sort by best latest
M. T. Dremer says
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
I see where you are coming from, but like the computer example, are we in error in thinking we can actually figure out all gaps? If we were created for a specific purpose like a computer, not given the ability to understand emotions.
Until scientific discovery hits a wall, we have no reason to think we are in error. And, if we're a computer responding to an invisible hand, it could just as likely be Zeus, aliens or unknown laws of science.
If we say we can try to figure out everything, then we will try. But, if that is our premise, well then, we have a problem indeed. To what end? Many will never stop trying. That is why forming a different premise from what we already know is vital.
Exploration and learning can be a good premise, with understanding and acceptance as the end game. Great things come from people who aren't content with what we already know.
I agree, continuing to learn and grow is very important. Based on the natural laws though, we shouldn't blindly go out searching with a mentality that we will figure everything out. Our desire of figuring out will become our end game, not reality.
Couldn't an un-ending search for answers be reality? Even theists are constantly searching for divine answers. What does god want me to learn from this? How can I do more in his name?
My only concern is that we will falsely create something we call reality. We can go on searching, but if there is a wall and we don't want there to be, we will make up reality, be it real or fake.
Some would describe theism as a fake reality, designed to deal with the harsh realization of our insignificance in the universe. Who, or what, fills the gaps of creationism?
Theists say god has a higher understanding. The computer example I think forms a good premise. Not everything in the physical world can understand each other. And if we can't reach understanding then there has to be something outside of the physical.
If human understanding cannot reach beyond our programming, then our notions of god are also wrong. The unknown of which you speak is neither god nor science. It is simply unknown.
The unknown is god. Because science is the known. If science can't figure something out, then all there is left is god.
But how can we attribute the unknown to god, if our knowledge of god is within the realm of human understanding? And how can we attribute it to God over Zeus? It comes with no labels, making any attribution equally right and wrong.
- See all 12 commentsHide extra comments