Though I enjoy speculating about preconditions to the Big Bang, I readily acknowledge the problems involved. The definition of reasonable speculation is problematic. The point of departure from real science into speculation about answers that science does not yet have is problematic. It is problematic that the application of the scientific method is limited by the tools we utilize or can develop to look further toward the infinite and the infinitesimal.
We have an advancing boundary between what has been achieved by science and what is yet to be achieved. In the realm of the “yet to be achieved” is the discovery and quantification of the unexplained and/or unknown natural laws and it is the role of science to confront the problems it faces and to advance the boundary into the realm of the “as yet” unknown.
But when addressing the unknown, it is an axiom that the laws of nature are invariant and based on that axiom, invariance is a characteristic of both the science we know and the natural laws we don’t yet know or understand. It follows that anything that appears Supernatural can be explained by natural laws we don’t yet understand.
Based on the postulated invariance of the natural laws of the universe, the definition of Supernatural is anything that can be shown to vary from the invariant natural laws. But It is merely speculation that anything at all will ever be shown to vary from the natural laws and so the existence of the Supernatural is speculative and problematic.
On that basis every miracle has its own catch 22 in that if it cannot be repeated or explained it either varies from the natural law or we don’t understand the natural laws to which it complies. If it varies from the natural law it is Supernatural and not scientific, and if it complies with invariant natural laws that we don’t yet understand it is natural and therefore not a miracle.
The existence of God does not have to be the same thing as speculation that something Supernatural exists that violates the natural laws. The Supernatural requires that the scientific axiom of invariance be falsified. The existence of God does not require violation of invariance, it requires a universal definition of God that postulates that the laws are invariant and doesn’t go on to personify that defined God or give it ability to override the invariant laws for the benefit of some chosen individual or group. The scientific position is that there are natural laws that would explain all miracles if only we understood all of the invariant laws of nature and the corresponding definition of God that is in compliance is that the universe and God are one in the same, a set of invariant Natural laws that have always existed.
Nature can be defined as a potentially infinite and eternal universe whose invariant laws provide for the perpetual existence of habitable environments where life can be generated and evolve to where intelligent self-aware free willed and potentially conscientious individuals are capable of contemplating the universe, infinity, life and God.
God can be defined as the infinite and eternal presence of invariant laws and intent that provide for the perpetual existence of habitable environments where life can be generated and evolve to where intelligent self-aware free willed and potentially conscientious individuals are capable of contemplating the universe, infinity, life and God.
In each case there is no clear “right or wrong” code and each individual acts and interacts with or without regard to their free will and conscience but both circumstances can comply with the scientific method and the expectation that nothing can violate the invariant laws.
The thing that differentiates the two definitions is the “eternal intent” attributed to the view that God and the universe are one in the same. Intent of the universe, by necessity, would have to have always existed; otherwise something Supernatural could exist that would be capable of falsifying the invariance axiom and that could not comply with the scientific method. Therefore eternal intent would be the quintessential differentiating feature between a natural universe without intent and an invariant God with intent.
The intent could be identified as what assures there to always be life forms with high evolution who act out their lives through actions and interactions in inhabitable environments as opposed to us being here due solely to randomness and chance.
As to whether there is eternal intent or whether nature complies with the definition without intent, it is my view that if the universe has always existed and has always complied with the invariant natural laws then it could not have ever been out of compliance with those laws and so it could never have been any other way, and that means that there could be no violations of the invariant natural laws regardless whether or not there is eternal intent, and therefore nothing Supernatural could take place under either definition. There is no supernatural and everything complies with invariant natural laws, always has, and always will.
Though many other choices are apparent, I identify those two choices, i.e. infinite, eternal, and invariant nature without intent, or an Infinite, Eternal, and Invariant Natural God that differs from nature only by having that quintessential Eternal Intent. Both afford the same room for hope and faith since both allow that beyond the boundary of scientific knowledge, in the realm of the unknown laws of Nature, all things can seem possible and so there is eternal hope for those who care to call upon it in their daily lives.
Since there is no clear right and wrong at every turn of life we are free to seek council and there is the possibility that a good source would be to consciously seek an acknowledgment from beyond the boundary of known science; unexplainable individual guidance from the unknown in accord with invariant Natural laws that we don’t yet understand.
