I've never suggested that a god could not have done it. I've said that humans have limited knowledge. There are questions for which we do not have answers.
You never know what kind of self regenerative facts exist. If your God isn't derived from matter or energy, it doesn't matter. There are other states of being.
God is not a god just of the gaps. God is God of all things, known and unknown. Everything scientists examine, all the tools they use to study the world. even scientists themselves, are all God's creation.
I didn't suggest you said science should be ignored. You have indicated that it has a limited use. And yes you have said legislation should interfere in abortion However we are merely discussing the former. Your "truth" is yours alone. Happily in a very small minority.
Are you saying you KNOW that there was nothing before the singularity that started this universe? Are you saying that you KNOW your god did NOT create an environment in which our universe was one natural effect? What's your evidence?
Not yet. Though the study of the nature of other dimensions has thrown up some interesting ideas. For example a situation within antimatter may well result in different states of being.
I'm saying that we don't know the environment in which our universe came to life. How can we make statements concerning how this universe came about when we don't know the environment in which it happened? How do you know that the energy of our universe is NOT simply one piece of the energy of that environment in which our universe came about? How do you know that this universe didn't come about through natural causes as exist outside our universe? In one way, you claim that it DID come about due to the environment outside our universe. You claim that environment was made of your god and nothing else!! What's your evidence for the realm outside our universe being constructed as you demand?
Answering your question highlighted in bold. You still have the causality principle even if you move it to multi-verses. I don't recall using the phrase "environment". That would be a contingent cause. We can observe the effects of environment.
Why is that? What is your reason for asserting that the realm outside our universe has to be like that? Isn't it possible that it could be something different from what you propose? For example, perhaps the realm in which our universe exists is an infinite continuum of energy which has wobbles the size of creating universes. Why does it have to be that the only infinity is YOUR GOD?!?!? BTW, adding more definitions to the word "god" doesn't make anything clearer, as humans already have numerous broad ideas of what that word means to them.
This might come as a surprise to you, but iirc there are scientists that postulate ID that aren't religious or believers.
Well, it's also possible you didn't misjudge me! These are difficult topics and we'll try our best - and that will include misunderstandings.
One problem with that reasoning is that there are too many factors that we do not know. Once such factors are known, it becomes clear that the reasoning is not necessarily valid.
Yes, your causality principle isn't the problem. The problem is that we don't know the environment in which it is being applied. Some Christians want that environment to be their particular god + absolutely nothing. That is, a nothing that is far more seriously "nothing" than intergalactic space, which we know is NOT nothing. Our space has energy. But, there is no evidence that the environment from which our universe sprang was God + that severe nothing. Surely our largest problem is that we CAN'T directly observe this environment that surely must exist outside our universe - the environment from which our universe sprang.
LOL! Now, THAT is the truth. The only question might be how much did humans learn to do so humans could find a place to live other than Earth. And, that sounds seriously bleak! We don't even like Antarctica, and that is STUPENDOUSLY better in every way than any other place in the cosmos that we've discovered.
I guess I'm not comfortable with the word "environment" because that implies a contingent cause. I know others are uncomfortable with the word "God" because of its implications, but it works better for me because its a cause that's not contingent on other causes which can be objectively observed. Otherwise known as the First Cause or God.
The basic idea of ID is that evolution fails unless there is constant tweaking from an intelligent source guiding that evolution. There are people who talk about panspermia, but that has more to do with abiogenesis, not evolution. So, a rock bearing dna (or whatever) once landed on Earth from somewhere there is already life. Or, aliens came here and planted dna or something. That's an explanation of life starting, not ID. So, ID really does require a god. Otherwise, one has to postulate super intelligent aliens running around tweaking our genome. I've never heard of anyone believing the "aliens did it" version. Maybe you know of some other variant.
