is religious in nature shows your reliance on dogma here. You are starting with your conclusion and then trying to argue backwards. That is explicitly unscientific, by the way. In other words to equate "truth" or its "pursuit" with "religion", to say that these concepts cannot be severed from one another, is circular dogma. You may believe this, but it is demonstrably not true. There are all sorts of people interested in truth but not interested in religion. More of them every day, in fact, because pursuing the former leads you away from the latter.

Now beyond science, would you say the conclusion that slavery is bad is a shortcoming? Would you say that assumptions like 'murder is bad' and 'don't sleep with your neighbor's wife' do not make life better for mankind? Would you say the ideas of charity and peace do not make life better for humankind? All of these core assumptions, so fundamental to how our society functions today that we forgot we assumed them in the first place, are derived mostly from religion. Even much of our big laws today is derived verbatim from the Jewish laws of 4000 years ago — TrespassingAcademia

The institution of African slavery was created and wholly endorsed by practitioners of Christianity, as were the Crusades and the enthusiastic raping of the American continents upon their discovery. This is where you lose all your supposed moral high ground. The greatest atrocities in human history almost without exception have a religious component to them. There is abundant evidence that religion is responsible for at least as much pain as happiness. You seem to be quite taken with the 10 commandments, here. They are not the first written laws. Murder was clearly wrong long before they were published - even the Old Testament affirms that. You cannot support your idea that charity, peace, or any other generally "good" concept are reliant on religion. They occur in its absence every day. Sometimes because of its absence, particularly with regard to peace. Incidentally, the US legal system is based on the British Common Law, which is decidedly practical in its focus, being disproportionately about property and the equitable treatment thereof. Religion is the realm of the clergy, not the barrister.

In a nutshell, most of your argument seems to rest on the idea that because religion is part of history and science is part of history, they must be connected to one another. That is not logically valid. Religion is a lingering artifact of our past, science is a tool to help us into the future. You may wish to resurrect the past, but I choose to focus on the future.

:clap: :100:

the Egyptians and the Romans,...were,... engaged in observational science. — Pro Hominem

Small point: almost everyone but the Romans? And preceding the Romans by in some cases thousands of years.

religion is part of history and science is part of history, they must be connected to one another. That is not logically valid. — Pro Hominem

Maybe not valid, but a fact. But only in this sense, and expressed here briefly, because expressed elsewhere multiple times. To do science requires consistency. If it falls down here, it's a problem if it falls up there. At a time when god(s) were understood to have arbitrary control over the world, that consistency could be guaranteed only by having one God in authority, and that one a mainly beneficial - and consistent - God. Otherwise there could only be provisional and contingent "house" sciences that could neither communicate with nor cooperate with each other. Most scientists, then, are essentially monotheistic, though the object of their respective beliefs vary from a God, to logos, to law.

religion is part of history and science is part of history, they must be connected to one another. That is not logically valid.
— Pro Hominem

Maybe not valid, but a fact. But only in this sense, and expressed here briefly, because expressed elsewhere multiple times. To do science requires consistency. If it falls down here, it's a problem if it falls up there. At a time when god(s) were understood to have arbitrary control over the world, that consistency could be guaranteed only by having one God in authority, and that one a mainly beneficial - and consistent - God. Otherwise there could only be provisional and contingent "house" sciences that could neither communicate with nor cooperate with each other. Most scientists, then, are essentially monotheistic, though the object of their respective beliefs vary from a God, to logos, to law. — tim wood

This is the God of the gap. God is only "necessary" to the extent one has no way to explain a phenomenon. As a worldview becomes increasingly scientific (reason-based), the formulation of god shifts (diminishes) until it is eventually not "necessary" at all. God is a crutch, created by man, to help him learn to walk on his own. If he doesn't discard the crutch once he can walk, he will never learn to run.

the Egyptians and the Romans,...were,... engaged in observational science.
— Pro Hominem
Small point: almost everyone but the Romans? And preceding the Romans by in some cases thousands of years — tim wood

Look, I was trying to use low-hanging fruit to prove a cursory point. The thread wasn't about history so I didn't want to go very far down this road. Suffice to say that "science" is not dependent on Christianity per se.

I disagree. But now we have to define "god." Science is about the how, not the why. For so long as people ask an unanswerable why, god is as good an answer as any. It
is not gaps so much as acknowledgement. If you have created a God, perhaps in your own image, that you can object to, then that's your own straw man and your own problem.

