Does science prove the existence of god?

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

It is venishingly mprobable that any rule or principle could do this

Do you mean to say "it is vanishingly improbable that any known rule or principle could do this", or are you omniscient?

Yes that 's what I meant to say. Having just finished my fourth post in a row I was getting lazy and didn't proof read what I wrote.

orthodox

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Actually, it does. The principle of causality can be stated in a few different ways.
1. Every effect has a cause.
2. Everything that comes to be has a causer independent of itself.
3. Every contingent thing is caused by another thing.

All of these statments either are, or can be reduced to the, analytic. They are self-evident. David Hume stated, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition that something could arise without a cause". Something that does not exist has no power to cause something to exist. "From nothing nating comes; nothiong ever could."
This is The Princple of Causality. You are perhaps confusing causality with the Principle of Causality.

Orthodox -
I really enjoy debating philosophy - it is a genuine pleasure for me. You have cited the correct philosopher, but I could not disagree more strongly with your interpretation of his position. I have no idea where your quote from Hume comes from, and without context, I have no opinion on what he meant, if indeed, he said it. Regardless, please read the reference below:

From the Wikipedia article on David Hume:

Hume denied that we could have any idea of causation other than the following: when we see that two events always occur together, we tend to form an expectation that when the first occurs, the second is soon to follow. This constant conjunction and the expectation thereof is all that we can know of causation, and all that our idea of causation can amount to. Such a lean conception robs causation of all its force and some later Humeans like Bertrand Russell have dismissed the notion of causation altogether as something akin to superstition.

As to your three variations of the Principle of Causality (which, by the way, I have not encountered before), I have to ask - where did that come from?

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Orthodox]

TVOR,

I really enjoy debating philosophy - it is a genuine pleasure for me

I also find it very enjoyable - provided it doesn't simply decend into semantic bickering!

I have no idea where your quote from Hume comes from, and without context, I have no opinion on what he meant, if indeed, he said it.

He said it in The Letters of David Hume 1:187. As for context, he goes on to say that it is 'absurd' to deny the principle fo causality.

From the Wikipedia article on David Hume:

Hume denied that we could have any idea of causation other than the following: when we see that two events always occur together, we tend to form an expectation that when the first occurs, the second is soon to follow. This constant conjunction and the expectation thereof is all that we can know of causation, and all that our idea of causation can amount to. Such a lean conception robs causation of all its force and some later Humeans like Bertrand Russell have dismissed the notion of causation altogether as something akin to superstition.

You have cited the correct philosopher, but I could not disagree more strongly with your interpretation of his position

Hume said this in relation to the knowledge of causes not the existence of causes. Hume stated, "all reasoning concerning matters of fact seems to be founded on the relation of cause and effect. By means of that relation alone we can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses" (Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding 4.1.41). If he is correct then it impossible for the mind to find the cause of a given event. Hume's philosophy is best defined as a hard empiricalism. He believes that only analytical and empirical propositions are meaningful. For this reason, Hume does not believe that one can know causal connections between things, rather, he believes that one can only find that some things are cojoined based on customary experience. Hume said, "{only} after the constant conjunction of two objects, heat and flame, for instance.... we are determined by custom alone to expect the one from the appearance of the other" (ibid., 5.1.57). Later, on the same page he reiterated his point saying "all inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning."

Because of Hume's hard empiricalism he could not allow himself to link any event without direct evidence for the connection. He could not say that the sun would still exist tomorrow because he has no rock solid reason to believe it will (remember, according to his philosophy, any type of projection based on experience is "not of reasoning"). The problem with Hume's belief that only analytic and empirical statments are meaningful is that it is not itself analytic or empirical. Therfore, according to itself, it is meaningless.

orthodox

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Do you mean to say "it is vanishingly improbable that any known rule or principle could do this", or are you omniscient?

Yes that 's what I meant to say. Having just finished my fourth post in a row I was getting lazy and didn't proof read what I wrote.

So in other words, while science says "we do not know what caused the BB," you propose the existence of something neither detectable nor falsifiable to fill in this gap. Can you not see that your proposal is unscientific, and as Deut asserted, known as an argument to ignorance? (see http://www.skepdic.com/ignorance.html )

 

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

while science says "we do not know what caused the BB," you propose the existence of something neither detectable nor falsifiable to fill in this gap.

What I am saying is that if the Big Bang is the correct view of the origin of the universe we will never find a natural cause for it, because none could exist.

As Robert Jastrow said, "Astronomers now find that they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began shortly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

Given his obvious reference to the supernatural, some might question Jastrow's objectivity. Perhaps people might suggest that his judgment was clouded by a religious view he already held and was seeking to substantialise in science. This would be incorrect. Jastrow stated that he was "agnostic in religious matters". So, from a scientific point of view he has concluded that "there are supernatural forces at work". This conclusion was not driven in any way by religious necessity - purely by scientific inference.

