"Everything has a cause and an explanation" discussion.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Additional philosophical inquiry, dealing with final cause and purpose, is needed to demonstrate the divine intellect.

I'm not sure philosophical inquiry is going to lead to A final cause regarding the universe. I assume you're referring to Aristotle's Final Cause? For the 4 cause model to be accurate in describing causality, I can't think of a demonstrable instance that doesn't require the knowing first what the inspiration or utility of an object is before applying the 4 cause model to it. Otherwise, how could you know that you are not imposing purpose on potentially purposeless things? Aristotle's four causes describe causality accurately only in retrospect to things such as tables and vases because the final cause was the inspirational purpose for their creation, and in some sense, the final cause was the first step before any other cause was required. We needed something to hold flowers, so we gathered the materials we needed, gave them shape, and created a vase-all 4 causes fit. But how can you demonstrate that this is a reliable formula to understanding the universe? It's true that the flowers and vases share in common some of Aristotle's causes, it doesn't follow that they too MUST fit into the entire 4 cause model. Because when it comes to things we did not create ourselves, there is no basis to reasonably assume they were the result of any requirement out of utility or creative inspiration. I think it's a mistake to assume that because we are capable of utilizing things we did not create, then it is true that the things we did not create must be created for us to use.

The argument under discussion is just part of the necessary ground work to get there. It must first be granted that beings that are subject to change are contingent upon something more fundamental that cannot in principle change.

I would grant that all things are contingent upon something fundamental that cannot be reduced beyond it's fundamental state. I do not know that I can grant that this fundamental stuff is incapable of change. If all material is simply complex configurations of this fundamental stuff, then whatever this stuff is, in its most simple form, is clearly capable of change even if the only change is the process by which it is rearranged into the diverse composition of all things, and I don't see how it's required to say that this is stuff is what the universe in comprised of, and we do not yet understand exactly how that works.[/quote]

To me that conclusion is inescapable for an intelligible reality. To assert the opposite is to undermine the very foundation of the scientific enterprise.

I definitely wouldn't assert the opposite as I don't have all the information. And I agree that asserting things without all of the information is undermining to science, and to go a step further, is NOT science to be certain of things that cannot be known for certain.