I mostly agree with this. The core of all their arguments seems to be that the notion of a God doesn't fit into their idea of what is possible--when that is exactly what is supposed to happen. It's one big, highly cultivated, yet highly irrelevant "taco that even God couldn't eat" argument. One that you can get a degree in.Science precludes faith, but permits uncertainty. So of course it gives rise to agnosticism. But while it may be logically justified, it's entirely impractical, Because in life we don't have the luxury of uncertainty. In life we must ultimately act on belief or disbelief of God. the thing I disagree with you about is the 2nd part of this: "Thus, the disconnect, the non sequitur, is to conclude that “the components of our world today, our universe, have always existed.” This is sort of like sealing a box and stating that nothing can go into the box and nothing can come out. Yes, but this is within the box. Let us think outside of the box."I think I get what you are trying to say: these laws were made for a closed system so to apply them to the universe is to presume it to be closed. It isn't closed, we only infer it to be because we can't observe activity outside of it. The problem is that while arguing it to be open you open the door to precisely those scientists who say time is infinite and elements are eternal (and the Buddhists, feeling neglected, will follow them in.) Because correct me if I'm wrong but it is precisely the fact that the universe is presumed finite that allows us to conclude it had a beginning (big bang). That doesn't help anyone who says it is simultaneously finite and eternal any more than it helps those who say it's infinite but transient.The more convenient position for you to take would be to say it is finite, even if it's bigger than we think, and that God being infinite is not only perfect as long as he exists apart from/above space/time, but appropriately that he would. Perhaps he contains time/space, and that is why they sometimes seem infinite/interchangeable?In any event, the real "box" in question here is the human mind. Science, being an invention of the human mind, cannot assert things beyond understanding (that require faith), and yet so often arrogantly does. For what that may be tested is reliably infinite? Only things presumed to be. So naturally a system of logic that first assumes the eternality of the elements would conclude after much analysis that they must be eternal.I like this site it makes me think. Do you have any articles on evolution? Its apparent coherence troubles me, but I have a sneaking suspicion that (as is often the case with science-based morality) the lie is one of the first things you hear.
Paul;Thanks for writing, you made some good points and also gave me occasion to clarify my point.My point about the first law is that it is applicable to our universe which, as far as I know, is closed—is materialistically closed “within the box.”My reference to thinking outside of the box was meant to convey that it is open to the supernatural realm, the supernatural being who brought its energy into being in the first place.Sorry not I have not really written on evolution with few mentions here and there. This may be of interest: Protecting the Science ClassroomHope to hear form you again and aDios,Mariano
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.