A Modest Thought Experiment...

[SalixIncendium]

I recall more than a few Christian literalists mocking mocking science, but I can't seem to recall a singe case of someone postulating:

Science does not know how the universe was created therefore Christianity is true.​

Perhaps you could point me to an example or two?

As I mentioned, all one has to do is look at some of the debates in the EvC forum.

Also, it's a bit unfair to change what I wrote...

...[-I-] know God created the universe because science doesn't know how the universe was created.

...to...

Science does not know how the universe was created therefore Christianity is true.

 

[ChristineM]

Question, then. Has Ms. Second presented the officers with sound reason and cause to arrest Crazy Spuds for bank robbery?

I don't know

 

[oldbadger]

Two further questions.

First, how does Mr. First's response differ in principle from that of scientists who say they do not know for certain how life began?

Second, how does Ms. Second's response differ in principle from that of some (but not all) believers who say they know better than the scientists how life began because -- unlike the scientists -- they have an answer to the question of how it began?

1st post:
Yes, the police could arrest Crazy Spuds who Ms Second claims to have identified. But where I live, (and especially in Scotland) they will need some corroborative evidence for a jury to reasonably convict him, after all, he was in bed with Ms second's daughter during the whole of that incident.

2nd Post: Mr First response is about the same, I guess, he was/is clueless about both situations, it seems.

Ms Second'#s response is fine, and since Scientists are beginning to change their minds (at this very time) about how our Solar System developed (oh yes!) and can change their minds about asteroids and comets carrying amino acids tomorrow., if they fancy, please could you give Ms Second a little leeway.

Is it that you fancy Ms Second and she spurned your advances. and so you want to chuck water over her? She's got a right to beliefs, and scientists have the right to change their minds next week.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, but that wasn't the scenario as presented, so I'll stick by my response.

But let's go a step further. Just because she "knows...he is thus and because of this or that" does not at all prove that she's right. She has zero evidence that it was him running out of the building.

I agree.

She doesn't.

The problem I had wasn't with the idea that she claimed she knew. It was why she claimed she knew, and that this reason was the equivalent of a theist claiming that s/he KNOWS God exists BECAUSE nonbelievers do not know that He does.

Ok, that was convoluted but I hope you get it.

 

[Sunstone]

I recall more than a few Christian literalists mocking mocking science, but I can't seem to recall a singe case of someone postulating:

Science does not know how the universe was created therefore Christianity is true.​

​

I think that is a bit of a straw man. I have never seen anything like that either. But I do recall having seen people argue that life had to have been created because science cannot demonstrate how it could have arisen naturally. To me, that seems logically equivalent to stating what I presented in the OP as Ms. Second's opinion.

 

[dianaiad]

Me either. My idea is that God created the universe with certain physical laws that inevitably led to life. Science can tell us how the laws of the universe work and why they lead to life starting and I assume that they will eventually.

People and questions can postulate this exclusively or that exclusively, but I'm on the side of both.

Oh, well, me too. Science can go find the 'hows' and 'whats' all it wants to. I happen to believe that's one of the reasons we are HERE, to learn to think and to figure out this stuff.

Science cannot, and should not, be answering the 'why,' ...


And religion should stay out of the 'how.'

 

[dianaiad]

But I am not arguing "theists in general", am I?

I'm being kind. I don't know ANY theist who thinks that 'God is' BECAUSE someone doesn't know if He is.

 

[ChristineM]

First, how does Mr. First's response differ in principle from that of scientists who say they do not know for certain how life began?

Mr F was there, scientists weren't

Second, how does Ms. Second's response differ in principle from that of some (but not all) believers who say they know better than the scientists how life began because -- unlike the scientists -- they have an answer to the question of how it began?

Mrs S saw the masked robber but is relying on faith
The believer is relying on faith

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

​

I think that is a bit of a straw man. I have never seen anything like that either. But I do recall having seen people argue that life had to have been created because [emphasis add - JS] science cannot demonstrate how it could have arisen naturally. To me, that seems logically equivalent to stating what I presented in the OP as Ms. Second's opinion.

I cannot speak to your experiences. I can only respect and defer to them, while adding that I do not recall seeing such an argument.

 

[dianaiad]

In my experience, there are those who say they know God created the universe because science doesn't know how the universe was created.

I'll have to take your word for that one. I've never met anybody who makes that claim. I've met people whose words might be taken that way...

