My Beliefs- GDR

That is what science does so well. It can't tell us though whether the laws that allow for the interaction of molecules or for the law of gravity causing the stone to roll down hill required the intelligent tinkerer in the first place. I agree that it is not the greatest analogy but at the same time "natural law" had to come into existence and there is a coherence there that, at least in my mind, that suggests there was thought involved in that coherence. I did provide reasons for my belief in the OP.

That is a really good point. The Bible tells us that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I have just sort of run with that without putting a lot of thought to it. I have always put it in terms of "first cause" but in light of what you say I think that is the wrong way to look at it, which I think is closer to what science would suggest.If what I have speculated about is anywhere close to the truth then the universe wasn't created at all. It just always existed but as part of something greater than the 4D universe that we perceive.In one sense using the term "first cause" is correct in that I am talking about a first cause for the universe as we perceive it, but the problem is that it also implies the idea of creation from a previous nothing.What I should be talking about is God who is the intelligence that is responsible for our existence in the way that we perceive it. We are at present created beings who "see through a glass darkly" only perceiving a limited part of the total reality with our 5 senses. The first part of that sentence really helped me to think my previous paragraph through in understanding that we really don't need a creative intelligence for our universe to exist if it always existed. Thank you.The fact still remains, (from my POV both scientifically and theologically), that we only perceive a part of the whole. I agree that I am taking theological answers from that that aren't scientific, but they are just theories that can be adjusted as we learn more. That article I quoted essentially talks about time being dependant on our consciousness which exists externally to our 4D universe. That doesn't have to be true, but it does open up ideas of how we could connect with God in ways that aren't directly perceivable to us. I agree that we don't have direct evidence of a higher intelligence but I do believe we have reasons to come to that conclusion. There is the argument of how finely tuned the universe is; the idea that an idea is real but not physical, the fact that we perceive beauty, joy, compassion etc, and even the the fact that human minds of been able to unlock so many hidden scientific truths about our existence. I find the argument convincing - however it seems you a little less so.

In your mind. When a subjective opinion disagrees with objective conclusions, is it "rational"?Natural law didn't "have to come into existence" any more than a pile of sand has to come into existence. The pile is the natural shape of a quantity of sand. There are various forces at work which cause sand to form piles. Any "coherence" in the pile is a figment of the imagination. It doesn't require an intellgent piler.

No, and I haven't done that. Sure, but we can understand the forces that formed the sand. We can't say that about natural laws.Actually, if you read my last post to Straggler you can see that his post caused me to change my view somewhat. If we are indeed an emergent property from a greater reality, and if that greater reality experiences time or change in such a way that it is eternal, then that could mean that our natural laws are also eternal thus not requiring a first cause.

Like the creationists, you keep saying "can't" when you should be saying "don't". If we don't understand something yet, it doesn't mean we can't understand it ever.What you can't do, as far as I can tell, is point to a fundamental dfference between putting an intelligent designer under the microscope and putting a grain of sand under the microscope.

Ya I know....science of the gaps. The grain of sand is directly perceivable and the intelligent designer isn't.

The difference is that science is advancing into the gaps while religion is retreating into the gaps. If the designer isn't perceivable, you can't rationally conclude that he exists.

I disagree with that. I would say that both are advancing into the gaps. My personal view which is far from unique is that science is essentially a natural theology. As science advances our knowledge of the world I as a theist continue to be amazed at the wonder of our existence. Of course I can. I can't objectively know but I can subjectively conclude that he does.

Then you don't seem to understand the God of the Gaps idea. The gaps, by definition, are the areas where religion has not been proven wrong (yet). They are a dwindling set of last resorts, not a desired goal. And subjective conclusions are often, if maybe not always, non-rational. There is no reason why I like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla. It's just an opinion.I suspected that you were using a much looser definition of "rational" than I do. You seem to consider rational to be nothing more than self-consistent. If an idea doean't contradict itself, you call it rational.I would like to raise rationality closer to the level of objectivity. If you can't convince others that your ideas are reasonable, I wouldn't consider them strictly rational.

