I am a Christian, and do believe the Bible as a source of revelation. I also enjoy the pursuit and study of both science and philosophy and have a passion for scientific inquiry and method. I am very critical of fundamentalists Christians who rely on blind faith and naturalists who arrogantly assume that science and naturalism hold all aspects of truth and meaning.
I view my own faith as being informed by revelation and reason, and my philosophical worldview as being informed by both my faith and my logical capacity. I felt obliged to share my background so nobody questions my agenda. I believe in absolute and objective truth and pursuit of it is my interest.
Person 1: We are in agreement that "God did it" doesn't add any empirical knowledge to our understanding of the universe. However I have to wonder, if God really did do it, would you ever reach that conclusion via reason? Or would you construct a falsehood that fits your naturalistic worldview and never know for sure? I suppose my point is that the question of origins can only ever be philosophically and forensically analyzed, and not scientifically. This is my problem with several aspects of Darwinism and Uniformitarianism.
I am very curious to hear how accepting God into our lives is Nihilistic?
Person 2: I like your answer of mystery for question number one.. fits pretty snugly with mine. However in all fairness I must point out that "it is a mystery" is very similar to "God did it".
For your 3 questions are interesting, have given me something to ponder. thanks.
I misunderstand your second group of questions... are you referencing the trinitarian nature of God?
Person 3: I have never liked the adjective and noun "supernatural". Presupposing God exists.. and is therefore the author of natural law.. then would not He himself be the very definition of pure natural? Would miracles be supernatural if the sovereign of nature itself caused them? I suppose it could be debated that being creator of natural law implies separate existence from it which would make God, but not miracles, supernatural.
I agree that natural law in it's physical form could be derived from observation.. how bout it's moral form? Is it not hard to deny the existence of objective morality as well as natural law and order? The question of source is theological/philosophical in nature... does that make it any less relevant?
I apologize for the straw man. But I have trouble coming up with anything other than pure randomness at best when I remove the concept of God from existence. I guess in a way, the ordered nature of existence and the concept of naturalism seem contradictory to me.
You ask how the concept of God can make life more meaningful? Now that is a loaded question. I suppose that's payback for asking loaded questions myself. I do have answer to that, but I would have to work to compress it to less than a novel.
I will give you this... I do not believe God is any bit capricious, but very immutable, predictable, and consistent. I know, I just opened Pandora's box in regards to the Old Testament.
For the purpose of debate I'll forbid myself from using "God did it".
1. All I can reason is that the concept of eternity and the eternal exist. The concept of something coming from nothing is as illogical as any religious claim could ever be. I'm not saying it isn't true.. just contradictory to our logic and observation.
2. I can only say that like the previous question their must be a source. Every effect must have a cause, and every law a lawgiver.
3. The very fact that meaning exists also suggest a source.
So the question of the day is what is the nature of this source? And can it ever be ascertained by scientific process? Is it's inability to be ascertained by scientific process in any way decrease it's relevance?
I personally believe that God is the source cause.
Good talk.. thank you for the rational discourse all