"Quantum tempest in a celestial teapot" spurs additional questions, conclusion

[This is the second half of an essay written based on responses to a previous entry, Quantum tempest in a celestial teapot.]


If we want to explore the source and fundamental character of existence, we can do this with various metaphysical programs available to us such science.  This is the route that brilliant and distinguished minds such as Hawking have taken, and all of humanity benefits from the insights offered by such labors.  Yet such efforts inevitably lead to the problem that we cannot out-think our own brains and their mental limits in perceiving and pondering existence.  We trace causes and effects and necessary conditions as far as we can, but it would be foolish to think that reaching this limit is the same as having a complete and final answer.  Some people may not care what else there may be to know or some may simply reject any other way of knowing.  That is their choice.

If that is the case, we simply have our mysterious source of phenomena like gravity (the same source as any cause that is found for gravity, and for the cause of that cause, and the cause of that cause).  Again, in the theology we are discussing, however many causes you add, they are contained within and an aspect of the Divine.  God isn't simply a link in the causal chain, even the hypothetical first link.  God is the steel of the chain and the shape of the steel and that in which the chain exists.  Again, this leaves some of us wondering about the relevance of such a remote God, while others may also be asking whether there isn't another avenue to discover more about the fundamental nature of existence.

"Quantum tempest in a celestial teapot" spurs additional questions

I am grateful to those who have taken the time to respond to Quantum tempest in a celestial teapot. Sometimes comments about such topic whether mentioned here or elsewhere simply draw out particular ideologues who want to do some rhetorical chest thumping without any real reflection, so your thoughtful replies are appreciated.

There is a question which is tangential to the point of the aforementioned essay, but I do think it is worth exploring on its own. The question asks what basis there is for connecting the force which created the universe to the mystical experience of love. Now, in the previous essay I made it clear I do not believe that one needs to invoke God as a match lighter for the Big Bang, so we can replace "force which created the universe" with "the source of universe". To appreciate this essay you really do need to read the one which led us here, especially where I write: