Math people seem to have this more than other engineering/science etc ; math, and this is actual bloody Godel, seems so perfect and beautiful that is has to have a creator. Everything else is incredibly sloppy (including most software).
> No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction.
> None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to the operation of any of the causes which we call natural.
> On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self existent.
> Thus we have been led, along a strictly scientific path, very near to the point at which Science must stop. ... Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing ...
> ... But though in the course of ages catastrophes have occurred and may yet occur in the heavens, though ancient systems may be dissolved and new systems evolved out of their ruins, the molecules out of which these systems are built — the foundation stones of the material universe — remain unbroken and unworn.
> They continue this day as they were created, perfect in number and measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable characters impressed on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we reckon among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they are essential constituents of the image of Him Who in the beginning created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of which heaven and earth consist.
But my initial take on Godel’s belief here is that even if he is correct, and the order of the universe demands that there is more to existence than this, why do Humans get the afterlife?
Parameciums don’t have the inherent consciousness or great individual potential, so there is a cutoff where beings would “qualify” for an afterlife to continue developing their potential, as he posits it.
Are lesser apes bound for the afterlife? Are dolphins?
Or are Humans just the first to get here, and we will be supplanted by an even more rationally destined species to be blessed with the afterlife?
The "Big Bang" theory was literally created by a Catholic priest, the name was coined by an atheist physicist mocking it because it aligned too much with the Bible for his taste
He was/is correct about many things, but not about the afterlife. It's just because some people are so lucky to see the face of god by deep and hard mental studies, they believe there is such a thing. And if you have been told all your life that is reality and you 'saw' it, why question it?
What method did you use to objectively determine whether there is an afterlife, in a manner that is impossible to be incorrect?
> And if you have been told all your life that is reality and you 'saw' it, why question it?
You arrived at this extremely popular yet epistemically unsound "fact" entirely independently did you?
And you? Your past comments show you are religious and as such there is no point of replying with much else than this.
And me what?
> Your past comments show...
Do you play any role in this "showing" phenomenon, human not at all prone to cognitive error?
> ...you are religious...
Indeed I am - have you any interest in which religion I practice/ Because it matters.
> ...and as such there is no point of replying with much else than this.
Do you present (or even better: perceive) this as an opinion, or as a fact?
If a fact: from what source do you derive your omniscient knowledge of What Is?
Of course it's entirely possible for the universe to have been designed and still operate under purely naturalistic rules, without any hint of supernatural elements, but what would be the point of believing that?
Huh. Don't think I've considered those options before. I'm sure some religions have proposed these possibilities already, though?
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
More simply, if you're creating a moral system that values human life to prevent a number of bad things, it's useful to put humans apart from other beings, so that you can justify commandments like "don't kill yourselves please" at the same time as the people being commanded see all other animals killing each other, and themselves need to kill other animals for survival. Put more bluntly, how do you get masses of uneducated people to not behave like animals? You tell them they are special, and definitely not like animals, and you hold them to a higher standard.
Most of everything in the bible at least is used as an illustrative reason to guide you towards some specific behavior. If man isn't made in the image of god and isn't special there's a bunch of things in there that get harder to demand or explain.
In post modern philosophical thinking, there's a reinvention of nature where animals are more "all the same" and should have similar rights to humans, should not be killed etc, which is part of the wider movement to treat the whole earth as our home and to see humans as a part of a wider system rather than special.
And the important part comes right after this. What happens when you hold them to a higher standard? People then choose to accept or reject the standard, and they live according to their (personal) choice.
If some people accept the higher standard and live by it, they prove that they are special, definitely not like animals. That is free will: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
First there was energy-mass, in one place. The laws of thermodynamics do not allow such an energy-mass.
The energy-mass is at equilibrium. Then the energy-mass is not at equilibrium, and it explodes outward, creating the mass-mass and energy-energy that we know.
Now there are laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics, that will not allow such an energy-mass to exist.
Where did the laws come from? An external source certainly. We know this because the energy-mass was at rest, not exploding; no laws.
Now there are laws suddenly. Laws don't make themselves. It takes external force to create a law. What was that external law-creating force?
I believe it was God with a big G. I have no proof except the very laws of the universe that were put into motion when the energy-mass exploded.