Can you not see that your proposal is unscientific?

No, I don't think it is. Through scientific methods it has been proven that natural causes cannot be found to account for the big bang. As such, it is a simple act of reasoning (which many a scientist has taken) to concluded that a supernatural cause must exist.

as Deut asserted, {your argument is} known as an argument to ignorance.

Duet is wrong on this one. An argumentum ad ignoratiam is an argument in which the premise/s is/are unprovable and, as such, construed as true by advocating party. An example would be:

A pink unicorn must have started the universe because no one has proven that it didn't.

My assertion is that:

If the big bang model is correct then it is impossible for there to have been a natural cause for the universe.

There is direct evidence to suggest that the big bang is the correct model of the universe - minor changes are bound to be made to the details of the theory as a whole the theory is looking more and more unasailable. As Strenger said, "we have to leave open the possibility that {the big bang} could be wrong... but every year that goes by, and as more astronomical sata comes in, it's more and more consistent with at least the general Big Bang picture."

The pink unicorn proposal claims to be true because it hasn't been proven false - one would need to be omniscient to categoriaclly rule out its' claim.

On the other hand, my assertion is not that I'm right because you can't prove me wrong, but rather, that I'm right because the evidence suggests I am.

I would only be touting an argumentum ad ignoratiam if I said something like "the Trinity exists because you can't prove that it doesn't."

orthodox

 

[Pah]

What I am saying is that if the Big Bang is the correct view of the origin of the universe we will never find a natural cause for it, because none could exist.

As Robert Jastrow said, "Astronomers now find that they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began shortly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

There IS a mathmatical cause for the Big Bang and it deals with Superstring theory.

....Through scientific methods it has been proven that natural causes cannot be found to account for the big bang. As such, it is a simple act of reasoning (which many a scientist has taken) to concluded that a supernatural cause must exist.

There IS a mathmatical cause for the Big Bang and it deals with Superstring theory.

.

My assertion is that:

If the big bang model is correct then it is impossible for there to have been a natural cause for the universe.

There IS a mathmatical cause for the Big Bang and it deals with Superstring theory and it corrects problems with the singularity of the Big Bang

There is direct evidence to suggest that the big bang is the correct model of the universe - minor changes are bound to be made to the details of the theory as a whole the theory is looking more and more unasailable. As Strenger said, "we have to leave open the possibility that {the big bang} could be wrong... but every year that goes by, and as more astronomical sata comes in, it's more and more consistent with at least the general Big Bang picture."

There IS a mathmatical cause for the Big Bang and it deals with Superstring theory.

On the other hand, my assertion is not that I'm right because you can't prove me wrong, but rather, that I'm right because the evidence suggests I am.

The evidence has been superceded

Bob

 

[painted wolf]

a nice Superstring website: http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo3.html

wa:do

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My assertion is that:

If the big bang model is correct then it is impossible for there to have been a natural cause for the universe.

This is little more than a semantic shell game which seeks to exploit the fact that the term "natural", like many other terms, becomes less helpful and or less precise as we approach the boundaries of our understanding. When the scientist talks about the laws of physics "breaking down" as we approach t[0], he is not suggesting supernaturalism at these limits. When scientist speaks of P-Branes and "no-boundary conditions" and "negative time", she is not appealing to supernatural constructs.

While the theist may wallow in the false comfort of a less than perfect scientific understanding, it is pure sophomoric hubris to presume that the Universe should be intelligable at all. That the term 'natural' has difficulty at the limits of our understanding shows only that the map is not the territory. The very fact that cosmology can establish and evaluate testable models at odds with teleology demonstrates the poverty of argumentum ad ignorantiam - and this poverty is rendered no more acceptable by repetition.

 

[killah247]

It is clearly evident tht God does exist for evry creation must have a creator...we cannot question man making this because he makes evrything frm natural resources bt science cannot explain how it all got there or where it came frm...religous scriptures frm 1400yrz ago clearly show existence of god,only now are scientists coming to terms with these facts...

 

[painted wolf]

once uppon a time Black Holes were considered to be byond the possibilities of 'nature'. Does that make them 'super-natural', no it ment that we had to re-evaluate what we considered 'natural'.

wa:do

 

[Scuba Pete]

Supernatural should never be confused with "hard to comprehend".

Science seeks only to explain the natural, and in doing so much that we thought of as supernatural can and will be classified as natural when science finally catches up.

But science will never be able to explain that which is truly supernatural such as God.

This flies in the face of those content and intent on understanding everything or rejecting it outright as myth. I am sure that when they encouter the pink unicorn face to face, that they will continue to try and disprove it's existence. Our belief or non-belief in an object has no effect on it's existence.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Science seeks only to explain the natural, and in doing so much that we thought of as supernatural can and will be classified as natural when science finally catches up.

