Science is forced to stay within its limits by its methodology. Step over the line and science can't work.
Agreed, the understanding of reality as perceived by humans (or any conscious organism for that matter) is a relative concept dependent on the capacity of sense perception and mental power.
Deep-sea fish that live in the darkness below the sunlit surface waters may not and cannot know what the sun is or whether it exists. If they have the mental capacity, they may think that it’s reasonable to withhold belief that the sun exists. It doesn’t mean anything in their realm/domain but maybe some phytoplankton in the water provide a clue about the existence of the sun. Whether they acknowledge the existence of the sun or not, it's irrelevant to the fact that without the sun, life on the deep see (actually on earth) would not exist.
"Whatever's beyond our ability so see can't exist?" Nobody says this. It's not an axiom, and not logical.
Yes, it’s definitely not logical. Nonetheless, it resides in the subconscious of many of the so-called proponents of science as an axiom that shapes their mindset/perspective even if they are not aware of it. Simply,” don’t/can’t see it, don’t believe it or it cannot exist”.
"Entities must be grounded in the absolute?" "Logical necessity?" This doesn't follow. You're presupposing the absolute, and your conclusion doesn't follow.
I’m not presupposing anything. The causal dependency of relative/caused entities cannot continue in infinite regression. An absolute is necessary at the end of the chain. It’s not a presupposition; it’s a logical necessity. Infinite regress is a logical fallacy.
As explained above, “can’t see it, can’t experiment with it, it doesn’t exist”
The absolute reality is not confined within the domain of our ability to observe/comprehend. The observable domain of science doesn’t establish a sufficient disclosure of objective reality that independently lies outside the limits of awareness/knowledge.
What scientist says this?
Science's boundaries are dictated by what can be directly or indirectly observed
Most if not all scientists believe only the information obtained through observation or through experimentations, which is a logical approach only within a limited domain. The boundaries of such domain don’t create any limitation to the absolute reality that independently lies beyond that domain.
Exactly. Science, of course, is forced by its methodology to use appropriate means. Religion, on the other hand, has always felt free to trample on science's domain, opining on biology, physics,geology, &c.
Religion's not an investigative modality. It doesn't test. In fact, it actively resists testing and criticism, which science demands.
The scientific (physical) domain is not the only domain of reality. We can logically understand the existence of other (non-physical/metaphysical) domains, but the specific knowledge of such domains is not attainable through experimental/observational science. Beyond the limits of observational science, logic/philosophy and historiography/religions are the means to gain such knowledge, not observation or experimentation.
Prof Denis Noble, as a scientist is cognizant of the deficiency of the experimental/observational science to provide fundamental answers concerning the metaphysical domain. In the University of Oxford, Noble presented a lecture on his book, “The Music of Life”, he addressed this issue when he said “
There are many metaphysical questions we can ask about what is life and what am I, what are you, and we all have our own ways of answering that kind of question, that's the function of course of religion and there are many religions, The important point ….my point is not to say which is right or which is wrong is to say think about it it's not so certain we know what we are”
The lecture is on YouTube. here is the link. See 38:38
(138) Music of Life Lecture - Denis Noble - YouTube
It is logical and reasonable to withhold belief in God, just as it is reasonable to withhold belief in leprechauns and unicorns -- because there is no empirical evidence that they exist.
Here is the paradox, if you understand that God is necessarily “non-physical”, and the methodology of observation/experimentation cannot deal with the “non-physical”, then you cannot deny the existence of God or insist to understand God's nature on the basis of empirical evidence. It doesn’t apply. Empirical evidence is only applicable within the physical domain and cannot be used to understand the nature of God’s being. You cannot apply the wrong means in the wrong domain. You want to bring God to physical domain to verify what he is but if you can do that, then he is not God. God is neither physical nor confined within the limits of space or time. These limitations define our realm, it limits us but it’s totally irrelevant to God’s being/nature.
But beyond God’s nature that cannot be observed/understood, we can definitely utilize observational science, logic, philosophy and historiography specifically with respect to data drawn from authentic historical religious records to understand God’s attributes.