As in, the non-believer says 'we don't know how this happened, and therefore nobody can have an opinion or any reason to believe that a Creator God is responsible,'

And the believer says, in response...or at first..." I believe that a Creator God did this with a Word BECAUSE scriptures say so and you say you don't know so that proves I'm right!"

But the two aren't the same claim as "I believe a specific version of a Creator God did this BECAUSE you don't know."

The fact is, Science and religion shouldn't try to explain one another. Everybody gets into trouble.

 

[Sunstone]

Two further questions.

First, how does Mr. First's response differ in principle from that of scientists who say they do not know for certain how life began?

Second, how does Ms. Second's response differ in principle from that of some (but not all) believers who say they know better than the scientists how life began because -- unlike the scientists -- they have an answer to the question of how it began? that, because the scientists have not explained how life began, life must have been created?



EDIT: After reading some of the comments in the thread, I have come to the conclusion that I did not make clear Ms. Second's position. I have edited the thread in an effort to clarify it.

EDIT: After reading some of the comments in the thread, I have come to the conclusion that I did not make clear Ms. Second's position. I have edited the thread in an effort to clarify it.

 

[Sunstone]

I cannot speak to your experiences. I can only respect and defer to them, while adding that I do not recall seeing such an argument.

You could be right, Jay. My memory has been in the process of failing me for the past few years. Still, I think I'm right. *shrug*

 

[Nimos]

I am.

GotG asserts God as an answer for the unexplained. It does not, as far as I can tell, claim that the unexplained is proof of God.

Put differently, it simply asserts that science does not falsify god,

But asserting that God is an answer for something that is unexplained is a fallacy. Because what would prevent me from using the exact them argument and say that Odin is definitely the most likely explanation?

In this case science doesn't assert anything and have nothing to do with whether God exist or not, It simply state that it have no explanation to the question and that is it, end of story.
If someone want to throw God in as the most likely explanation, fair enough. But again its no different than me saying that Odin did it.

If there are no evidence why God is a more reasonable explanation, then it is simply to fill the gap, because that is what one think makes most sense to them.

But ask yourself, why is it more likely that God did it compared to Odin, what evidence of reasonable quality could you present that makes him the better explanation?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'll have to take your word for that one. I've never met anybody who makes that claim. I've met people whose words might be taken that way...

As in, the non-believer says 'we don't know how this happened, and therefore nobody can have an opinion or any reason to believe that a Creator God is responsible,'

And the believer says, in response...or at first..." I believe that a Creator God did this with a Word BECAUSE scriptures say so and you say you don't know so that proves I'm right!"

But the two aren't the same claim as "I believe a specific version of a Creator God did this BECAUSE you don't know."

The fact is, Science and religion shouldn't try to explain one another. Everybody gets into trouble.

Fair enough.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, let me ask a relay question.

But asserting that God is an answer for something that is unexplained is a fallacy.

Speaking of fallacies ...

 

[Sunstone]

I appear to have stirred up some confusion with what might have been a poorly worded OP (although the original wording still makes perfect sense to me). My apologies to everyone if that is so.

 

[Nimos]

So, let me ask a relay question.

Speaking of fallacies ...

I will invoke my God then And if he can't explain it, then I guess, it just have to be that way.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I will invoke my God then And if he can't explain it, then I guess, it just have to be that way.

I would much rather have you invoke your God than proffer your circular reasoning.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

​

I think that is a bit of a straw man. I have never seen anything like that either. But I do recall having seen people argue that life had to have been created because science cannot demonstrate how it could have arisen naturally. To me, that seems logically equivalent to stating what I presented in the OP as Ms. Second's opinion.

Yes, I agree -- that is the logical equivalence.

Let's try to suss the reasons out more fully:

If science says that it has not yet amassed enough solid evidence to explain how life began -- then science is being honest.

Religion, then, in saying that "since science doesn't know how life began, our answer is proved to be the right one," is simply nonsense. It doesn't follow. The religious answer is one concocted out of whole cloth, and not subjected to the kinds of questions that could render it falsifiable.

Thus, the only thing that Ms. Second knows is that Mr. First doesn't know. That is insufficient, since it is a veritable certainty that there are not just two possibilities, but a vast multitude.

 

[PruePhillip]

Only the Good Lord knows for sure how that happened.... but mere coincidence? I think not! I strongly suspect DESIGN!!!!

Probably "design by coincidence" because "coincidence" is built into the universe.
The bible doesn't say God directly created life - it says God "commanded" the
earth and the sea to create life.