-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does science prove the existence of god?
- Thread starter Ceridwen018
- Start date
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I'm not sure I understand what relevance this has on whether or not the universe has always existed--do you agree that the universe has always existed, or not?Orthodox said:
But you have presupposed the existence of supernatural things by confining that which could not have caused the universe to "anything natural". It would be more accurate to say "it is improbable that there was anything in existence to be the cause of the universe". Again, to invoke a the supernatural is tantamount to saying "I don't know". I have difficulty distinguishing between something that is supernatural, and something that is natural but foreign to our understanding.Orthodox said:
I do not agree with the first statement, and contend that the second statement presupposes the existence of unnatural things.Orthodox said:
And what evidence would suggest to the caveman that he does not know about electricity? How can one know about that which one does not know about? There could be a plethora of natural phenomena that we don't know about, and there is no way for evidence to rule out this possibility. I wholeheartedly agree that we must follow the evidence, but I wonder what evidence tells us that we know everything there is to know about nature?Orthodox said:
Why do wolves hunt in organized packs rather than aimlessly wander the woods by themselves? Genetics and environment.Orthodox said:
Maybe we're the same person, but from parallel universes. The question is, which one of us is the evil one? :biglaugh:Orthodox said:
Mr Spinkles,
I'll just briefly explain my use of the word 'natural'. I qualify something as 'natural' if it is native to this universe (that is, a native to the spacetime and matter of this universe). I qualify something as natural if it is is bound to the physical and temporal confines of this universe.
2. Finally we agree! I do think, along with many emminent scientists, that the fact that nothing natural existed before the BB reeks of the supernatural.
Indeed, why should we even attempt to unlock the secrets of the cosmos? I don't find that question answered by atheism, I find that atheists in general live as though there were objective values and standards.
I'll just briefly explain my use of the word 'natural'. I qualify something as 'natural' if it is native to this universe (that is, a native to the spacetime and matter of this universe). I qualify something as natural if it is is bound to the physical and temporal confines of this universe.
I don't think it has always existed.
Not if there is reason to believe that there was a supernatural factor in the equation.
1. How can something that does not exist cause itself to exist? It would have had to existed before it actually did in order to cause itself. The argument against causa sui was one of Jean Paul Satre's arguments against the existence of God. However, (although you would care little about it) the christian God is uncaused not self caused.
2. Finally we agree! I do think, along with many emminent scientists, that the fact that nothing natural existed before the BB reeks of the supernatural.
We don't know everything but we do know some important things which have bearing on the current topic. So far as we know the universe poped out of a singularity. We both know what this means in terms of space, time and matter. Saying that there is insufficient evidence to tell us anything is not right. We can hope that the future brings some change to, or re-evaluation of, the evidence. But, this does not forbid one from drawing a scientific conclusion that supernatural forces were at play.
Because it better ensures their survival. My point is, for what reason should one strive to survive?
Indeed, why should we even attempt to unlock the secrets of the cosmos? I don't find that question answered by atheism, I find that atheists in general live as though there were objective values and standards.
Who indeed......:162: .....lol
jasonparker
Member
The attributes of the universe discovered by science point to the existence of God. Science leads us to the conclusion that the universe has a Creator and this Creator is perfect in might, wisdom and knowledge. It is religion that shows us the way in knowing God. It is therefore possible to say that science is a method we use to better see and investigate the realities addressed by religion. Nevertheless, today, some of the scientists who step forth in the name of science take an entirely different stand. In their view, scientific discoveries do not imply the creation of God. They have, on the contrary, projected an atheistic understanding of science by saying that it is not possible to reach God through scientific data: they claim that science and religion are two clashing notions.
As a matter of fact, this atheistic understanding of science is quite recent. Until a few centuries ago, science and religion were never thought to clash with each other, and science was accepted as a method of proving the existence of God. The so-called atheistic understanding of science flourished only after the materialist and positivist philosophies swept through the world of science in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Particularly after Charles Darwin postulated the theory of evolution in 1859, circles holding a materialistic world view started to ideologically defend this theory, which they looked upon as an alternative to religion. The theory of evolution argued that the universe was not created by a creator but came into being by chance. As a result, it was asserted that religion was in conflict with science. The British researchers Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln said on this issue:
For Isaac Newton, a century and a half before Darwin, science was not separate from religion but, on the contrary, an aspect of religion, and ultimately subservient to it. ...But the science of Darwin's time became precisely that, divorcing itself from the context in which it had previously existed and establishing itself as a rival absolute, an alternative repository of meaning. As a result, religion and science were no longer working in concert, but rather stood opposed to each other, and humanity was increasingly forced to choose between them. (Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy, Gorgi Books, London: 1991, p. 177-178.)