If the authenticity of historical religious records can be verified and the drawn data from these records are consistent with both logic and observational science (without any contradiction), then there is neither logical basis nor scientific basis to deny it.
See #1450 for the religious perspective of God and the Universe in Islam.
This doesn't mean we declare them impossible, we just withhold belief pending evidence. I have seen no concrete evidence for a god.
Because you’re looking for the wrong kind of evidence that doesn’t apply to the Nature of God. If you know that the missing item is within a dark house (domain of search), you may get a flashlight (appropriate means) and search within that house. You don’t go search outside (wrong domain) and expect to find it there merely because “outside” is where you can see.
Einstein correctly identified the problem of God as the "most difficult in the world”. He said, “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds”.
Reality is not limited to entities that can be observed or experimented with. We cannot observe everything at all times, Inductivism is deficient in the sense that inductive evidence are always limited, that’s why we use deductive reasoning to verify the validity of an initial premise.
Logic can provide initial predictions/premise independent from observations. Such as the mathematical physics of the general theory of relativity, that successfully provided proven predictions consistent with experimental data. Einstein didn’t rely on a sophisticated space telescope to spot some extraordinary observation but rather his tools were pen, paper and the power of the human mind.
Logic and the intellectual power of the human mind can go further beyond physical observations. Yet, consistent observations support the validity of the premise.
The logical premise of the necessary (absolute) being “God” is supported by observations of design, purpose, and order that can be witnessed in the fine-tuned universe, every single life form (see #424), even at the atomic and molecular level (see #226).
You've taken the comments out of context. Einstein was, at best, a pantheist or agnostic.
Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia
Not at all, read it again. Einstein was not an atheist, pantheist or agnostic.
First, I never said that Einstein followed a specific religion. He didn’t.
Second, Einstein was neither an atheist nor a pantheist. He clearly said, "I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist.” .
Third, Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. That was not his view. he was not agnostic. Einstein said "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature.
There are not laws without a lawgiver”. He acknowledged God’s causal influence as the “
lawgiver” but he correctly identified the specific problem as the nature of God. He said “but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified”.
To summarize, Einstein was not an atheist, He acknowledged God’s causal influence as the “
lawgiver”, his view was that the problem is too vast for our limited minds with respect to the nature of God’s being. He said “but how does this lawgiver look?”.
People have been "understanding God's attributes through his manifestations" for millennia: Earthquakes, tides, plagues, comets, seasons.... They were wrong. They were trespassing onto science's domain.
Science has been explaining the unintentional, undirected mechanisms of such "proofs of God" for hundreds of years. Religion, on the other hand, doesn't "explain," it just attributes. It doesn't posit any mechanism, so infers magic.
you are referring to witnessed phenomena but you neither understand the root cause nor have any logical or scientific basis to claim undirected mechanisms.
Logically, any witnessed effect is a component of a chain reaction or a domino effect. a witnessed phenomenon at a specific point in time is analogous to the last domino’s fall in a “domino effect” and can be sufficiently explained by the fall of the domino immediately preceding it. But does such explanation provide sufficient disclosure of a root cause or justify a claim for an undirected mechanism? Absolutely not. unless you explain the absolute beginning of the domino effect, you neither have an explanation nor can claim that the mechanism is undirected. All what you did is you moved one step back to find that you are back to square one with the exact same question.
Yes, natural laws explain observable phenomena. natural laws are the “preceding domino” per the analogy above but what explains the natural laws itself? What is the root cause? We know natural laws exist and act in a specific way. That’s very much it, but why does it exist? Why it acts in such specific manner? We have no idea; we don’t even care for an explanation as if these laws or physical forces are brute facts. It's not. it's all contingent entities that came to existence with the Big Bang. Even the term “physical” doesn't represent true knowledge or understanding of its nature. If we know nothing about the intrinsic nature of these forces, how can we with any level of certainty call it physical or metaphysical? If this is the case with the natural laws, how about the nature of its causal influence? We don’t have a clue, as Einstein said, “
There are not laws without a lawgiver …but how does this lawgiver look?”.
See # 490 for causality levels/ hierarchy
Darwin's Illusion | Page 25 | Religious Forums