Yes, the universe did appear, and life did appear. Both are contingent entities that exist within a contingent realm. Both are caused. I never claimed that they are causeless.
Life may have had a chemical cause, but the appearance of the universe may well be beyond cause. It's not understood.
In both cases order/purpose is manifested. The specific nature/characteristics of the effects drives our inference of the causes. My claim is that the nature of the causal influence (God) cannot be observed or understood yet his existence, as the absolute/non-contingent cause is necessary to explain all contingent entities.
Order is manifested, but purpose? Purpose implies intention, and we don't have any reason to infer intention or purpose. Once the universe expanded, and its laws and constants fixed, the natural interactions they empowered unfolded automatically. Imagining an intentional mechanic or magician is just anthropomorphizing.
We are limited. God is limitless. We are confined within the realm of spacetime. God is not. We can neither observe nor understand the non-contingent nature of God, but your real issue is not the unknown/unobservable nature of the cause; we accept that all the time in science (as explained above in #3109). Your real issue is the notion that the causal influence (God) is conscious and exerts purposeful influence over contingent entities. If you understand the fact that the nature of fundamental causes are never known, then on what basis you would assert the absence of consciousness/purpose especially if all observations point to it?
Observations don't point to it. You're trying to ascribe everyday human experience to theoretical physics. Reality doesn't behave like our experience of the material world.
The burden of supporting this fantastical claim is on you. I hold the default position.
Yes, we're marvelously complex but you simply deny that the observed design is designed merely because you cannot wrap your mind around the nature of the designer. Your limited ability of understanding doesn’t impose any limits on the absolute reality. See #490
I thought noöne could understand God.
Why does the order and function we see in nature require an intentional designer or a purpose? Why isn't blind physics sufficient? Can you not wrap your mind around the unguided ramifications of chemistry and physics?
You claim that the interactions of matter explain life/consciousness but what explain the behavior of matter as it interacts? You are under the impression that science provides mechanisms and fail to understand that on a fundamental level, it never does. Science only assigns names to unknowns such as dark energy and strong nuclear force but never provides mechanisms.
The origins of the laws and constants created with the expansion of the universe are unknown. The whole process is unknown. Perhaps someday we'll unravel it, but, in the meantime, we'll just have to accept it -- without positing some magical, anthropomorphic entity behind it all,
What is your understanding of magic? Is it an effect without a cause? There is no such thing in our contingent realm. If the effect is observed, the cause must exist.
Exactly. So, were water transforming into wine, the sun standing still, Lot's wife transforming into a column of salt, the blind and lame being cured, the dead being resurrected all naturally caused, by known physical mechanisms, or were these all folklore -- or magic?
The universe appeared out of nothing, yet it’s a contingent entity dependent on a cause, “The specific behavior of entire galaxies” is a contingent entity dependent on a cause, etc. but again, a cause of an unknown nature has nothing to do with magic.
We don't know that the formation of the universe had a cause. Causation becomes fuzzy at a quantum level, plus doesn't a cause predate an effect. What cause existed before existence and time?
Once the universe existed, however, why would any cause beyond blind physics be necessary? If an effect required tweaking or suspending the laws of physics, that would seem to be magic.
Your notion is based on an empty claim about what you don’t know. It’s illogical to ignore what you do know in favor of what you speculate.
But isn't this just what theists are doing; inventing an unnecessary, unevidenced personage to manipulate things behind the scenes?
But I agree with you when you said, “Who knows?” yes, there are possibilities beyond our knowledge/understanding including the supernatural realm. If you acknowledge our limitation/lack of knowledge, then you open the door to all possibilities whether comprehensible to you or not.
What is supernatural if not magic?
Yes all possibilities are open, but believing in everything, whether evidenced or not, is foolishness. I believe in that which there's evidence of. I disbelieve the unevidenced, pending discovery of evidence.
If the system is the best fit for a very specific function, then its evidently design whether you know the designer or not. Consider the example of the epiglottis.
The epiglottis evolved like any other anatomical feature, and it's not a best fit. It's a 'good enough' feature, like most anatomic structures. An intentional designer could have done better, in so many ways.
The very specific role in addition to the precise integration/coordination with other complex functions towards a final goal cannot be anything but purposeful design. Other than wishful thinking, there is no route to give rise to design other than purpose/intention.
Wishful thinking is what you're employing. I'm just following the facts and evidence.
You are essentially claiming that any values of the constants/laws would always give rise to some other kind of live/universe. It’s simply an empty unevidenced claim.
When did I ever make such a claim? Maybe our universe is the only possible universe. Maybe different laws and constants would give rise to nothing. Who knows? We have an observed sample size of only one.
No other arrangement might have emerged from the Big Bang simply because physical nothingness doesn’t give rise to possibilities. The emergence of the Big Bang was not a matter of possibilities. It was a dictated outcome governed by dictated laws.
Why do you say no-thingness can't give rise to things? Where did this dictator of laws and possibilities come from? Who created him? What evidence do you have that he was either necessary or real? I think you're reasoning from personal incredulity.
It’s illogical to draw a conclusion based on mere speculation of the unknown while deliberately ignoring the known.
Which is exactly what you're proposing, isn't it?
Yes, other realm may exist but if our own realm exhibits design/purpose, what is the reason to think that other realms don’t?
I have no reason to think "other realms" exist, nor do I see any design or purpose in our own; just the unfolding of physics.
Only if you know for a fact that different parameters would always give rise to life/universe, which you agreed that you don’t.
Huh?
Interactions/arrangements of the already existing entities is what gives rise to (subsequent) possibilities. Without existing entities that could be arranged or interact in different ways, there are no possibilities. If no matter, no radiation, no physical laws, no time, no space exist beyond the Big Bang, then there was nothing to give rise to possibilities. The emergence of the Big Bang was not a matter of chance.
You keep making these blanket declarations, with no supporting evidence. The universe had an apparent beginning. It materialized from no thing. How this came about is unknown. Positing a preëxisting, conscious personage, creating existence, apparently from nothing, is a fantastic, unnecessary, and unevidenced claim.[/quote][/quote][/quote]