Try the URL below to understand the problem.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328473.500-the-genesis-problem.html

 

      The problem is that if you rely on a creator for the existence of the universe, this reliance will reveal God's existence. But, that is placing God in the gaps. God in the gaps is the best way to push God further away from our minds. Understanding God in this way makes belief too easy. Faith is not easy; no test for the obvious. God is not or ever will be obvious. So, science reaches into the unknown for the universe before the Big Bang.

 

      Is this a physics problem, a cosmology problem, or a theology problem? I say separate the science from theology then both God and man will be better off in the end. To stand up to the test is not an act of defiance.

>"science reaches into the unknown for the universe before the Big Bang ...  Is this a physics problem, a cosmology problem, or a theology problem? I say separate the science from theology then both God and man will be better off in the end."<
------------

Since I agree with the acclaimed cosmologist, Lawrence Krauss, that God and Science don't mix ("A scientist can be a believer. But professionally, at least, he can't act like one."), I also agree with you that science and theology should be separated. [my #3 post with the Krauss reference was deleted]

However, I include "theology" in the realm of philosophy & social science, but relegate it to pop philosophy, pop psychology, and pop soft drinks, i.e., it is not only sugar coated, but infused with lots of mentally unhealthy sweetness that one can get addicted to.

The only rational position for the creation problem is "we don't know".  That is HONEST, and I don't consider that to be a "real problem".  Although scientific methods are the ONLY way we can objectively discover and test our common reality, to try and unveil mysteries, they are limited with their observations & mathematical equations, especially when the concept of "infinity" is involved.  Even a theory in this area would be ridiculous to take seriously; we depend on logic.
WHO CREATED THE CREATOR?

Let's be practical.  Why should we care? (outside of our natural curiosity)
Why should that creation question matter in our short life on this one out of gazillion planets?

 

"Why should that creation question matter in our short life on this one out of gazillion planets?"
------------

Unless, of course, you believe in a "soul".  I forgot, you do, TFC!
Any reasons for that based on your scientific logic?
If not scientific or philosophical logic, what other logic is there??

>"..to be exploited, as those African slaves and Native Americans were...not to mention the other non-human animals.."<
------------
Wow, were you referring to certain human cultural groups as "non-human animals" ?
Was that a mistake, or a Freudian slip?  :-)

 

>"in order to commit genocide upon the Native Americans it was declared that they had no 'souls', same as with the black slaves..."<
------------

I figured that is what you were referring to, but for others who may be rightly concerned with another interpretation, I thought we should clear that up.
The no-soul perspective is one excuse for genocide (based on religion), and that may include one religious group vs another.
There were many other genocides in history that were purely political, weren't there?

As I implied to TFC, "theology" is really a non-rational (faith) philosophical perspective within the social science realm, whether it's anthropology, psychology, sociology, or economics.

There is nothing irrational about faith in general.  It depends on the object of faith.  Obviously, to place faith in something that has absolutely no shred of evidence could be considered irrational...without reason.  First comes knowledge, then faith.  Faith in something without any knowledge could be considered irrational.  But most today define rationality by naturalism.  However, is that reasonable?  Is naturalism (which is not science but many equate to science) the only way to knowledge?  Can the scientific method prove itself to be the only way to know something?


I don't see my faith, for example, as irrational.  Christianity makes claims or declares things to be true that are rooted in human history and reality.  Some may disagree with those claims and believe something else to be true and that is fine.  But, there are claims that can be checked up on.  It may not be cut and dry but I look at those claims and reason them to be true.  The evidence for Christianity may not be cohersive but I do not think believing in the evidence can be called irrational.  You may say so, and that is fine.  Many want to paint their own picture of why someone else believes what they do so they can make fun or feel superior rather than just take what someone says and examine it.

Although scientific methods are the ONLY way we can objectively discover and test our common reality, to try and unveil mysteries, they are limited with their observations & mathematical equations, especially when the concept of "infinity" is involved.  Even a theory in this area would be ridiculous to take seriously; we depend on logic.
WHO CREATED THE CREATOR?


So how have scientific methods or the scientific method verified that they/it are the ONLY way to objectively understand reality?


Logic says that there is something infinite that caused the finite.  If there is a beginning, then there has to be something that caused that beginning.  We could form a chain going back and back and back to infinity.  So, there is something/someone that is infinite.  The question is what?  The universe?  Science doesn't seem to say our universe is infinite.  However, if people are willing to believe in an infinite universe, why not believe in an infinite creator? 

