Totalitarianist

We are completely ignorant of the beginning of the universe. We do not know what caused the universe; further, we do not know if it even had a caused. How can one suddenly conjure an assumption on a subject we are completely ignorant of?

Say a man time-travels to a forgotten time in a forgotten land where primitive man roamed the world. Let's say this man, the time-traveler, named Bob, enlightens a random primitive man, named Kawujuu, about the existence of a certain galaxy, say Galaxy Nakchibawa; the existence of the aforesaid galaxy; nothing more.

Supposing, of course, that Bob and Kawujuu could communicate with one another, Bob suddenly enquires Kawujuu to define the basic characteristics, and, more importantly, the cause of Galaxy Nakchibawa. How is Kawujuu to go about this request? It would be utterly impossible, unless by some infinite marvel of a chance, for him to come up with something correct, even when aware of the galaxy's existence. Are we to have faith in, or even acknowledge, the validity of Kawujuu's ideas pertaining to Galaxy Nakchibawa?

And, to be sure, this applies to every thing, every subject, one could possibly be ignorant of; including such things as the beginning, the cause of all causes, which we are all ignorant of.

Somehow the "God" idea, a product of unalloyed ignorance, seems insipid to me; perhaps on account of the fact that the idea had been procured by man, like with Kawujuu, during, and as a product of, a state of ignorance. How can one support such ideas?

WJ

Well, I think you would have to ask the physicist how they typically arrive at 'discovery' of the laws of nature. Are they first based upon assumption and inference? Are they then empirically tested until they are falsified? Is the cosmological argument for the EOG any different?

Assuming Kawajuu represents us, I don't think we are being asked or forced into explaining the universe. The important distinction here I believe goes back to the mystery behind conscious existence, meaning, nothing forces us against our will (to believe) to make these assumptions. On the other hand, there is something that compels us to ask or discuss the most deepest questions of such cosmological existence. There is something about human nature that is indeed natural, in that we naturally desire to understand this mystery.

Some say that metaphysics and psychology can provide a better theory as to why we must posit the EOG for such ultimate explaination.

Perchance

Humanity seems to get around to being curious about almost everything, sooner or later- a good thing, too, or most scientific fields and a good deal of non-scientific ones wouldn't ever have gotten off the ground. And we may not always come up with the right answers, but as long as we keep open minds and are able to assimilate new evidence when it comes along, I have no problem with saying, "This is the best we can do at the moment."

However, it does seem as though few proponents of God (or at least the ones I've run into!) are able to keep this open mind. Along with curiosity goes a hunger for certainty, I've noticed, as though we feel we should only have to search for so long for the answers, and then have them. All right, we've opened our minds, and someone has proposed an idea that makes sense to us. Do we accept it as the end-all and be-all, or keep searching?

I think the answer that someone gives to that question places them squarely along a spectrum that ends at people who say we can't be sure that anything exists on one side, and people who say "Goddidit, and that'e enough for me," on the other. I'm glad that most scientists, at least, don't seem to have given in to the temptation to give up the search, either for a natural explanation or "Goddidit."

-Perchance.