elevator

There are many theories about topics such as abiogenesis, consciousness and morality. A simple search on this forum will yield many results. It doesn't make sense though to invoke the supernatural to explain the unknown. You are basically just explaining the unknown with another unknown. I am not a scientist or philosopher on the subject, but certain moral qualities such as altruism is certainly explainable within the evolutionary framework. Evidence for this is seen in certain animal communities where herds of animals are more likely to survive as a collective group than as an individual. In a group such as this altruism and a basic moral code promotes coherence of the group and illustrates the evolutionary usefulness of altruism as an inherent trait. That does of course not mean that it is so, but it is certainly a possibility and based on more empirical evidence than simply claiming that "God did it" and leave it at that.

As for the probability of God's existence; that begs the question: whose God? Christian, Islam, Judaism? And even if you assert that a creator is behind it all; that begs the question: who created the creator? Why can't we just take the Hindu approach and assert that the universe always was and always will be? That negates the need for a creator at all! Proving the existence of God isn't as easy as identifying holes in our scientific knowledge and fill them with your favorite God.

sschlichter

Most of those options are mutually exclusive. Answering those questions seems like a good pursuit to me. That is why I said the object of meditation is what is important. Meditating on the fact that there is no Creator will be of little value if there is one. (and visa versa) self-realization that is not based on what is true is a self-deception. Of course it begs the question, but the question begs an answer, not just an enumeration of the possibilities.

~Steve

ohmi

All new theories are 'supernatural' [beyond current physics] before they are accepted ... food for thought , the concept itself is rubbish!

ohmi

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Men live in denial [which is why meditation works], men not only lie to others, but [thus] also to ourselves!

elevator

But to honestly pursue the answer you must enumerate the possibilities. You can't just assert that God exists or that a Creator is behind it all and ignore all other possibilities because your chosen solution most closely fits reality as you wish it to be. The fact that there are mutually exclusive options should, if anything, trigger a sense of agnosticism on all these issues.

elevator

You conveniently left out the next line where I said: "You are basically just explaining the unknown with another unknown". To explain something unknown with another unknown is indeed rubbish - and that was exactly the point I was trying to make.

There is nothing about a scientific theory that is supernatural. For something to be called a theory in science it must not only pass the scientific method, but be subjected to rigorous scientific criticism. Gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory, plate tectonics is a theory. For something in science to be called a "theory" you must have a fair amount of empirical evidence to back up your conclusions. Religious metaphysical claims are without any such evidence and as such not entitled to call themselves "theories" in a scientific context. Read the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial ruling (or transcription) for a more in dept explanation of exactly this.

sschlichter

I agree, but after the 10 minutes it takes to enumerate, an honest search will examine the claims from various sources vs. shoulder shrug at them all.

elevator

Do not make the mistake of thinking that I shoulder shrug all these claims. I consider myself an agnostic on these issues; and as such I am open to all claims equally. The problem is though; there is no evidence to suggest one claim to be superior over another. From your profile I read that you are a Christian. So what cognitive processes must you employ to accept the Christian creation, all while rejecting, say, the Hindu eternal universe? This is purely a matter of belief. If you think God created the world in accordance with established Christian dogma, it is because you believe it; not because you honestly examined every available option out there and chose the option with the most evidence for it. Am I correct?

sschlichter

well, I think your question assumes that belief and honest examination are not compatible. Any examination of a claim should yield knowledge, belief, and commitment. If I beleive that a certain bridge will not collapse, I cross it because of my experience in seeing others cross it, I beleive it will not fall, and I act by crossing it. To stay (vs start) agnostic on the bridge is to have faith that it is not important that you cross, either way, you are choosing something.

elevator

Then lets add an interesting dimension to your bridge analogy: Say that there are hundreds of bridges. Imagine that different people on different bridges inform you that if you cross their bridge you will be rewarded with unspeakable riches, but if you cross anyone else's bridge then you are going to meet certain death. This analogy matches more closely the religious choice don't you think? Wouldn't it, in such a situation, be perfectly valid to be agnostic on which bridge rewards you and which bridge kills you? I mean afterall you don't know who is right and who is wrong? For all you know, they may all be wrong - or they may all be right. No one is able to provide evidence that their bridge is the best bridge to cross. And you don't even have to choose at all. Say you are a bridge atheist and perfectly happy with the life on this side of the bridge. You would have no motivation to cross any of the bridges at all!