This is a very good point, and you may be absolutely right. However, until science DOES catch up, we can't just sit around and put total faith in our baseless assumptions.

But science will never be able to explain that which is truly supernatural such as God.

This is true, because science only deals with the natural. However, let us keep in mind that as humans, our only method for perceiving our environment is through the use of our five senses. Our five sense only deal with the natural world. That means that as natural beings, we are incapable of perceiving supernatural things. This brings up the question, "How do you know that 'supernatural' exists if you cannot interact with it, and it cannot interact with you?", as well as explaining my earlier comment, that god is either a physical, natural being, or people who claim to have 'experienced' him are delusional/lying/misunderstanding.

I am sure that when they encouter the pink unicorn face to face, that they will continue to try and disprove it's existence.

Perhaps so. The difference, of course, being that then it would be safe to say that they are wrong and in denial, whereas now they are just employing logic.

 

[Scuba Pete]

put total faith in our baseless assumptions

So.... who does this? I have many bases for my assumptions, er beliefs. That you do not believe or accept my basis, does not negate their presense.

our only method for perceiving our environment is through the use of our five senses.

Is it now?

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This is little more than a semantic shell game which seeks to exploit the fact that the term "natural", like many other terms, becomes less helpful and or less precise as we approach the boundaries of our understanding. When the scientist talks about the laws of physics "breaking down" as we approach t[0], he is not suggesting supernaturalism at these limits. When scientist speaks of P-Branes and "no-boundary conditions" and "negative time", she is not appealing to supernatural constructs.

While the theist may wallow in the false comfort of a less than perfect scientific understanding, it is pure sophomoric hubris to presume that the Universe should be intelligable at all. That the term 'natural' has difficulty at the limits of our understanding shows only that the map is not the territory. The very fact that cosmology can establish and evaluate testable models at odds with teleology demonstrates the poverty of argumentum ad ignorantiam - and this poverty is rendered no more acceptable by repetition.

Excellent! This is precisely what I was trying to say.

My assertion is that:

If the big bang model is correct then it is impossible for there to have been a natural cause for the universe.

Earlier I said: "Do you mean to say "it is vanishingly improbable that any known rule or principle could do this", or are you omniscient?" To which you replied: "Yes that 's what I meant to say." Therefore, it is not impossible for there to have been a natural cause for the universe--the cause, if there be one, is unknown. You assert that because the cause of the BB is unknown, it must be supernatural. That is an argument to ignorance. Furthermore, your hypothesis is unscientific--"supernatural causes" are neither observed (they may not even be observable), nor do they make falsifiable predictions. The word "supernatural" carries unwarranted baggage when describing the unknown. I would be interested to see a peer reviewed scientific paper authored by Robert Jastrow on the existence of supernatural forces.

Please carefully read Deut's well written comments.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

No, I don't think it is. Through scientific methods it has been proven that natural causes cannot be found to account for the big bang. As such, it is a simple act of reasoning (which many a scientist has taken) to concluded that a supernatural cause must exist.

My assertion is that:
If the big bang model is correct then it is impossible for there to have been a natural cause for the universe.

On the other hand, my assertion is not that I'm right because you can't prove me wrong, but rather, that I'm right because the evidence suggests I am.

You are oversimplifying your argument. In actuality, it also contains two unstated premises from your first statement:
1) that a supernatural cause must exist (in itself, an untestable premise), and
2) this supernatural cause is the driving force behind the big bang (again, untestable).
So, your assertion is based on a two premises that are unprovable and untestable - your claim IS based on the fact that we cannot prove it wrong, and ergo it must be correct - and it truly is an argumentum ad ignoratiam - just as Deut stated.

The line that "many a scientist has taken" is nothing more than an appeal to authority - a straightforward logical fallacy.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Is it now?
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
None are so blind as those who will not see.

NetDoc - this is a clear case of begging the question - you are citing a scripture from the Bible as proof of God's existence (in this case, beyond what our five senses can tell us) - and the only reason you cite the Bible is because you believe it to be God's inspired word. Effectively, you are using "God's word" to prove the existence of God. Would you not concede this to be a circular argument?

TVOR

PS - no fair using the line about "none so blind as those who will not see" - I already used that to describe those that insist on denying evolution on the grounds that there is no evidence for it (in another thread). I effectively "called dibs" on that line.

 

[Scuba Pete]

you are citing a scripture from the Bible as proof of God's existence

Actually, I have nothing to "prove". God simply exists and needs no help from me. In addition, as a debater I suck! I am sure you agree with this and if God were relying on me to win this case for him, well I am sure that heaven would be packing up as we type.

But I feel that this is also a forum for the free exchange of ideas... not just a verbal form of combat where one claims victory and the other retires his shield in disgrace.

