What caused the Universe?

[Dave-W]

Sounds suspiciously similar to "abracadabra" *POOF*

I am sure it would to you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am sure it would to you.

No, literally and objectively.

"saying a few words" followed by "stuff happening" in a cause/effect relationship.

It doesn't get more "abracadabra"-like then that, other then that the words being said are in fact "abracadabra".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly. The existence of God, like all decently crafted theological propositions, is unfalsifiable.

If you would change the word "decently" into "fallaciously" or "dishonestly", I'ld agree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Based on the available evidence? We don't know.

From a theological position of ultimate cosmic origins? Christians confess that God is the creator of all things "both seen and unseen" and thus the very existence of anything is attributed to the creative act of God.

I'm not suggesting a God-of-the-gaps here, that "We don't know, therefore God"; but rather that the answer to the question can be two things: 1. the scientific answer, which is at present "we don't know" and 2. the theological confession, which is that God is the maker of all things. And should 1 ever have an answer it is not in opposition to 2, nor does 2 necessarily give an answer to 1--the places of science and theology are different.

-CryptoLutheran

Let's consider the origins of lightning.
At some point in history, the "scientific answer" was "we don't know", while the "theological" answer was "jupiter/zeus/thor creates lightning".

But when the scientific answer was found, it pretty much ruled out the theological one.


If the theological "answer" however, is defined in such a way that it remains completely untouched after the actual scientific answer has been found, then one can question the value, merrit and usefullness of the "theological answer".

Or indeed how to distinguish it from the non-existant.
If believing/accepting the "theological answer" literally changes nothing about your understanding of reality or a specific aspect thereof, if it literally makes no difference at all if you accept the theological answer or not in contexts of merrit, usefullness, understanding, applications, what-have-you,.... then how does it even qualify as an "answer" of any type at all?

 

[Dave-W]

No, literally and objectively.
"saying a few words" followed by "stuff happening" in a cause/effect relationship.
It doesn't get more "abracadabra"-like then that, other then that the words being said are in fact "abracadabra".

What I am saying is that "abracadabra" is nothing more than a cheap knock-off of the real thing; and since you list yourself as "atheist," you would not see the difference.

 

[Speedwell]

If you would change the word "decently" into "fallaciously" or "dishonestly", I'ld agree.

No, it's the people who want their theological propositions to be falsifiable, provable with "science" so they can shove their own particular god up our noses that are "fallacious" and "dishonest."

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let's consider the origins of lightning.
At some point in history, the "scientific answer" was "we don't know", while the "theological" answer was "jupiter/zeus/thor creates lightning".

But when the scientific answer was found, it pretty much ruled out the theological one.


If the theological "answer" however, is defined in such a way that it remains completely untouched after the actual scientific answer has been found, then one can question the value, merrit and usefullness of the "theological answer".

Or indeed how to distinguish it from the non-existant.
If believing/accepting the "theological answer" literally changes nothing about your understanding of reality or a specific aspect thereof, if it literally makes no difference at all if you accept the theological answer or not in contexts of merrit, usefullness, understanding, applications, what-have-you,.... then how does it even qualify as an "answer" of any type at all?

This presumes that the only meaningful answer is one which has a usefulness or application in regard to scientific explanatory power; science deals hypotheses and theories with explanatory power in order to make testable predictions. The theological is not to answer how the universe operates--that's for science. "I believe in God" is not an answer as to why lightning happens, or the cause of hurricanes and typhoons, or to the motion of the stars; for those of us who have faith it is about the larger question of meaning and purpose of existence itself. It provides certain valuations, such as that something is better than nothing--not merely because it is beneficial to us as things which exist that we exist, but that existence is itself an objectively good thing because, for those of us who believe in the God which we believe in, is the good creator God who invests intrinsic goodness and value into the universe and, we ourselves, as members of that universe have an innate divinely-granted value and, therefore, also a purpose within the universe to be bearers of God's image (e.g. "in the image of God He created them"). And this is not something in and of itself, but is connected with the entirety of Christianity's religious and theological narrative of creation, redemption, and ultimate purpose. It's a fundamentally different way of approaching the universe than the scientific approach--the point I try to make is that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive or in competition.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it's the people who want their theological propositions to be falsifiable, provable with "science" so they can shove their own particular god up our noses that are "fallacious" and "dishonest."

I want all my positions to be falsifiable.

Because unfalsifiable positions aren't reasonable, or intellectually honest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This presumes that the only meaningful answer is one which has a usefulness or application in regard to scientific explanatory power; science deals hypotheses and theories with explanatory power in order to make testable predictions. The theological is not to answer how the universe operates--that's for science. "I believe in God" is not an answer as to why lightning happens, or the cause of hurricanes and typhoons, or to the motion of the stars; for those of us who have faith it is about the larger question of meaning and purpose of existence itself.

This seems to me to be quite different from your previous talk about "theological answer" concerning the thread topic: "what caused the universe?".

Also note that saying "Thor creates lightning" is not an attempt at explaining how that happens, either.

But when science uncovered how it actually happens, it simultanously showed that Thor, or any other deity, had nothing to do with it.

I don't see why the question concerning the origins of the universe, should be any different.

It provides certain valuations, such as that something is better than nothing--not merely because it is beneficial to us as things which exist that we exist, but that existence is itself an objectively good thing because, for those of us who believe in the God which we believe in, is the good creator God who invests intrinsic goodness and value into the universe and, we ourselves, as members of that universe have an innate divinely-granted value and, therefore, also a purpose within the universe to be bearers of God's image (e.g. "in the image of God He created them").

That sounds incredibly circular.

And this is not something in and of itself, but is connected with the entirety of Christianity's religious and theological narrative of creation, redemption, and ultimate purpose. It's a fundamentally different way of approaching the universe than the scientific approach--

You certainly can say that again, that it is fundamentally a different approach.
How does one validate that approach and its results? Because it sounds like you want to validate these beliefs with the beliefs themselves.

Ie: "existance is good because god is good, and god is good because I believe he is"

 

[AV1611VET]

No I'm Genesis Khan! And so's my wife!

Then I'm Napoleon.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every religion has had or still has situations where the followers were persecuted for their beliefs.

Christianity is no exception.

Can you tell the difference between butter and margarine just by tasting it?

 

[AV1611VET]

I want all my positions to be falsifiable.

Because unfalsifiable positions aren't reasonable, or intellectually honest.

So much for DNA testing then.

 

[victorinus]

If you know what caused the universe, tell us what caused it, and how you know you are right.

don't you mean what created it?
-
The Creator
-
how do I know I am right?
-
somebody had to create it
-
do you need an explanation for that?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Then I'm Napoleon.

That's odd, your avatar does not look like napolean.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's odd, your avatar does not look like napolean.

His avatar, when viewed while reading his replies, is perfect.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's odd, your avatar does not look like napolean.

And yours doesn't look like a doubter.

A thinker ... yes.

A doubter ... no.

 

[MasonP]

Someone doesn't understand the art of amanuensis, does he?

Is amanuensis the art of telling lies so people believe them?

 

[HitchSlap]

And yours doesn't look like a doubter.

A thinker ... yes.

A doubter ... no.

Thinking leads to skepticism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So much for DNA testing then.

random comment is random

 

[quatona]

don't you mean what created it?
-
The Creator
-
how do I know I am right?
-
somebody had to create it
-
do you need an explanation for that?

Yes, please.