Suffice to say that "science" is not dependent on Christianity per se. — Pro Hominem

"Is" seems correct, But "was" also seems correct. Whether per se another question, though the history gives it to Christianity.

We're not in any substantial disagreement here. But I think you're being a little too facile with the history.

For so long as people ask an unanswerable why, god is as good an answer as any. — tim wood

In so far as "god" is a/the "mystery" ("of all mysteries" or some such), as an "answer" it's an appeal to ignorance - otherwise, merely begs the question. Also, "the why" of existence presupposes an 'intentional causal agent' that exists prior to any existence at all which is viciously circular (and/or a category mistake). Science seeks the most generalizable, fundamental HOW 'this universe came-to-be ...', that is, an explanation (Deutsch et al) and not an intention or telos (pace Aristotle, Aquinas, et al).

Most scientists, then, are essentially monotheistic ... — tim wood

I don't think so. Natural science is monist contra "monotheism" which presupposes dualism of "spirit & matter" (à la Descartes' "res cogitans" et "res extensa"), "sacred & profane", "supernatural & natural", "one & many", etc ... regardless of all (ad hoc) attempts to reduce the latter "substance" to the former.

:up:

But now we have to define "god." — tim wood

Go ahead. You like to make this term a moving target, so please pin it down for me as you interpret it.

Science is about the how, not the why. For so long as people ask an unanswerable why, god is as good an answer as any. — tim wood

The how is the why. To paraphrase the wisest of all philosophers, master Yoda, "there is no why."

If you have created a God, perhaps in your own image, that you can object to, then that's your own straw man and your own problem. — tim wood

Even if I could take credit for the creation of God, I would not - I wouldn't like to admit to such a crime. I agree that he is a straw man, though. Here again, you use the Christian God as a shield from whatever your own conception is. When one gets into conversations of this sort, yahweh/Jesus is the most common adversary to reason. If you have a straw man of your own design to substitute in his place, go ahead. All the same criticisms will hold true unless your deform your use of the word god to the point that you really just mean something else.

Agreed. Well put.

Even if I could take credit for the creation of God, I would not - I wouldn't like to admit to such a crime. I agree that he is a straw man, though. Here again, you use the Christian God as a shield from whatever your own conception is. When one gets into conversations of this sort, yahweh/Jesus is the most common adversary to reason. If you have a straw man of your own design to substitute in his place, go ahead. All the same criticisms will hold true unless your deform your use of the word god to the point that you really just mean something else. — Pro Hominem

You first, then 180.
You overlook my reference to history. Christianity gave a leg up to science. In no sense am I giving over to anything supernatural; it's just the historical fact. It needn't have been Christianity - but it was. The only salient point here is the utility of the idea of one god over many, as the author of one set of rules instead of many sets of inconsistent rules. This evolution starts - well, maybe not starts - has a significant waypoint in Greek Paganism and the Greek view of nature as imperfect. Which already had the tectonic tensions of Pythagorean number, Aristotelian description, and Plato's ideal (Platonic?) models. But this didn't really resolve until Galileo, and still has not completely resolved. Psychology is barely a science, and mainly descriptive; biology, mainly descriptive.

But what made science a science was the essentially Christian idea, as opposed to the Greek, that God made nature, thus it could not be imperfect, thus it was something definite and a proper subject for science, the task of the scientist to find out not what imperfect nature is approximately, but what perfect nature is in fact and actually. No voodoo/woowoo here, just history. Most scientists - those worth the name who think about the underpinnings of their subjects at all - believe just this: that if it falls down today, it won't fall sideways tomorrow, unless there's a good reason. Logos, law, god - what's the difference when they're all impenetrable beliefs?

The essence of the disagreement I think we'll find here is that you're opposed to answers the grounds or operations of which are inaccessible - or nonexistent. So you say, "No answer," reinforcing it with the invective de jour to undercut any other. The trouble is, is that your answer of "no answer," is subject to the same criticism.

Perhaps I confused matters by saying,

god is as good an answer as any. — tim wood

As good as any, which is not to say good. While some may not like the sound of that answer, that's in part because they don't understand the acoustics and the echo. The answer has an historical basis.

As to there ain't no why, why ain't there no why?

