"I was being a tad flippant."
With you I find it had to tell, because you seem to flip seamlessly in and out if "flippant" mode.
"It doesn't matter how you, or I, or MrGordon, or watsup describe God, collectively we know nothing about the nature of God."
To believers, I suggest, it matters a great deal which is evident from the passion that they demonstrate in their disagreements about the nature of God. "Religion and science can't prove or disprove God."
Many religious people don't agree; Most scientists agree that you can't disprove God; my view is that if God did exist science should be able to see strong evidence that he does. The fact that we can't says a great deal, in my view, of the probability of his existence. But we can by investigating the realities of science and the personal experience described as spiritual, to then surmise that it is fair and reasonable to suggest that some higher consciousness is in play, without which we have to conclude that nothingness placed an overwhelming creative process into every aspect of natural order.
I think that it is fair and reasonable based on what we do know that a higher consciousness does not need to be at play. In fact I find it less fair and reasonable to suggest that that a higher consciousness is in play because that assumes that this higher consciousness that needs no explanation is the explanation for creation. "It doesn't matter how much we understand the laws of nature, why the hell does chaos, or nothing, or nature without consciousness even have or require laws.
Maybe the answer is that nature has laws that deal with "nothing" and chaos. We have examples of how this happens. I have explained some of them to you, but you didn't want to know.
"Laws are applied to achieve balance, cohesion, reciprocity. Does it not tickle your curiosity that natural order firstly exists and then imposes perfect laws to enable life and constancy.
I don't get you point. "In fact the universe is vehemently oppose to imbalance and seems to have deliberately set about to habitation zones."
Agree - that I suspect is the reason that we have a universe. "Nothing" is unstable.
"Too many WHYS here to just flip-off a higher consciousness."
On the other hand - even more WHYS to flip -on a higher consciousness; of course higher consciousness can't be discounted.
"It is your right to make no claims of a God, even in the broadest sense of what God might be, but then you are stuck with science and science is like a wind-up toy in a box, it bumps into mystery one side, turns around and bumps into a mystery on the other side and repeats this over and over and over again, then rails at anybody that suggests that the mystery is a superior consciousness."
I think that you are putting words in my mouth excepting of course when I was on the grog. I don't claim there is definitely no God; I claim that I think that things work just fine without the need for a God. I must be on the grog because I find this statement really easy to understand.
I'm happy to live with your analogy of my stuck bumping from one mystery to another. Again unless I was on the grog never I suggested that the mystery is a superior consciousness. In fact I have never been that far gone on the grog to know what this means,
"Consciousness arose out of matter, out of non-consciousness and yet it can't exist in an abundant free-form?
I understand the first part of that sentence, but not the second.