As we stated before, the so-called split between science and religion was totally ideological. Some scientists, who earnestly believed in materialism, conditioned themselves to prove that the universe had no creator and they devised various theories in this context. The theory of evolution was the most famous and the most important of them. In the field of astronomy as well certain theories were developed such as the "steady-state theory" or the "chaos theory". However, all of these theories that denied creation were demolished by science itself, as we have clearly shown in the previous chapters.
Today, scientists who still keep to these theories and insist on denying all things religious, are dogmatic and bigoted people, who have conditioned themselves not to believe in God. The famous English zoologist and evolutionist D.M.S. Watson confesses to this dogmatism as he explains why he and his colleagues accept the theory of evolution:
If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. (D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation", Nature, no. 124, p. 233)
What Watson means by "special creation" is God's creation. As acknowledged, this scientist finds this "unacceptable". But why? Is it because science says so? Actually it does not. On the contrary, science proves the truth of creation. The only reason why Watson looks upon this fact as unacceptable is because he has conditioned himself to deny the existence of God. All other evolutionists take the same stand.
Evolutionists rely not on science but on materialist philosophy and they distort science to make it agree with this philosophy. A geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist from Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, confesses to this truth:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Richard Levontin, The Demon-Haunted World, The New York Review of Books, January, 9, 1997, p. 28)
On the other hand, today, just as in history, there are, as opposed to this dogmatic materialist group, scientists who confirm God's existence, and regard science as a way of knowing Him. Some trends developing in the USA such as "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" prove by scientific evidence that all living things were created by God.
This shows us that science and religion are not conflicting sources of information, but that, on the contrary, science is a method that verifies the absolute truths provided by religion. The clash between religion and science can only hold true for certain religions that incorporate some superstitious elements as well as divine sources. However, this is certainly out of the question for Islam, which relies only on the pure revelation of God. Moreover, Islam particularly advocates scientific enquiry, and announces that probing the universe is a method to explore the creation of God. The following verse of the Qur'an addresses this issue;
Do they not look at the sky above them? How We have built it and adorned it, and there are no rifts therein? And the earth - We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and caused it to bring forth plants of beauteous kinds (in pairs). And We send down from the sky blessed water whereby We give growth unto gardens and the grain of crops. And tall palm-trees, with shoots of fruit-stalks, piled one over another. (Surah Qaf, 6-7, 9-10)
As the above verses imply, the Qur'an always urges people to think, to reason and to explore everything in the world in which they live. This is because science supports religion, saves the individual from ignorance, and causes him to think more consciously; it opens wide one's world of thought and helps one grasp the signs of God self-evident in the universe. Prominent German physicist Max Planck said:
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." (J. De Vries, Essential of Physical Science, Wm.B.Eerdmans Pub.Co., Grand Rapids, SD 1958, p. 15.)
All the issues we have treated so far simply put it that the existence of the universe and all living things cannot be explained by coincidences. Many scientists who have left their mark on the world of science have confirmed, and still confirm this great reality. The more people learn about the universe, the higher does their admirations for its flawless order become. Every newly-discovered detail supports creation in an unquestionable way.
The great majority of modern physicists accept the fact of creation as we set foot in the 21st century. David Darling also maintains that neither time, nor space, nor matter, nor energy, nor even a tiny spot or a cavity existed at the beginning. A slight quick movement and a modest quiver and fluctuation occurred. Darling ends by saying that when the cover of this cosmic box was opened, the tendrils of the miracle of creation appeared from beneath it.
Besides, it is already known that almost all the founders of diverse scientific branches believed in God and His divine books. The greatest physicists in history, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin and Maxwell are a few examples of such scientists.
In the time of Isaac Newton, the great physicist, scientists believed that the movements of the heavenly bodies and planets could be explained by different laws. Nevertheless, Newton believed that the creator of earth and space was the same, and therefore they had to be explained by the same laws. He said:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion. He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.
http://www.harunyahya.com/70scientists_sci13.php
see more
As a matter of fact, this atheistic understanding of science is quite recent. Until a few centuries ago, science and religion were never thought to clash with each other, and science was accepted as a method of proving the existence of God. The so-called atheistic understanding of science flourished only after the materialist and positivist philosophies swept through the world of science in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Particularly after Charles Darwin postulated the theory of evolution in 1859, circles holding a materialistic world view started to ideologically defend this theory, which they looked upon as an alternative to religion. The theory of evolution argued that the universe was not created by a creator but came into being by chance. As a result, it was asserted that religion was in conflict with science. The British researchers Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln said on this issue:
For Isaac Newton, a century and a half before Darwin, science was not separate from religion but, on the contrary, an aspect of religion, and ultimately subservient to it. ...But the science of Darwin's time became precisely that, divorcing itself from the context in which it had previously existed and establishing itself as a rival absolute, an alternative repository of meaning. As a result, religion and science were no longer working in concert, but rather stood opposed to each other, and humanity was increasingly forced to choose between them. (Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy, Gorgi Books, London: 1991, p. 177-178.)