We individuals who might be living under such intent find that we act and interact in accord with our freewill which is moderated by our individual consciences, and we could reasonably suspect conscience to be an intended feature of high evolution that we each develop and apply to our actions and interactions throughout our lives, and if so, may God’s Infinite and Eternal Intent serve as our source of council along the way.
We have an advancing boundary between what has been achieved by science and what is yet to be achieved. In the realm of the “yet to be achieved” is the discovery and quantification of the unexplained and/or unknown natural laws and it is the role of science to confront the problems it faces and to advance the boundary into the realm of the “as yet” unknown.
But when addressing the unknown, it is an axiom that the laws of nature are invariant and based on that axiom, invariance is a characteristic of both the science we know and the natural laws we don’t yet know or understand. It follows that anything that appears Supernatural can be explained by natural laws we don’t yet understand.
Based on the postulated invariance of the natural laws of the universe, the definition of Supernatural is anything that can be shown to vary from the invariant natural laws. But It is merely speculation that anything at all will ever be shown to vary from the natural laws and so the existence of the Supernatural is speculative and problematic.
On that basis every miracle has its own catch 22 in that if it cannot be repeated or explained it either varies from the natural law or we don’t understand the natural laws to which it complies. If it varies from the natural law it is Supernatural and not scientific, and if it complies with invariant natural laws that we don’t yet understand it is natural and therefore not a miracle.
The existence of God does not have to be the same thing as speculation that something Supernatural exists that violates the natural laws. The Supernatural requires that the scientific axiom of invariance be falsified. The existence of God does not require violation of invariance, it requires a universal definition of God that postulates that the laws are invariant and doesn’t go on to personify that defined God or give it ability to override the invariant laws for the benefit of some chosen individual or group. The scientific position is that there are natural laws that would explain all miracles if only we understood all of the invariant laws of nature and the corresponding definition of God that is in compliance is that the universe and God are one in the same, a set of invariant Natural laws that have always existed.
Nature can be defined as a potentially infinite and eternal universe whose invariant laws provide for the perpetual existence of habitable environments where life can be generated and evolve to where intelligent self-aware free willed and potentially conscientious individuals are capable of contemplating the universe, infinity, life and God.
God can be defined as the infinite and eternal presence of invariant laws and intent that provide for the perpetual existence of habitable environments where life can be generated and evolve to where intelligent self-aware free willed and potentially conscientious individuals are capable of contemplating the universe, infinity, life and God.
In each case there is no clear “right or wrong” code and each individual acts and interacts with or without regard to their free will and conscience but both circumstances can comply with the scientific method and the expectation that nothing can violate the invariant laws.
The thing that differentiates the two definitions is the “eternal intent” attributed to the view that God and the universe are one in the same. Intent of the universe, by necessity, would have to have always existed; otherwise something Supernatural could exist that would be capable of falsifying the invariance axiom and that could not comply with the scientific method. Therefore eternal intent would be the quintessential differentiating feature between a natural universe without intent and an invariant God with intent.
The intent could be identified as what assures there to always be life forms with high evolution who act out their lives through actions and interactions in inhabitable environments as opposed to us being here due solely to randomness and chance.
As to whether there is eternal intent or whether nature complies with the definition without intent, it is my view that if the universe has always existed and has always complied with the invariant natural laws then it could not have ever been out of compliance with those laws and so it could never have been any other way, and that means that there could be no violations of the invariant natural laws regardless whether or not there is eternal intent, and therefore nothing Supernatural could take place under either definition. There is no supernatural and everything complies with invariant natural laws, always has, and always will.
Though many other choices are apparent, I identify those two choices, i.e. infinite, eternal, and invariant nature without intent, or an Infinite, Eternal, and Invariant Natural God that differs from nature only by having that quintessential Eternal Intent. Both afford the same room for hope and faith since both allow that beyond the boundary of scientific knowledge, in the realm of the unknown laws of Nature, all things can seem possible and so there is eternal hope for those who care to call upon it in their daily lives.
Since there is no clear right and wrong at every turn of life we are free to seek council and there is the possibility that a good source would be to consciously seek an acknowledgment from beyond the boundary of known science; unexplainable individual guidance from the unknown in accord with invariant Natural laws that we don’t yet understand.
We individuals who might be living under such intent find that we act and interact in accord with our freewill which is moderated by our individual consciences, and we could reasonably suspect conscience to be an intended feature of high evolution that we each develop and apply to our actions and interactions throughout our lives, and if so, may God’s Infinite and Eternal Intent serve as our source of council along the way.