Consequently, when I see a statement or claim that I disagree with, I voice my humble opinion. I do so to illuminate as opposed to parry. Since I am not trying to "win points" but rather to show an alternate way of viewing things, I have no problems citing scriptures that can describe a concept far better than I can.

So it goes that I read what you have to say, and with the greatest respect try to respond as logically as I am able. You then read what I have to say, snicker a bit and then proceed to show me the apparent discrepencies in my logic. At the end of the day, we both hopefully leave with something. Perhaps a new perspective on how other people view this carnival we call life, and perhaps a growing admiration for why we each have our unique views.

Since you are "The Voice of Reason", I will in turn try to be "The Voice of God".

BTW, you can't claim a quote that I have been using for years... it's semi-biblical anyway, and that's my territory!
John 9:41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Actually, I have nothing to "prove". God simply exists and needs no help from me. In addition, as a debater I suck! I am sure you agree with this and if God were relying on me to win this case for him, well I am sure that heaven would be packing up as we type.

But I feel that this is also a forum for the free exchange of ideas... not just a verbal form of combat where one claims victory and the other retires his shield in disgrace.

Consequently, when I see a statement or claim that I disagree with, I voice my humble opinion. I do so to illuminate as opposed to parry. Since I am not trying to "win points" but rather to show an alternate way of viewing things, I have no problems citing scriptures that can describe a concept far better than I can.

So it goes that I read what you have to say, and with the greatest respect try to respond as logically as I am able. You then read what I have to say, snicker a bit and then proceed to show me the apparent discrepencies in my logic. At the end of the day, we both hopefully leave with something. Perhaps a new perspective on how other people view this carnival we call life, and perhaps a growing admiration for why we each have our unique views.

Since you are "The Voice of Reason", I will in turn try to be "The Voice of God".

BTW, you can't claim a quote that I have been using for years... it's semi-biblical anyway, and that's my territory!
John 9:41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

Truth be told, NetDoc, I do not snicker at the posts of others. I admit that there are times that I grind my molars to dust in anger, and times that I wonder if the person on the other side of the aisle is missing more than a few gray cells, but I do not snicker - well, not often. I respect your belief in God. I do not believe as you do, but I do respect your beliefs. My point in that particular post was only to point out the logical fallacy of your position - not to belittle or denigrate you in any way - only to show you (and others) that while you believe as you do, it is not for that particular reason (since it is illogical). I have defended the positions stated by Atheists, Agnostics, Theists, Deists, scoundrels, scalliwags, royalty, bums, men of good standing, the homeless, women of ill repute, and politicians on this site - I have also tried to point out when these same people make illogical statements, or hold positions that are not rational. Call it a weakness, but I think that by showing an illogical statement or position to be so, will cause whoever holds that belief that they really hold the belief for another reason. Then again, maybe I'm just an obsessive, anal retentive jerk . Either way ....

I would not ask you (or anyone else) to retire your shield in disgrace. I only ask that you would be honest with yourself when shown that a position that you hold is either indefensible, or you choose to hold it in spite of its irrationality. Nothing wrong with that - just admit it for what it is. Goodness knows that I have had to re-examine some of my most cherished beliefs as I have stumbled my way through this life. That is how I have reached this state of mediocrity that I now reside in (as opposed to a state of Grace).

As for claiming the quote, okay. Since your source (the Bible) predates my source (Ray Stevens) by a few days, I'll give you that one. One request though - do you mind if I use it (notice how I so subtly throw myself on the mercy of the court)?

Thanks,
TVOR

PS - I kind of like that "Voice of God" moniker - but methinks you may get some opposition on that one from some of the other Theists.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Since I do not "own" the scriptures... you may use the quote at your will.

Logic is a fierce force... no one should underestimate it. While I know so few of the words used in formal debate (dicto simpliciter, non sequiter, etc) that I do feel rather ill-equipped to spar with many on this board.

But truth is an even fiercer force and sometimes it APPEARS to fly in the face of logic. In reality the logic for it has merely eluded us. I do not pretend to fully understand God, nor any one person in this forum. But I know whom I have believed. I have seen him with the eyes of my heart, and he is as real as my daughter or son.

As you can tell with my "unorthodox" stand on evolution et al, I do not like assumptions. Those are the most dangerous thing we can encounter. Almost every catastrophe that has occurred are the direct result of an erroneos assumption... even the latest shuttle accident.

I teach my students to avoid something that I call a "Trust me Dive". This is where the diver puts his full trust in his buddy or instructor. The diver has ASSUMED that the other guy can get them both out safely. This is when tragedy occurs in my sport. Assumptions are anathema to me.

So while you point out illogic, I will come quietly behind and point out assumption.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Best of luck with your dive team, NetDoc. You can quietly point out assumptions as you find them - and you should. I will point out irrationality and logical fallacies when I find them - but I will do so LOUDLY.

Respectfully,
TVOR