engman
New Member
Boy how confusing this all gets, but I'll give it a shot.
Science will never be able to answer the question why is there something rather than nothing. Before anyone gets excited, while I am a Christian I am one by faith - not by evidence. When I conclude this treatise you will see that scientism, materialism, atheism, and any other ism is also a faith.
Back to something rather than nothing (SRTN). Even if you posit that the existence of the universe will one day be proved by mathematical consistency alone (leaving aside Godel's Incompleteness Theory which makes this stance rather untenable) then one can just as reasonably ask where math came from. If you then offer the explanation that math exists in some Platonic realm outside of time that we somehow tap into then you have a problem: prove it. You can't. Therefore your belief in such a math is based on....faith. What you have then is two faith based approaches that differ in their ontological preference. One faith points to a absolute being, the other to a concept or system called "math".
If the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved then the Atheist finds themselves in a quandary. If you can't prove God does not exist and you chose to believe such a statement, you do so based upon - you guessed it - faith. Therefore Atheism and Christianity are both faith based, again with different ontological preferences. This is something Atheists (which I once was) are blind to and will only admit when the logic forces them to that conclusion.
Now to consiousness. Science will never be able to solve what is called the hard problem of consciouness. Let me explain. The soft problem - what occurs functionally in the brain when you do something such as learn, perceive, and even report a subjective feeling - is well within the realm of science. Why these functions are accompanied by a feeling of "what it is like to be you and have these experiences" is called the hard problem and is unsolvable using objective science. Mystics study the problem subjectively, but that is another post.
To explain what I mean by this, let's break science into two parts - that which explains things and that which observes and catalogs things. Physics explains things. Botany tends to catalog things like the types of flowers found in a certain part of the world. Now let us attempt a thought experiment. If I hold a ball and then let it go, it falls to the ground. I now ask you why it fell to the ground. If you answer "because you let it go" you are certainly correct but only offering an observation and not really an explanation. If you say, "because of gravity" we are heading in the right direction. If you walk over to a whiteboard and write down Newton's laws of gravity that include potential energy, kinetic energy, energy lost to air friction, and then dive into chaos theory and how, if you had infinite information, you could tell me exactly how and where the ball will end up - you are offering an explanation.
Now let's assume the brain has only four neurons that can be either on or off. This provides for 16 possible states (2^4). Let's call each of these states an emotion. If you look into my brain and note that the state is one of unhappiness and I report I am unhappy you have not explained anything at all, you have only noted a state, observed it, cross-referenced it to a list you have, and made a statement. This is not science. It offers no explanation as to why, when my neurons are in that state, I subjectively feel unhappy. This has lead many materialists into attempting what I call cirque du soleil philosophy and neurology. So twisted and odd are their arguments that one begins to question their sanity. When Daniel Dennett proposes what he calls qualia to "explain" consciousness, he is doing nothing more than admitting that consciousness is a fundamental quality that cannot be explained and therefore we must invent a concept to explain it. Confused yet? But wait, there is more. To get around this issue, many materialists have gone so far as to say that consciousness does not actually exist. Chew on that for awhile. If this smacks of desperation, it should.
Therefore there are two great mysteries that can never be solved - why is there something rather than nothing, and why does it feel like something to be you (in other words an objective explanation of subjective feelings). These great mysteries should instill in anyone who ponders them long enough a sense of total awe that we are here at all and can look out and observe the universe and make some sense of it. This great mystery I call God. St. Thomas Aquinas called God the "great cloud of unknowing" and this is how I approach it. I am not in any way a dogmatic Christian. I believe Jesus was a wise mystic who saw the same truths as the Buddha.
The discussion on the topics of human concepts and their absence of any sense of self-existence is also for another post. Zen takes us down a really deep rabbit hole that rips apart the very fabric of thought and leaves nothing underfoot. And by nothing, I do not mean nothing as opposed to something - this type of nothing would still be a concept and is the type of nothing that Nihilists believe in, which is why they too are flawed in their thinking. No, think of this type of nothing - called Sunyata in Japanese - as the type of nothing that exists between your thoughts when are thinking neither of something or nothing. However, just as one thought ceases and another begins, this is not a static nothing, but rather a fullness of being. Therefore Fullness and Nothingness and the same and different at the same time. If this sounds weird - it really is. But hold on to your hats - this logic of soku hi is also the same logic used in quantum computing. Now go chew on that one!
interesting perspective. but the question that begs to be answered...wouldn't the burden of proof rest with the claimant? If a burden of proof isn't required on metaphysical claims then there is never a valid argument against any ideology or dogmas of religion....or unicorns for that matter.