romansh

This reminded me of Hitchens' observation that being offended is not an argument: Where might we stand on Hitchens' observation? I don't know what and how many words might be considered offensive. The strange thing is we have self censored so that Paul won't be able to us. On another forum, we weren't allowed to snigger for sort of obvious reasons. But human beings can be a little strange. Thoughts?

I just tried writing the word ^^^^^ cat (puzzy cat) and your prudish political correctness word filter won't let me.

I must admit I read David a little differently. (From my perspective) He thinks he has found some valuable truth, which is fair enough. And he wants to share it, which is also fair enough. But he is not willing to have his "truth" tested. I think that might be true for all of us to some degree. The trick is to be "pushy" without being overbearing. Sometimes I stray and that too is OK.

Welcome Jim ... I don't think you'll encounter a problem here. I think I might be the longest lasting member here that might be considered "pushy". And I'm a pussycat really Welcome again. rom

Agree completely ... the questions are formulated poorly. I was cooler than you ... more of a teal (blue), a similar level of functionality, but less scientism than you (surprising). But the questions require a fair degree of interpolation.

Just for laughs .... I will add it to my list of things to blog about Theos Science & Religion Compass (sciencereligioncompass.org)

You of course are absolutely right. I got caught up in the idiom. Apologies.

Derek ... it is not fair to quote people to prove a point.

Merry Christmas to the regulars and passers-by. Definitely getting more than our usual amount of snow so far.

Another bit of Minchin ... not quite spiritual ... but could be:

Asking pointless why questions may well be our dharma. Persisting and still not knowing that too could be our dharma. Our dharmas help hold the universe in shape. This pointless Why? has shaped our bit of the universe. I can't help but smile. Merry Christmas Derek.

If your twist were true we would be discussing: The Grand Design Hawking and Mlodinow ✔️ A Universe from Nothing Laurence Krauss The Big Picture Sean Carroll ✔️ Until the End of Time Brian Greene Einstein's Unfinished Revolution Lee Smolin ✔️ The Elegant Universe Brian Greene The Theory of Almost Everything Robert Oerter The Fallacy of Fine Tuning Victor Stenger To be fair these books are not easy and won't answer the Why? that you are looking for. I have put some ticks for the ones I would start with. This is purely a semantic issue. This more to life should we ever find will be natural by definition. I would argue, we just need to reconnect to the universe (not just one another). Not that we could ever disconnect from the universe. And of course, the word religion comes from the Latin for reconnect.

We largely do Again I will go to my stand-by fairies under the garden shed hypothesis. Of course it is nonsense, but how much time and effort should we spend on this nonsense? You imply we shouldn't not hypothesize. I sort of agree. But hypothesis has a technical meaning ... hypotheses are based on evidence. Avogadro's hypothesis was based on evidence and it pulled together earlier gas laws. What is the God hypothesis? What is the evidence for this hypothesis? Personally, I am certain that there is more to our existence than meets the eye. God arguments seem to be quite often an argument from incredulity ... I can't see how there can be a universe without a God type thing. Can you list the possible reasons (for you) to consider the possibility of God? For me ... the ignostic part of me does not have a clue what realistically God means; so, until we can define some properties of this God entity the whole exercise seems pointless. Sherwin Wine had a point (Wiki) I think: Wine coined the word ignosticism. It is the view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. And a quote from my favourite author: Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

I understand it might belong to the Abrahamic set. In the sense, if we assign properties to this God, I agree with you. The same the Michelson Morley experiment tested for the luminiferous ether. But in our collective understanding, there is no need to postulate a 'creator' or whatever. The way I am reading this is: We can't rule out whatever we don't have a clue about. Now by definition, I am agnostic (or even atheistic) about Gods I have not dreamt up yet. But I don't see a need to go out and bat for what I haven't dreamt of yet. If people were to argue they feel they have a purpose or even think there is a purpose then there is no argument there from me. Just an opinion? Trump was a good president is an opinion. Not all opinions are equal. Some opinions have foundations built on sand and some on rock. What can you prove Paul? All we can do is provide corroborating evidence and go where the evidence takes us.

I'm not sure you do Derek.

It was not me you were putting in a box.

And he has gained infinite mass and sucked up all the energy and then some.

Agree 100 %. Isn't God by definition "not testable"? If such an entity were testable it would not bear the label of God. Yep. But I would also repeat the question why is nothing our default state? In Hawking's and Mlodinow's The Grand Design ... they believe they have a sufficient understanding of where everything comes from and that there is no need to invoke a God. While I agree with them there is no need to invoke a God, where everything comes from is beyond my understanding. And what scientific texts have we read on this subject?

OK ... first, things we find significant ... we may have an affinity for or perhaps an aversion to. Going nowhere? Perhaps simply neutral on the subject. Questions we might ask include why is nothing our default state? Does postulating something that is not testable by definition get us anywhere? The three-year-old asking Who made God? sees right through the charade.

It's OK at some point to say I don't know Paul. And collectively we can have fun trying to find out. We don't need to hypothesize fairies under my garden shed though and claim they are doing it.

Which why? are you referring to Paul ... what causes these certain configurations or what is the purpose? The problem with answering the cause of the configurations will quite naturally lead to other questions. I am sure I have posted this before ... Feynman is far more eloquent than I am when it comes to why?

You appear to see what I see as simple.

I think science has a similar concept to apophatic theology. Science proposes a hypothesis and tests it to death. If it survives, then we call it a law or a fact. Over time the law might fray at the edges and more study is necessary. Apophatic theology seems to say we can't know God, science might say we can't know the ultimate truth. To me, it seems reasonable to assume there is a truth, ultimate or otherwise. God less so.

Atoms and molecules have affinities for certain configurations. Atoms generally 'like' full orbitals and some molecular structures are 'preferred. Similarly, Biology has certain stable ecologies which depend on the environment. Speaking from a stability point of view non-life is where it is at? Life is, if we like, an aberration in death. My affinity is to enjoy it whilst it lasts. What has significance or God for that matter, to do with anything?

While nothing wrong with this line of thought, it does seem in contradiction with Joseph's post above about the "right way" 18 Aug 2019. Apophatic theology anyone? What god isn't? Could take a long time to get there.