As we stated before, the so-called split between science and religion was totally ideological. Some scientists, who earnestly believed in materialism, conditioned themselves to prove that the universe had no creator and they devised various theories in this context. The theory of evolution was the most famous and the most important of them. In the field of astronomy as well certain theories were developed such as the "steady-state theory" or the "chaos theory". However, all of these theories that denied creation were demolished by science itself, as we have clearly shown in the previous chapters.
Today, scientists who still keep to these theories and insist on denying all things religious, are dogmatic and bigoted people, who have conditioned themselves not to believe in God. The famous English zoologist and evolutionist D.M.S. Watson confesses to this dogmatism as he explains why he and his colleagues accept the theory of evolution:
If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. (D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation", Nature, no. 124, p. 233)
What Watson means by "special creation" is God's creation. As acknowledged, this scientist finds this "unacceptable". But why? Is it because science says so? Actually it does not. On the contrary, science proves the truth of creation. The only reason why Watson looks upon this fact as unacceptable is because he has conditioned himself to deny the existence of God. All other evolutionists take the same stand.
Evolutionists rely not on science but on materialist philosophy and they distort science to make it agree with this philosophy. A geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist from Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, confesses to this truth:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Richard Levontin, The Demon-Haunted World, The New York Review of Books, January, 9, 1997, p. 28)
On the other hand, today, just as in history, there are, as opposed to this dogmatic materialist group, scientists who confirm God's existence, and regard science as a way of knowing Him. Some trends developing in the USA such as "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" prove by scientific evidence that all living things were created by God.
This shows us that science and religion are not conflicting sources of information, but that, on the contrary, science is a method that verifies the absolute truths provided by religion. The clash between religion and science can only hold true for certain religions that incorporate some superstitious elements as well as divine sources. However, this is certainly out of the question for Islam, which relies only on the pure revelation of God. Moreover, Islam particularly advocates scientific enquiry, and announces that probing the universe is a method to explore the creation of God. The following verse of the Qur'an addresses this issue;
Do they not look at the sky above them? How We have built it and adorned it, and there are no rifts therein? And the earth - We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and caused it to bring forth plants of beauteous kinds (in pairs). And We send down from the sky blessed water whereby We give growth unto gardens and the grain of crops. And tall palm-trees, with shoots of fruit-stalks, piled one over another. (Surah Qaf, 6-7, 9-10)
As the above verses imply, the Qur'an always urges people to think, to reason and to explore everything in the world in which they live. This is because science supports religion, saves the individual from ignorance, and causes him to think more consciously; it opens wide one's world of thought and helps one grasp the signs of God self-evident in the universe. Prominent German physicist Max Planck said:
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." (J. De Vries, Essential of Physical Science, Wm.B.Eerdmans Pub.Co., Grand Rapids, SD 1958, p. 15.)
All the issues we have treated so far simply put it that the existence of the universe and all living things cannot be explained by coincidences. Many scientists who have left their mark on the world of science have confirmed, and still confirm this great reality. The more people learn about the universe, the higher does their admirations for its flawless order become. Every newly-discovered detail supports creation in an unquestionable way.
The great majority of modern physicists accept the fact of creation as we set foot in the 21st century. David Darling also maintains that neither time, nor space, nor matter, nor energy, nor even a tiny spot or a cavity existed at the beginning. A slight quick movement and a modest quiver and fluctuation occurred. Darling ends by saying that when the cover of this cosmic box was opened, the tendrils of the miracle of creation appeared from beneath it.
Besides, it is already known that almost all the founders of diverse scientific branches believed in God and His divine books. The greatest physicists in history, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin and Maxwell are a few examples of such scientists.
In the time of Isaac Newton, the great physicist, scientists believed that the movements of the heavenly bodies and planets could be explained by different laws. Nevertheless, Newton believed that the creator of earth and space was the same, and therefore they had to be explained by the same laws. He said:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion. He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.
http://www.harunyahya.com/70scientists_sci13.php
see more
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
To be completely honest with you, this statement is just blatantly wrong. There is no scientific evidence anywhere which in any way definitively points to the existance of any god. Any such statement is pure speculation and assumption.