>"First comes knowledge, then faith.  Faith in something without any knowledge could be considered irrational."<
------------
I agree.  I have "faith" when I make a quick, somewhat-irresponsible lane change with my car, believing that no other car arrived in my way since I last looked.  However, my faith is based on contextual observations & prior-successful interpretation (i.e., experience) about traffic patterns prior to my lane change.


>"Can the scientific method prove itself to be the only way to know something?" ...
Religion "makes claims or declares things to be true that are rooted in human history and reality. Some may disagree with those claims and believe something else to be true and that is fine.  But, there are claims that can be checked up on."<
------------
When interpreting claims of knowledge outside our range of observations and experience, we must be careful and hope that the info/interpretation sources can be trusted.
Therefore, outside our trustworthy friends & their common sense experiences (one degree of separation from "data"), and outside trusted general media, modern science is the only way to obtain "knowledge" about reality that is not directly observable or related to common sense.
Unfortunately, many/most historical accounts from over a thousand years ago may not be reliable.  As you know, in those days, writers of "history" were supported by biased agendas and unscientific dogma.  If you choose to believe in any of those claims, I just hope that you "test" them with current reality.
For example, using your common sense, why do ANY religious beliefs matter nowadays without having a threat of an inquisition on heresy?
 

>"Logic says that there is something infinite that caused the finite.  If there is a beginning, then there has to be something that caused that beginning.  We could form a chain going back and back and back to infinity.  So, there is something/someone that is infinite... if people are willing to believe in an infinite universe, why not believe in an infinite creator?"<
------------

For me, "logic" has to be practical and the word "infinite" has no practical logic behind it, i.e., it is not based on our reality which exists in a tiny fraction of cosmological time. It is a mathematical concept, and I admit that mathematics is a language of science.  Then there is Philosophy of Science, which puts logical boundaries around scientific methods & theories.

From my agnostic perspective, "infinite" means "unknown".  Therefore, these statements when interpreted as such become logical to me:
Logic says that there is something unknown that caused the finite.  ... We could form a chain going back and back and back to the unknown.

However, this does not follow:
... if people are willing to believe in an unknown universe, why not believe in an unknown creator?

If we are going to assume, then why not assume that a creator must be created too?

Therefore, outside our trustworthy friends & their common sense experiences (one degree of separation from "data"), and outside trusted general media, modern science is the only way to obtain "knowledge" about reality that is not directly observable or related to common sense.


Science can give us knowledge about physical reality.  It cannot be the sole determinator of all reality b/c it has its limitations.

Unfortunately, many/most historical accounts from over a thousand years ago may not be reliable.  As you know, in those days, writers of "history" were supported by biased agendas and unscientific dogma.  If you choose to believe in any of those claims, I just hope that you "test" them with current reality.

I think more people today have biased agendas that reject ancient historical records.  I'm not saying all recorded ancient history is legit, but people talk of agendas and what not and those people usually have no basis whatsoever for saying such...they just show their own bias.  The discussion really has to be about specific historical records or claims to really "test" them.

For example, using your common sense, why do ANY religious beliefs matter nowadays without having a threat of an inquisition on heresy?


Not sure what you mean here.

From my agnostic perspective, "infinite" means "unknown".  Therefore, these statements when interpreted as such become logical to me:
Logic says that there is something unknown that caused the finite.  ... We could form a chain going back and back and back to the unknown.

However, this does not follow:
... if people are willing to believe in an unknown universe, why not believe in an unknown creator?

If we are going to assume, then why not assume that a creator must be created too?


I'm not sure about all that.  Not sure why you just can't deal with infinity for what it means.  But anyway, what I was trying to say is that people who cannot believe in an infinite (or uncaused) creator because of logic somehow choose to believe in a universe that is infinite (or uncaused).  That seems contradictory to me.


The 'who created the creator' question really does not refute anything.  Or at least, it does not refute the position that there is a creator of the universe.

The 'who created the creator' question really does not refute anything.  Or at least, it does not refute the position that there is a creator of the universe. [Post #19]

 

True. But when there are literally millions of possible explanations for the universe and millions of possible creators – Zeus, Jehovah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Last Thursday Creator, the Great Green Arkleseizure, plus zillions of others – why, in the absence of any distinguishing evidence, pick any particular one?

 

Except maybe wishful thinking and prior indoctrination which seem rather weak reeds to be leaning on ….