(March 1, 2016 at 4:32 am)bennyboy Wrote:(March 1, 2016 at 1:25 am)ChadWooters Wrote: You're right descriptions are after-the-fact accounts. When someone asks, why did x, y, and z happen, they are not asking for an after-the-fact description of x, y, and z. They want to know what thing made x, y, and z happen, regardless of how that thing is described.
Yes, that's a good point. The Big Bang as an answer to "where did the Universe come from," for example, is pretty unsatisfying. If you can explain why there was a Big Bang, then you're getting somewhere.
Paradoxically, atheists (materialists) try to prove nonmaterial concepts (consciousness, intelligence, sense and feelings, etc.) through matter. But why there is a need of that tussle, because all these nonmaterial entities are part of their own material beings.
Mostly, in excitement and in haste people like you first jump over the conclusion which they think satisfactory according to their DESIRES and then start thinking the ways on how to fit those conclusions in science by reshaping science for them. For example, concerning consciousness in place of asking a logical question, is consciousness a product of matter or not they straightaway jump over the conclusion that consciousness is the firing of neurons nevertheless firing of neurons gives us no valued information about consciousness.
Consciousness as we all know is a personal realm of subjective experience; phenomenal consciousness. Nothing can be more familiar to you than your own subjective experiences but when one tries to understand what this subjective experience (qualia) is and how it works, nothing could be more mysterious. Do you think science is proficient enough to give an adequate explanation for phenomenal consciousness? No!
For instance, no understanding of colour from physics, from neuroscience, or from both together can give us the whole story about colour. There is something that our science inevitably leaves out. What it leaves out is a SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE that tells us, what colour LOOKS LIKE. As Nagel asked:
What it is like to be a bat.
Being totally dependent over physical sciences and by ignoring metaphysics, scientists would never reach the reality neither in physical sense nor in the logical sense. For example, if scientists somehow prove that Higgs Field does exist, which according to them is a potential candidate for the source of all matter, then straightaway from that postulation drives a new question, what is the origin of Higgs Field (if that really exists). In this sense the search for origins will continue until science would enter into nonmaterial world and then collapses, for a simple reason, “no matter no science.”
However, logic on which whole science is founded, is also perfectly functional in the world of metaphysics which can go well beyond the limits of science.
Therefore, based on our experiences, observations, and acquired knowledge:
It is very logical to think that causes are not subject to infinite regress and without an uncaused cause there can be no cause.
It is very logical to think that universe is a dependent being because everything in it is dependent
Based on how steadily and orderly our universe is functioning, it is very logical to think that universe is controlled by some intelligent force, the force that has ability of thinking and voluntarily exercising his own free will and creativity to produce and organise in systematic manner all events in the universe.
It is very logical to think that whatever force is controlling and running universe in intelligent manner is the creator of universe and that force is God.