In all truth, as science further reveals the inconsistencies and imperfections of our universe, a random beginning seems much more logical. Our universe is far from perfect.
Until a few centuries ago, science still believed in a flat earth and geocentric universe, courtesy of the Church's direction. The so called 'atheistic' approach to science emerged when true scientists realized that the church didn't know what it was talking about, and began to practice science independently of it.
As long as you creationists continue to deny the black and white evidence for such theories as evolution, you will be denied respect from the scientific community. I am honestly a bit sick and tired of arguing for the evolution theory--especially when creationists can provide no evidence of their own. I started a thread called, "Evidence FOR the creationism theory." If you think you have something to add, look it up.
This is an incredibly arrogant and hypocritical statement. Anyone who blinds themselves to real evidence in favor of their pseudo theories which are founded on mythical stories, are in my mind irreconcilably dogmatic, usually bigoted, and with out a doubt conditioned to believe in god.
Basically, you creationists can say whatever you want about evolutionists, but it isn't going to make our cold hard evidence go away, or make evidence for your camp magically appear.
Maybe if it did, then it would, but it doesn't.
In every creationism/evolution debate I have ever witnessed or participated in, the creationist has always been on the offensive with the evolutionist on the defensive. The creationist is incapable of providing any evidence for their own theory without including the evolutionary theory or something about god. That is not an acceptable recipe for a theory which is expected to be taken seriously.
The rest of this post is pretty much more of the same, so I won't bother to reply to it as I'd be repeating myself. If it provides evidence for anything, it is evidence of why the creationism theory is not taken seriously in scientific and secular circles.
www.talkorigins.org --check it out. You might learn something.
I would send anybody who looks to talk origins to http://www.trueorigins.org/ .
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
which religion did you come across, that i haven't in all my searching, that claimed it would satisfy all scientific speculation?considering that scientific speculation cannot satisfy itself, i find a request like this daffy at best, and hypocritical at worst.Ceridwen018 said:
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
HelpMe,
Scientific speculation is satisfied by objective observation and logical analysis. That's the difference.
Scientific speculation is satisfied by objective observation and logical analysis. That's the difference.
Ceridwen,
Great to have you on the thead I have been waiting for you to join.
Orthodox
Great to have you on the thead I have been waiting for you to join.
You're an atheist right? Where do you get your idea of 'perfect' from. You are saying that this universe does not match up to the ideal universe but, if this universe is all that there is and we were not meant for anything more (or anything at all actually) from whence comes this objective standard that you judge it by? As C.S. Lewis said a person doesn't call a line crooked unless they know what a straight one is like.
Actually, it was courtesy of Aristotle and Ptolemy.
And, until you provide us with this 'evidence' creationists will continue to view Darwinism (which as an atheist I imagine you espouse) with healthy scientific scepticism.
In all honesty I have never seen any 'cold hard' evidence for evolution. There is, however, cold hard evidence against it.
Orthodox
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Orthodox,
~Ceridwen
Good question! Perfection and imperfection don't really exist for me, because you're absolutely right--I don't have a personal objective standard to judge it on. So for the sake of argument, I adopt the religious definition of perfection/imperfection, and base things on that.
Ah, very true, thank you! However, Aristotle and Ptolemy did not believe what they did in order to please any god or follow any doctrine. Science is made of building blocks--there are no instant answers. One must be wrong before they are able to be right. Aristotle and Ptolemy were wrong, but for reasons very different those of the church--that's my point.
I have never seen a creationist argue their theory without directly opposing evolution, or without citing some god. I made a thread called "Evidence FOR the Creation Theory." So far it remains blank, but I would love for you to check it out. Like I said though, no one has been able to show any examples of creationist articles, evidence, etc. in which the words 'evolution' or 'god' are not mentioned. A true theory must stand by itself, and until I see that from creationism, I just can't take it seriously.
~Ceridwen
ceridwen,
orthodox
What is science? A search for natural causes for everything or a search for truth? Science should try and discern truth without presupposing that bringing God into the question will automatically make the theory wrong. That is just bad science. Also, to prove evolution wrong one does not necessarily have to provide another testable model to fill the gap. Evolution is just simply astronomically improbable. It is an unsatisfactory theory for origins because it simply cannot supply a mechanism that is scientifically sound. Do you want me to show you why? (although I would much rather continue along the lines of BB cosmology!lol)
orthodox
Science is an abductive process aimed at providing testable explanations for natural phenomena. God is out of scope - not because it is necessarily fictive, but because the injection of the supernatural eliminates the the gaurantee of testability.Orthodox said:
What texts have you read on the philosophy of science? Your statement demonstrates an unfortunate ignorance of the field.Orthodox said:
In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:
- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler
God did it is not an answer but, rather, the acknowledgement that one has yet to be verified.You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.
