 |
 |
Will God Survive Science
| February 26th, 2018 at 4:08:55 PM permalink | |
| FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 | Thanks Dalex for the great post, let's see if I can clean this up a little bit.
The reason there needs to be a supernatural explanation is not from ignorance. If all natural things are contingent or depending on something else for their causality then we either fall into an actual infinite regress of contingent things causing contingent things without any beginning, foundation, or starting point; which of course makes the present moment impossible. The only other logical solution to how natural or contingent things came to exist is from something that is non-contingent. Something that is not dependent on anything else for its existence is the source of all that exists. We call this something supernatural because it is outside or above nature (nature being understood as time, space, matter, and energy). In summary, since we know there is nature and its characteristics namely that all is contingent and non-necessary. There must therefore be something supernatural that is non-contingent and necessary for there to be anything at all.
strawman Good catch. I will rephrase. There are plenty of reasons to think an eternal, all-powerful, spiritual being is a better explanation than some other proposals if we look at logic, common sense, scientific evidence, and reasonableness.
In my opinion the reason there are so many religions has a lot to do with history, pride, culture, and sometimes an unwillingness to subject one's beliefs to science and reason.
Admittedly religion's claims of divine revelation are circular. However, its claim that such revelation leads to peace and fulfillment in life is able to be demonstrated as is its impact on morality that supports modern society. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
| February 26th, 2018 at 4:13:37 PM permalink | |
| FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
What you are saying right here is a heresy and an old one. The Bible does not tell you all you need to know. It is not a textbook, cookbook, science manual, or anything of the sort. It is a book of faith. In fact the Bible itself tells us that there is much more to know, even about faith, then is included in the Old and New Testaments. God gave us brains and a beautiful, intelligible, ordered universe. It is obvious that He wants us to discover and learn all we can and in doing so we learn more about God Himself.
Why? Don't you think God wouldn't want you to get sick? “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
| February 26th, 2018 at 4:17:30 PM permalink | |
| Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
You invented god, so in reality he's given you nothing except false hope and myths. Which as science progresses, will all fall aside as footnotes in history where they belong. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
| February 26th, 2018 at 4:46:49 PM permalink | |
| petroglyph Member since: Aug 3, 2014 Threads: 25 Posts: 6227 | IDK , it's your story. If you claim that the prophet created illness, it would logically follow that he wanted people to get sick. The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury. GW |
| February 26th, 2018 at 4:54:24 PM permalink | |
| Dalex64 Member since: Mar 8, 2014 Threads: 3 Posts: 3687 |
First review what argument from ignorance means. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance You are claiming that for lack of a better argument, yours must be true. Also from the other angle - since your argument has not been proven false, it must be true. Both are examples of "argument from ignorance" Second flaw - declaring one thing is impossible and then substituting another impossible argument of your choice. Now that you admit that religion's claims of divine revelation are circular in nature, you should stop trying to use them in your philosophical proofs. After all, we are firmly discussing things in the realm of reason and philosophy, not science, just the way you want. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
| February 26th, 2018 at 5:14:21 PM permalink | |
| Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
"It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true." With that definition, all arguments for a god are arguments from ignorance. I have no argument for there being no god, other than there is no evidence for one. That is a fact, not an argument. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
| February 26th, 2018 at 5:27:24 PM permalink | |
| FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
Okay. I am first claiming that positing a supernatural cause of all things is a logical necessity and that there is no other possibility. I am not claiming that there is a lack of a better argument. My argument would look like this: All natural things require a cause. [given: "Natural" means a contingent and non-necessary thing] The universe itself is a natural thing. Therefore the universe has a cause. This cause must be something other than natural to avoid an actual infinite regress. Therefore this cause is supernatural. [given: "supernatural" means a non-contingent and necessary being or force] For the life of me I cannot imagine another class of being besides natural or supernatural. However, to avoid falling into the argument from ignorance again I will claim that even if there was a some type of non-natural, non-supernatural type of thing it would not effect the logical requirement for there to be a supernatural reality.
An actual infinite regress is impossible. You can't stand on a stack of chairs that has nothing but chairs underneath you and not a foundation for the first chair to rest upon. I don't know what other impossible argument you are referring to that I am using.
Will do. I feel like we can discuss these things in the realm of reason and philosophy, which I enjoy even if I need some good correction here and there, and we can also use science. After all science is another way to arrive at truth even though it is limited to the observable and testable natural world in ways reason and philosophy are not. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
| February 26th, 2018 at 5:32:32 PM permalink | |
| FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
Oh Bob you were so very close, I thought you were going to realize that your argument is pretty much the textbook definition of arguing from ignorance. You say that there is no God because you cannot prove it to be true and then you claim that there is no God because you cannot prove it to be false. This is not a fact and it turns out you finally realize it is not a logical argument either. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
| February 26th, 2018 at 5:47:59 PM permalink | |
| Dalex64 Member since: Mar 8, 2014 Threads: 3 Posts: 3687 |
Now you are putting forth the strawman that the only other explanations expose the the flaw of infinite regress. Since not all arguments result in an infinite regress, you can not use the impossibility of an infinite regress as "proof" that yours is the only possible answer. Anyway A is false (infinite regress) therefore B is true (god created the universe) is another example of argument from ignorance. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
| February 26th, 2018 at 6:11:27 PM permalink | |
| FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
Okay, now we're talking. Any explanation that uses a natural (given our use above) cause to explain the existence of things that are natural results in an infinite regress. Therefore something other than a natural cause is required. This we commonly refer to as supernatural. I feel that this avoids both the strawman and argument from ignorance. It is weaker than my argument from earlier because it doesn't make other unknown answers impossible, but at the same time it establishes the need for something outside of the natural. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |