God's purpose

Sure sounds like a belief in "Science of the Gaps" to me.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Aside from "why anything exists instead of nothing" wouldn't any spiritual involvement have an impact in the physical world.For example Mother Theresa believed that God led her spiritually to do what she did and I'd say that by God working through her He made quite an impact on the physical world.You may not accept that as truth but the fact still remains that adherents such as myself believe that God has an enormous impact on the physical world by His influencing the actions of the people in it.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

LOL!!
I would not necessarily totally disagree with you!! My "faith" in the power of science in displacing religion I would claim has historical evidence to support it but....who knows what will actually happen in the long term.

I think it is straw-gaps you are filling. The founding fathers of science believed the universe was the product of a logical, ordered Creator and that a logical, ordered approach was the way in which they could understand how what he created worked. They recognised the difference between the created and the creator. The gap-fillers of today seem not to. They seem to cherish the idea of a conflict of between Faith and Science which doesn't have to exist (at least not in the minds of people of faith.That an answer is "adequately answered" leaves out the fact they are tentitive. That something might well come along and blow this adequate answer out of the water. A tentitive gap filler which can burst open and allow the latest adeqate answer..er...flood in is only adequate in so far as one allows themselves to suppose adequate = iron clad.That is the trouble with so much of what you say. Your concrete talk is the talk of philosopher - not a scientist "First there was nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing at all) and then there was a quantum flutter and before you know it the cosmologists are off, pulling galaxy after galaxy out of their quantum hats" is an amusing take I read once. I don't see any reason to suppose someone providing answers to these mysteries anytime at all - never mind soon.As to abiogenesis. There may well be conflict in the future. But a straw=conflict of materialist making. Man might well apply his intelligence and come up with some self-replicating RNA at some point. And if he does, folk like yourself will leap in with another gap filler. As if it were one. They will state that life could have arisen in primordial soup without knowing the conditions that supposedly existed were. What they will have done is use vast amounts of human intelligence to manufacture a copy of something that already exists. They will have broken the mechanism down to its constituent parts and build them back up again. Man will have "created" life - not blind chance. If that ever happens...Edited by iano, : No reason given.

If people choose to do physical things on the basis of their belief in a God of some sort then as you rightly observe their actions will have a physical impact.
However this is very different from that which I am arguing regards religion claiming direct intervention in the physical world from supernatural entities of any sort.
Physical phenomenon that are the product of human action are exactly that. Whatever reason the person in question gives for those actions.If people believe God told them to do something then I will probably think they are mad but science will not be able to verify one way or the other (hmmmmm well maybe comparing brain scans of those who have religious experiences and comparing them to those suffering hallucinations might tell us something one day........)What you describe is not a "physical role" for God in any way that I am referring to.

Science is "tentative" in the sense that any theory must be open to being superseded by a superior theory. Of course. That is why it has proved so powerful. However you are talking theoretically where I make my claim on a long history of empirical evidence of science effectively replacing religious belief of one form or another.Can you give me an actual example of any "adequately explained" physical phenomenon to which religion still makes any claim (you decide what adequately explained means)? Gotta let my hair down sometimes. Is that not what these forums are all aboutAs for your assertions that we have reached the limit of our understanding regards the formation of the universe - The same was famously said about the formation and constitution of the stars. Not to mention the Big Bang itself. History is against you once again. We will see. I only hope significant steps towards this understanding occur in my lifetime.
You sound like you are preparing your excuses for human led abiogenesis already!! Is it not conceivable that abiogenesis in natural environments could one day be observed/detected? In extreme locations on this planet or maybe very far from here. Admittedly we may not be around for that one!!
With your attitude to these great questions we might as well stop all such research. Thankfully this attitude tends not to be widespread amongst scientists. If it were so, much of the knowledge we have would be missing.For someone who does not believe in a God of the gaps you seem all too keen to retain the gaps that remain?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Let's talk for a moment about miracles. Some folk do not believe in them, others do. I happen to believe in miracles, and firmly believe I have experienced them.The next step might be to try to confirm them. Or it might be to simply accept that they happened and move on.Now none of the miracles I have experienced have been big things, impossible things, things that could not be explained by natural causes. But after I consider those natural causes that I can imagine, none of them seem likely. The most likely of the natural causes I can think of is simple coincidence but if that is all it is, it has been my fortune to have coincidence strike several times at very appropriate moments.So personally, I accept them as miracles, thank GOD for them and just move on.There are things that happen to folk all the time. Particular good luck. A close call or near accident. The sudden insight. The unexpected call. Pennies from heaven.In my life there have been many such incidents, the little voice inside me that seems to give me advice (usually telling me to shut up or that I just screwed up though), the call from an old friend just when I happened to be thinking of her.Not one has been worthy of much effort to resolve. None would ever convince anyone else that there were miracles.Not one of the things really defied natural laws. They could all be the result of coincidence, misinterpretation, self confirmation, just dumb luck.Yup. They could have all been just that.Or maybe my friend, my guide, my mentor helping me out.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