But I do. You don’t understand the point I was making. There are only gaps when we understand the holy books of any faith to be inerrant and then understood to provide scientific information. My theistic beliefs when boiled down to their essence are that our existence is the result of a greater intelligence that is not directly perceivable to us and that this intelligence is perfectly loving and perfectly just. I am a Christian so I refer to that greater intelligence as God. I also believe that God has created us to image His love to the world. Those beliefs are all taken on faith. Tell me how science can either prove or disprove those beliefs.What makes me a Christian is belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The belief that Jesus was resurrected into a new bodily form, which is a precursor of what God will do for all creation when time as we know it comes to an end is something else that science can’t investigate. The resurrection of Jesus as per the Christian faith is a onetime only event in the middle of history. Science can say that we have no evidence for such an occurrence or it can say that no matter how hard we try we can’t replicate it. As a Christian I agree that there is no empirical evidence to support the claim and that it is a matter of faith, and so again it isn’t a gap as it is something if it happened is contrary to natural law.I mentioned that I see science as a natural theology as it is through scientific study, not the study of any holy book, that we learn how it was that God brought life into existence, so as far as I’m concerned when science makes a new discovery it is in some way both a scientific and theological advance.There is also another way that I see science as theology. The Christian belief is that at the end of time God will renew all creation including our planet and in that renewal bring about perfect healing for all in the same manner that He did with Jesus at the resurrection. IMHO the healings that God brought about through Jesus are a foreshadowing of the full renewal of all things. Science has been responsible for advancements that have almost miraculously brought healing to millions. Those healings too are a foretaste of God’s renewal.That is what I meant by both science and theology advancing into the gaps. But that isn’t a reasonable argument. My beliefs can only be reasonable if we as a pre-condition accept the possibility of God. If one holds to a strictly materialistic belief then it is impossible to view my views as reasonable. The views that I hold are also the views of many highly intelligent individuals including many very highly intelligent scientists which I don’t maintain proves them, but it does indicate a degree of reasonableness and/or rationality.

As I said before, if you left your beliefs as just beliefs, you wouldn't get much argument. It's only when you try to present your beliefs as reasonable that you are confronted with reasoning. The lack of empirical evidence is the gap. The God of the Gaps supposedly controls all of those things that our empirical knowledge doesn't explain. Your God, who operates outside what we understand - not necessarily outside what we can ever understand - is by definition the God of the Gaps. And the gaps that He inhabits are constantly dwindling.Theology is constantly retreating from science. It wouldn't have to if it didn't pretend to be reasonable. That's my point exactly. Your beliefs are only "reasonable" to people who agree with your beliefs - which isn't reasonable.

You can keep asserting this but if you actually read what I wrote it would help. My theology does not retreat science it advances with science. Science examines that which is in one way or another perceivable by us. Your argument rules out any position except for a completely materialist world view, and then calls every other position unreasonable. If that's how you want to define reasonable that's ok by me but don't expect me to agree. .....which is true for people who agree with your beliefs, that only your beliefs are reasonable.

You can call it an advance to the rear if you like but it's still in the opposite direction from science's advance. You say that God must do A and science shows that A doesn't require God's intervention. Then you admit that God doesn't do A but He must still do B. Then Science shows that B doesn't require God's intervention either and you say okay but God must stll do C. You may never run out of gaps but you're still hiding in them, not helping to fill them in. The only position that I'm calling unreasonable is the one that presents beliefs as reasons. Reasons have to be attached to something; they're not in free fall like opinions. If your "reasons" are not attached to something materially perceivable, what are they attached to? What distinguishes them from any other unsupported beliefs, like belief in the Tooth Fairy? Nonsense. I haven't expressed any beliefs. I'm only talking about ideas that are supported by objectively observable facts.

Instead of saying "A" why don't you give an example of what I am claiming that God does where science can close the gap. I agree we have natural laws that function without intervention. Even if science finds a way that those natural laws evolved it still will not tell us whether or not the natural process that produced our natural laws originated from an existing intelligence. (It's turtles all the way down. ) If you go back to the OP I presented the reasoning for my beliefs. Obviously you can reject my reasons but I did present a rationale for my beliefs. Do you or do you not "believe" that my beliefs are wrong?

In my opinion, God(Creator of all seen and unseen) will always be beyond human understanding. We could ask the question as to whether God and/or Jesus would ever be better understood through science alone.