↪180 Proof The essence of the disagreement I think we'll find here is that you're opposed to answers the grounds or operations of which are inaccessible - or nonexistent — tim wood

No. I'm not "opposed" to them because they are not even answers. Avowals, at most, not propositions.

The answer has an historical basis.

So does astrology.

As to there ain't no why, why ain't there no why?

(1) The only answer to the fundamental / ultimate Why that doesn't beg its own question (i.e. precipitate an infinite regress) is There is no fundamental / ultimate Why.

(2) And as I wrote

Also, "the why" of existence presupposes an 'intentional causal agent' that exists prior to any existence at all which is viciously circular (and/or a category mistake). — 180 Proof

In other words, it's a pseudo-question - just Bronze Age woo-woo nonsense which philosophy perennially attempts to exorcize.

You overlook my reference to history. Christianity gave a leg up to science. In no sense am I giving over to anything supernatural; it's just the historical fact. It needn't have been Christianity - but it was. The only salient point here is the utility of the idea of one god over many, as the author of one set of rules instead of many sets of inconsistent rules. This evolution starts - well, maybe not starts - has a significant waypoint in Greek Paganism and the Greek view of nature as imperfect. Which already had the tectonic tensions of Pythagorean number, Aristotelian description, and Plato's ideal (Platonic?) models. But this didn't really resolve until Galileo, and still has not completely resolved. Psychology is barely a science, and mainly descriptive; biology, mainly descriptive. — tim wood

If you want me to say that Christianity was one of the voices in the historical "conversation" that led to a rational-scientific worldview, fine. Done. I don't think it's as influential as the the Greek contribution, given that Christianity spent 1000 years more or less sitting in its own waste before the "re-discovery" of Greek thought allowed progress to continue on. Still, its relative importance is probably just a matter of opinion and we won't get anywhere discussing it.

But what made science a science was the essentially Christian idea, as opposed to the Greek, that God made nature, thus it could not be imperfect, thus it was something definite and a proper subject for science, the task of the scientist to find out not what imperfect nature is approximately, but what perfect nature is in fact and actually. No voodoo/woowoo here, just history. — tim wood

Did monotheism contribute to the formulation of the universe as a rational place that could be studied and understood? Maybe. I don't think that case is as clear as you're making it here. I repeat that I think Greek principles of logic and reasoning are a bigger factor. Especially since Christianity doesn't seem to espouse that view very clearly at any point, given the acceptance of God's frequent failure to follow the rules (miracles and such). You also have the Christian penchant to burn anyone that suggested the world was most reliably understood using our faculty of reason and observation as opposed to taking church doctrine as incontrovertible. Christians were still actively afraid of the presence of witches among them until about 200 years ago, and a disturbingly high number of them believe in angels even today. So Christianity as the bedrock upon which all science is based? Not sold on that at all.

Your view is going to keep bringing you back to the God of the gap as your best case scenario. People hung onto God as long as they needed him, and the progress of science continually diminishes that need because a universe inhabited by an all-powerful magic ghost and a rational universe are mutually exclusive.

Most scientists - those worth the name who think about the underpinnings of their subjects at all - believe just this: that if it falls down today, it won't fall sideways tomorrow, unless there's a good reason. Logos, law, god - what's the difference when they're all impenetrable beliefs? — tim wood

So taken at face value, this statement makes me think that you actually believe in a vast, impersonal, materialistic universe governed by physical laws, but you've just decided to call that god for some reason. I'm surprised no one has told you this before, but that's not what the word is used to signify to basically anyone else. Why cloud the issue with a such a loaded and counterintuitive word?

@tim wood

Also, all of this.

↪180 Proof The essence of the disagreement I think we'll find here is that you're opposed to answers the grounds or operations of which are inaccessible - or nonexistent
— tim wood
No. I'm not "opposed" to them because they are not even answers. Avowals, at most, not propositions.

The answer has an historical basis.
So does astrology.

As to there ain't no why, why ain't there no why?
(1) The only answer to the fundamental / ultimate Why that doesn't beg its own question (i.e. precipitate an infinite regress) is There is no fundamental / ultimate Why.

(2) And as I wrote

Also, "the why" of existence presupposes an 'intentional causal agent' that exists prior to any existence at all which is viciously circular (and/or a category mistake).
— 180 Proof
In other words, it's a pseudo-question - just Bronze Age woo-woo nonsense which philosophy perennially attempts to exorcize — 180 Proof