Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

[prometheus11]

Apparently, you don't need any at all. Again, that's nuthin' but faith.

Again, your faith simply astounds me. I would love to see the data that 'shows' what you believe. Let's see what we truly have here.

Knowledge makes faith unnecessary. We know how the universe expanded and produced matter. We know how the solar system came about. We know how life evolved.

No faith is necessary.

We don't know why the singularity is/was. We don't know how life began. Whoever claims to have an answer is using faith and is not allowing the most honest response.

 

[Thief]

Time is movement. Everything we can measure was within the singularity. We have no idea if there was anything else or is anything else.

time is a measure of movement.
the shift would happen whether we measure it or not.

time is not a force or a substance.
it can exist only in your head....or a chalkboard

 

[prometheus11]

time is a measure of movement.
the shift would happen whether we measure it or not.

time is not a force or a substance.
it can exist only in your head....or a chalkboard

Yep.

 

[Thief]

Knowledge makes faith unnecessary. We know how the universe expanded and produced matter. We know how the solar system came about. We know how life evolved.

No faith is necessary.

We don't know why the singularity is/was. We don't know how life began. Whoever claims to have an answer is using faith and is not allowing the most honest response.

no religion is necessary.
and my faith has sound reasoning.

it matters not if you disagree

 

[prometheus11]

no religion is necessary.
and my faith has sound reasoning.

it matters not if you disagree

It doesn't appear that your faith is based upon sound reasoning

 

[Thief]

It doesn't appear that your faith is based upon sound reasoning

you will need to show the line of fault.

 

[prometheus11]

you will need to show the line of fault.

No. I have reached my conclusion. It is not necessary that you or anyone else understand the reasoning I used to reach that conclusion.

 

[Magic Man]

Haha...I love the irony...science explains the beginning of the universe in the same way same way some religionists believe the universe began....miraculously...the first by miracle of unknown cause, the latter by a miracle of God.... In both cases, there is no logical way that this universe could have come from a miracle..by miracle I mean getting something from nothing...

Science doesn't explain the beginning of the universe. There are some hypotheses, but there's no scientific conclusion on the subject. You say the universe couldn't logically have come from nothing. Science doesn't dispute that or posit that it did come from nothing. In other words, you're mistaken about science, and there is no irony here.

 

[Magic Man]

no religion is necessary.
and my faith has sound reasoning.

What do you mean by "faith"? If you mean "religion", then maybe that's true. If you mean the usual meaning of "belief without evidence", then no, it's not based on sound reasoning.

 

[Thief]

No. I have reached my conclusion. It is not necessary that you or anyone else understand the reasoning I used to reach that conclusion.

if you launch a derogatory to my reasoning without explanation....that's trolling

 

[Thief]

What do you mean by "faith"? If you mean "religion", then maybe that's true. If you mean the usual meaning of "belief without evidence", then no, it's not based on sound reasoning.

I have no religion.
I believe in God because of science

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So, you complained about nothing? I guess if that works for you. Everyone wants to tell God how to be God and they probably have issues of their own. 2 phunni.

And you never answered my question directly. Do you believe that God approves of the steps mankind has taken to exploit his creation in regard to our developments in nuclear technology or no? Does it seem like something He would support? And before you tell me "we can't know the mind of God", consider that there is never a time that this particular statement/excuse comes up when God and His choices are being cast in a purely positive light. If the item being discussed is a positive thing then "knowing the mind of God" is a non-issue and assumptions and presumptions are cast out all over the place. I personally witness such every Sunday - and abound on this forum.

I don't need to tell God how to be God. What is there to tell? Who is there to tell? Who is really there?

 

[Magic Man]

I have no religion.
I believe in God because of science

What's your definition of "God"?

 

[Thief]

What's your definition of "God"?

the First in mind and heart.....Spirit.

the Almighty....bigger, faster, stronger. more intelligent and greatly experienced.
stands to reason....Someone fits this description better than all others.

 

[Magic Man]

the First in mind and heart.....Spirit.

the Almighty....bigger, faster, stronger. more intelligent and greatly experienced.
stands to reason....Someone fits this description better than all others.

That's a bit vague. Do you believe it's a being that created the universe?

 

[Thief]

That's a bit vague. Do you believe it's a being that created the universe?

yeah...
I place Spirit first as....
substance is not 'self' starting....it's has no volition of it's own
substance cannot beget the living

at the point of singularity there is a simple choice....
Spirit first or substance.

I choose Spirit as substance is dead

 

[prometheus11]

if you launch a derogatory to my reasoning without explanation....that's trolling

You provided no evidence for your claim, either. I just followed your example. We both have our reasons and evidence. Neither of us presented it, though.

 

[prometheus11]

yeah...
I place Spirit first as....
substance is not 'self' starting....it's has no volition of it's own
substance cannot beget the living

at the point of singularity there is a simple choice....
Spirit first or substance.

I choose Spirit as substance is dead

I already explained that spirit and substance are two sides of the same coin. They depend on each other. When you put a coin into the vending machine, one side doesn't go in first, but both sides go in at the same time.

 

[Yerda]

We can both observe the same object. We cannot both observe the same subject. That's the difference.

Sorry if I'm butting in. This seems relevant here:

Until very recently, most neurobiologists did not regard consciousness as a suitable topic
for scientific investigation. This reluctance was based on certain philosophical mistakes, primarily
the mistake of supposing that the subjectivity of consciousness made it beyond the reach of an
objective science. Once we see that consciousness is a biological phenomenon like any other, then
it can be investigated neurobiologically. Consciousness is entirely caused by neurobiological
processes and is realized in brain structures. The essential trait of consciousness that we need to
explain is unified qualitative subjectivity. Consciousness thus differs from other biological
phenomena in that it has a subjective or first-person ontology, but this subjective ontology does not
prevent us from having an epistemically objective science of consciousness.

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~paller/dialogue/csc1.pdf

@Sunstone

 

[McBell]

you will need to show the line of fault.

once you get where you want to go, you toss out science, truth, fact, and reasoning (sound or otherwise) out the window.
Therefore you do not base your beliefs on sound reasoning.

One wonders why you would think your "Faith needs no proving" dogma is "sound reasoning?