Will God Survive Science

Quote: FrGamble

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.

In other words, as long as there isn't a viable scientific alternative, your supernatural alternative must be true. Once again the argument from ignorance.

Right on topic with "How will god survive science"

As more and more things become natural, the "gap" for god becomes smaller, until all you are left with is science can't see past the big bang therefore god.

It draws right back to the lack of any logical or philosophical link between the creator of all existence (if any) and the circular logic used by humans to create religions.

With that we can ignore both the problem of an infinite regress, the possibility that a supernatural agent created all of existence, and conclude there is no rational way to select any religion, historical or present, as correct.

In a nutshell, that is why I do not believe in your, or anyone's, god.

FrGamble, other religions almost all already believe in a supernatural causes.

Maybe you would have more luck with them.

Summary part two: I believe I don't know and therefore don't believe, you believe you do know and therefore believe.

Quote: rxwine

Not just theology, but it would be a tiresome exercise to have people claiming that something exists because I can't prove definitively that it doesn't.

Proving definitively that something exists or doesn't exist is impossible. One of the only ways is to use this logical fallacy, it exists because you can't prove it doesn't or Evenbob's favorite it doesn't exist because you can't prove it does.

If we move away from the language of proof we realize that we all act on faith. Not a blind or unreasonable faith but rather a faith based on many different factors and pieces of evidence that lead us to trust this person and not that one, to eat this food or not, to love this person, etc.

Quote: Dalex64

In other words, as long as there isn't a viable scientific alternative, your supernatural alternative must be true. Once again the argument from ignorance.

I don't think that: "If B (the cause of natural things) is not A (a natural thing). Then A (a natural thing) is not B (the cause of natural things)." Is the argument from ignorance.

Quote:

As more and more things become natural, the "gap" for god becomes smaller, until all you are left with is science can't see past the big bang therefore god.

At least speaking for the Christian I don't know if this "gap" has closed at all. We never believed or taught that lighting was Zeus' anger. We see the created world as a wonderful gift from God that is meant for us to discover and study. In learning about the natural world we learn about the God who created it and praise Him. Can you give an example of something that was considered supernatural that is now natural?

Quote: Dalex64

Summary part two: I believe I don't know and therefore don't believe, you believe you do know and therefore believe.

It seems like a fair summary.

I am uncomfortable with being in the "believe you do know" camp. Wisdom as we know comes from when we realize we do not know. There is so much I don't know and God Himself is such an unfathomable depth of the unknown that it makes all of what we don't know about our own universe seem like child's play when compared to trying to understand the reason and source of all being.

Therefore I do not believe because I know, I believe because I am intrigued and captivated by a mystery so grand and alluring that I cannot resist.

Quote: FrGamble

We never believed or taught that lighting was Zeus' anger.

So you believed it was Jehovah's anger. Same difference.

When Franklin invented the lightning rod, Christian churches were against its use. They finally relented when all buildings except churches were safe from lightning. Look up an essay by Asimov called "The Fateful Lightning." You can find it in the collection "Edge of Tomorrow."

Christians were also against the use of anesthesia for labor and childbirth. But that's a story for another day.

I think you might be using a fictional writing to inform your history a little bit. I have never heard of such things. Maybe a local crazy pastor or two do not a universal statement make?

Quote: FrGamble

I think you might be using a fictional writing to inform your history a little bit. I have never heard of such things. Maybe a local crazy pastor or two do not a universal statement make?

Only a portion of Asimov's writing was fiction. The rest was non-fiction, mostly science and history.

Quote: FrGamble

I think you might be using a fictional writing to inform your history a little bit. I have never heard of such things. Maybe a local crazy pastor or two do not a universal statement make?

What's that, you've never heard of it therefore it isn't true?

http://www.miltontimmons.com/ChruchesVsLightningRod.html

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2501/was-there-any-theological-opposition-to-the-lightning-rod