DBT
Contributor
Not according to the descriptions given in the bible. Which is claimed by some to be inspired by the God of Abraham...
-
Features
God and the nature of the Universe
- Thread starter Cheerful Charlie
- Start date
Not according to the descriptions given in the bible. Which is claimed by some to be inspired by the God of Abraham...
This doesnt make sense. What unknown force?
Learner
Veteran Member
So I am assuming you mean according to the discriptions by the laws of the universe this would contradict the God of the bible.
I was merely asking what I would personally believe to be a possibiltiy .
DBT
Contributor
No, the bible gives descriptions of its God, therefore the God of the bible is not an 'unknown source'
It is claimed to be Yahweh the God of Israel, who is the 'Creator of Heaven and Earth' and not some unknown force or the rules and principles of physics that is the agency of creation.
Learner
Veteran Member
Ok DBT understood. I will refer to the claim and say that the OP question of why the nature of the universe is the way it is, IS because the very exitstence and life requires 'mechanistic laws' that is seemingly logical with the proposition that all things were born from an intention. My interpretation meaning creator.
Still doesnt make sense. The point is that current physics shows that there are no "unknown forces" that affects us on a every day scale and thus necessary for a god to exist.
Learner
Veteran Member
Currently we can only 'observe' the effects of how physical matter behaves. What is still 'unknown' is the forces that 'instructs' all physical things to do what they do. Where is that 'coding or the driving DNA of the universe , these behaviorable effects caused by some directive guide still being invisible to us ?
Thomas II
Contributor
Good question. Could you name or describe these laws of nature you talk about, and maybe we can figure out where they "come from"?
Learner
Veteran Member
Yes Thomas II it is interesting . If we do ever figure this out further than current experts (who ever they are) in their repective fields but stumped at this very hurdle. We / the freethought forum would be contender favorites for the Nobel peace prize (or Preachers of God).
My take is that 'Natural law' that we know of, is itself the very implication of an intentional purpose.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Purpose. Teleology. The problem here is that science does not see teleology in nature. Dawkin's Blind Watchmaker.
In the 13th century, William of Okham stated that things work as they do in nature because of secondary causes. God created the world, created his laws and only rarely intervenes with miracles. God does not do everything by a series of miracles. This of course was very much the basis of Descarte's philosophy. Science was about understanding these secondary causes. God's rules of the Universe. And so thought Newton.
But once you admit secondary causes vs a series of miracles, skeptics could contend that these "secondary causes" were all that there is, God does not exist or have anything to do with it. An idea the Greek philosopher Strato of Lampsuchus stated long ago. Nature is all there is.
My original post examined the idea that if God created the rules and laws of the Universe, was good and cared about us, we should see a far different Universe than we live in. A Universe with no moral evil, where mankind freely chooses to never do moral evil, such as God enjoys a good nature and free will.
Now to explain why this perfect Universe does not exist.
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Those forces that instruct all physical things to do what they do isn't unknown. We know them well as gravity, electromagnetic, the strong nuclear, and the weak nuclear forces. These forces explain (and predict) how (or why) "thing do what they do".
AHA. then you are proposing some intent. If anyone ever demonstrates that things do what they do because of intent or plan then science will really be excited because it would give them something new to study.
Learner
Veteran Member
There is a problem also with the phrase 'Nature is all there is' if we are to go by the example of Dawkins idea that there is a 3rd option other than the Creation or Chance propositions. How can there be 3 options? There can only be Creation or Chance- a yes or no. He has only seperated 'Natural Selection' from one of the two original known options. Iy seems more likely from the Creation option because 'Natural selection' is a conformity to universal laws and keeps existing other than the idea of chance and still lucky and remaining.
Will come back to you on that and Skeps.
(Have to take aunt home)
Learner
Veteran Member
According to the biblical notion discussed, this did happen although it was quite short lived, meaning it would have been possible if not for the tempted over zealous Adam. It comes round again for a 2nd pop at the perfect universe/world. This time with the 'last Adam' known as Jesus, who says this world will pass and a new one will come.
Learner
Veteran Member
True and I agree. I was trying to point out the frabic of these forces are unknown or so I thought. There is the discovery apparently of the elusive gravitational wave. Dark matter for example has been undetectable,last time I heard.(perhaps there are updates now).
I believe there are some who are studying this but yes not quite universal in the science community.
You do not seem to understand how science works.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
The problem with the original sin nonsense is that if that creates so much moral evil, why does this all powerful and perfectly good God allow original sin to keep destroying our free will and causing this moral evil? It makes no sense at all. Original sin is not to be found in Genesis. It was a "gotcha" invented by Paul.
In the end, Original sin creates more theological problems than it solves.
And back to Descarte's claims of God's total omnipotence, if God is truly omnipotent to that degree, there can be no hidden reasons God must tolerate that sort of evil. If not, then there is an entire naturalism outside of God that limits God. What is it and where does it come from? We establish naturalism and can safely question the existence of God whose existence is unproven. Naturalism explains why things are the way they are, no God needed.
Learner
Veteran Member
Ok fair enough. Would you agree at least that science does not understand why the universe works the way it does?
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
In some cases science does. Science understand chemistry, evolution, how stars for and much more. Science works. That science has not yet had time to explain everything is no problem for science. We will be figuring out the Universe for centuries to come, but science will continue to figure things out.
Learner
Veteran Member
What can I say CC, other than how different in this regard we see things.
Learner
Veteran Member
I agree that theres more to come and no doubt there would be newer physics and understanding beyond the obvious observations to finding things out.
Remember the 'double slit experiment?' Scientists couldn't get beyond a particular phase when trying to monitor up close the behaviour of the electrons. Everytime they tried, it was said that there must be an interference somehow by the person conducting the experiment.
An easier answer (religious) is ; Man is not supposed to know.