GDR mentions a powerful role for God with the example of Mother Theresa. This role impacts the physical world, as GDR observes, and makes a profound difference in the lives of human beings.This role for God is the one biblical literalists do not hold in enough esteem. This is what they overlook when they fear nothing (important) will be left of their religion after science crowds it out of the world of material explanations.This role for God deserves more consideration. For one thing, it can't be crowded out of science's equation. It is not in the equation anyway. It is too big.Science can tell you what hunger is and how best to alleviate its devastation. But it cannot give you the resolve to do something. That comes from another place. We call it by different names--character, integrity, ethics, morality, compassion, righteousness. Whatever word we use, we do not call that place 'science.' It is a personal realm.Christians should be able to trust this place because Jesus lived in it and spoke from it: The Beatitudes, the parables, the talk of laying up 'treasures in heaven' rather than earth. Christians who find this place do not need pseudoscience and do not lose amything by letting science do its work. They are more 'on message' than ever.Straggler may not have a use for this God-role in his discussion, but plenty of people have a use for it in their lives. It deserves more consideration from biblical materialists who dread losing ground in the world of natural explanations. They may be losing nothing for their faith at all.What doth it profit a man if he lose his flood hypotheses but gain his own soul?Much._Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Concision.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Special creation. What I am faced with is assuming one of two positons: either taking the sum total of all the evidence that is assembled in the ToE and go with that or taking the sum total of the evidence which is assembled in the Bible and going with that. The latter is far more compelling. Yours is a necessarily tentitive and one which can only examine things from the viewpoint of the empirical. My is position doesn't have to declare itself tentitive nor am I limited in the same way. I can compare one with the other in forming a conclusion.You are drawing a conclusion from the only evidence available to you so I don't blame you for that. But its the weakness inherent within your own view (tentiveness) and the failure to allow for that which you don't know about which makes your concreteness inappropriate.Adequate explaination is not confined to empiricism. Human-led abiogenesis is a contradiction in terms my friend. Abiogenesis (in the sense of removing Gods purpose) needs to be spontaneous - not the creation of the finest scientific minds on earth. There is no need to stop research nor any need not to investigate how the world works. We keep on expanding the balloon and at the outermost reaches remains as much mystery as there ever was when the balloon was smaller. Many of the gaps you suppose closed have in fact been the result of mans thinking (man turning the Bible into a science text). This does not impinge at all on God.There is notion inherent in your words that suppose we are just on the point of arrival at a final destination. Let me ask you this. What proportion of all there to be known do we already know? For if we knew that then we could see how many gaps there are to be filled and would be able to suppose that people like me are clinging to the last few remaining.

Iano argues that science means tentative answers but religion means certainty. You seem to be suggesting this, Iano, as a recommendation of religion as a source of answers.The argument is a non-starter, though. You have already stated elsewhere your belief in the flawed nature of human reasoning.Science is thus correct, not weak, in admitting only tentative answers. All our knowledge is fallible. We may as well face that reality and factor it into the equation.What can a belief system do that promises rational certainty where there can be none? It can only offer justifications, if one wants them, for human attitudes of certitude and denial. But that is all. It does not affect the tentative nature of the knowledge behind those attitudes.We may as well adopt the attitude that makes the best fit with the universe we see. The tentative nature of human knowledge is not a new discovery, after all. The necessity of writing conclusions in pencil rather than ink has been recognized by wise heads in every era._Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Brevity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Well, science isn't equipped to answer metaphysical or philosophical questions, just questions concerning the physical/material world. But that doesn't mean it can't come to some teleological conclusions by looking at the conglomerate of nature. "Proving" God is not something that anyone should try to do, unless they want heartache to come from it. But recognizing nature in telic terms is possible. If you believe in God then you believe that it is God that assigns purpose, not purpose defines God. But if you don't believe in God, then nothing has purpose or meaning, which is ironic when you watch how people smuggle in meaning in their lives and try to find purpose in anyway. No. At least not with me. Its a philosophical question that you're asking. I should assume that your statement about meaning purpose is intended to have meaning and purpose. You obviously would want it to have meaning, otherwise why would you say it? I think only logical way to look at it is that though we may not understand the totality of reason within nature, it does not negate the fact that all creatures are driven by purpose. Where does purposeful struggle for life come from? Where could a purposeless and meaningless struggle come from apart from meaning and purpose? If God is indeed real, then He is measure of all things. His purpose is Himself because He would analogous to purpose. It might prove futile for us to try and assign His role rather He assign ours.That's my take on it anyway.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Why can't somebody believe in a God that doesn't "assign purpose"?What is inherent in the nature of God that makes you assume that He must "assign purpose"?Why can't God allow/expect us to determine our own purpose?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Because if God is real then He/She/It/They created us for a reason. If God didn't then that would mean God didn't realize what He was doing-- oops. In which case, God would then has no real meaning. You are certainly welcome to believe that you have no purpose.

How do you know that? And why would it be true?For all we - i.e. you - know, we could be something that God hawked up after a long night of partying. I never said that. I asked why I can't decide what my own purpose is.I believe that my purpose is far more meaningful if it is my own, not one that is imposed on me arbitrarily from outside. You're confusing God's purpose with mine/ours.God could exist without you understanding what his purpose is, if any. He could also exist without the petty need to dictate my purpose.I like the parent/child analogy: a parent doesn't decide what his child's "purpose" is. That would make the child a mere commodity. A parent wants his child to find it's own purpose in life.Neither does a child decide what it's parent's purpose is.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't think your analogy fits. The question is not what the child's purpose in life is, the question is what was your purpose in having the child in the first place.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.