This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler
Correct.Orthodox said:
Even the darling of ID, William A. Demski, acknowledges:Orthodox said:
"Sheer improbability by itself is not enough to eliminate chance."
"Complexity (or improbability) isn't enough to eliminate chance and establish design."
"Complexity (or improbability) isn't enough to eliminate chance and establish design."
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I have a hard time accepting this definition, Orthodox. I'm just not sure how one distinguishes, for example, between "the physical and temporal confines of this universe" and "the physical and temporal confines of the known universe".Orthodox said:
I would define anything that interacts with the observable world as natural.
When did the universe not exist, and for how long?Orthodox said:
You would first have to prove the existence of supernatural things.Orthodox said:
If the universe has always existed (and, in my understanding, it has) the universe could have been uncaused.Orthodox said:
Once again, our conflicting definitions cause us problems. If things existed "before" the BB (my understanding--which does not presuppose the existence of supernatural things--is that nothing could have existed "before" the BB) and those things caused the BB, I would define those things as natural--even though they are unknown to us. At best, the "reek" of the BB is that of the sweet perfume of the unknown.Orthodox said:
Refer back to my definition of 'natural'.Orthodox said:
I cannot answer your question, as it presupposes the existence of a "reason" one should strive to survive. I strive to survive because of what I am. As the burning bush said to Moses, "I am that I am".Orthodox said:
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Science is the search for natural causes--not the search for philosophical or spiritual truth. Often, philosophical and spiritual truths are influenced by the natural truths that science unearths, but that's where the affiliation ends. That is why it is unacceptable to include god in a scientific theory. If there is a god, he is not natural, and therefore has nothing to do with science.
Scientific theories and scientific evidence are based upon what can be percieved. Because god cannot be percieved using scientific methods, it is simply bad science to include one.
Yes and no. Due to the strength of the evolutionary theory, as well as it's multi-faceted nature, any new discoveries in science would more than likely simply be added onto it, rather than create an entire new theory.
Then again, to disprove the entire theory of evolution would most certainly require an alternative theory. Otherwise, evolution would not have been validly disproven.
One more thing--are you agreeing that Creationism is not a scientific theory?
I would LOVE for you to show me why!
~Ceridwen
Duet 32:8,
Your point about science ignoring religious claims is something that I again support to an extent. There are areas in which naturalistic and religious claims collide. An example is the causation (or non-causation) of the universe. In this occasion the search for naturalistic causes disqualifies itself from the causation of the universe (it being the causation of nature).
About improbability. I make it a prerequisite that all of my beliefs be probable. It isn't impossible that we are all pink unicorns about to wake up from a dream - but that's kind of improbable though, just like chemical evolution.
orthodox
Did you mean an inductive process? Anyway, I am guessing thats what you meant, you dont normally muck up your vocab so I am supposing it was a typo! Anyway, I agree with you - to an extent. I dont believe it possible to test God in a scientific sense. Nevertheless, I do believe that one can eliminate natural causes for things and by doing so give reason to believe in the supernatural causation of things.
Your point about science ignoring religious claims is something that I again support to an extent. There are areas in which naturalistic and religious claims collide. An example is the causation (or non-causation) of the universe. In this occasion the search for naturalistic causes disqualifies itself from the causation of the universe (it being the causation of nature).
About improbability. I make it a prerequisite that all of my beliefs be probable. It isn't impossible that we are all pink unicorns about to wake up from a dream - but that's kind of improbable though, just like chemical evolution.
orthodox
You guessed wrong.Abduction is 'Inference to Best Explanation (IBE)'.Orthodox said:
Of course you do. And your ability to sustain such a belief is predicated upon your willingness to hold your God(s) to much lower standards than nature. It is the classic case of the argument from ignorance producing a God-of-the-Gaps.Orthodox said:
You are wrong.Orthodox said:
You have no basis for establishing the probability of diety. What you call probability is, again, simply argument from ignorance - you've managed to convince yourself that the probability of !{X} is a function of your ignorance of {X}.Orthodox said:
chronic1634
New Member
1) whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
2) the universe began to exist.
3) therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
2) the universe began to exist.
3) therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Chronic -chronic1634 said:
Your syllogism is sound, but many would deny your first premise. What makes you say that something (in this case, the universe) has to have been "caused" to come into existence?
TVOR
chronic1634
New Member
common sense. it would be illogical and scientifcally unsound to believe otherwise.