| Puppyroach said: 3. You talk about a "why" as if to find someone who motivated the molecules into existence. There is no need for a motivation for them to exist, in order for them to actually exist. That molecules bind with other molecules out of which we get new properties is only a consequence of the action and reaction between them. These building blocks are then formed into larger structures and, sometimes, into cells. What we call life is just a consequence of actions that, by chance, can recreate themselves. We find this to be amazing (myself included) but it is no more amazing than any non-biological matter, only less likely to happen as far as we know. And we constantly seek answers to how everything is constructed from the start and, as you say, has found smaller and smaller particles. So apparently science is the tool that gives ut the best opportunity to find this answer, wouldn´t you agree? 4. I would never give up on knowledge in the way you describe. When we constantly push our own scientific boundaries forward, we can´t, or rather should never, give up on our own intellectuality and just say "I will never seek knowledge, only put my faith into a sky creature created by humans thousands of years ago". 5. Well, if you can´t recreate it, you don´t have evidence of its existence, simple as that. And this whole notion that somethig that isn´t self-aware can´t create something self-aware. Self-awareness is nothing more than a complex chemical and electrical process in our minds and bodies so ofcourse it can exist without a "higher" intelligence behind it. You try to find a reason behind it, and the reason is simple: because chance and laws of nature has formed it. And I always find it fascinating how so many religious people try to question scientific method by saying "yes, but why do we have molecules" or "well, then who created the universe to begin with", then explains it with a sky god and suddenly turns around and say that we should then not question what created this sky god? So the whole argument revolves around what created what in the world, except for sky god? Well, that´s very convenient then :). |
3. I have no issue with utilizing our brains.
4. I don't give up on knowledge. I certainly use the brain God gave me to do things. I'm a teacher and I value the concept of learning in order to better oneself. I'm simply saying I don't stress over the knowledge I don't know, because of my faith in Jesus Christ. I still like knowing things and enjoy learning things, as do many Christians that feel the same way I do. Just because we accept the fact that we can't learn or understand this whole thing doesn't mean we don't still try to learn stuff and understand things. Also, God is not a sky creature created by humans, but I suspect you can deduce that I don't agree with you on that. He's not floating in clouds chillin' with the angels. That is the hollywood perception of God.
5. I'm not denying that God's eternal existence before us is confusing. I am simply saying I can't comprehend it, nor can any human alive. But with God, despite it not making sense to our limited brains, there is at least a reason. With science, there is no reason for anything being around. You can drop whatever term of link you want, but it's all going to go back to what I have refered to before and what you said in your comment that it doesn't make sense that anything triggered any other thing. It doesn't make sense that certain things in our brains exist in the first place that could trigger some kind of self -awareness reaction. If nature controls everything and nature itself is chaos then anything nature produces should be chaotic, not able to think for itself. C.S. Lewis wrote some amazing things about this concept.
