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

[Scuba Pete]

Right, I just said that. No one should assume to know the future limits or successes of scientific discovery. Do you agree?

Actually, you only said limits and missed successes. We cannot know the future of either.

Not relevant, as we aren't discussing our personal limitations. We are speaking to the limits of future scientific discovery. The point is that we cannot know them.

Sure it's relevant. Those limits are free to change as our understanding, technologies and techniques allow them to, but they are still there as of this moment. Once you understand your limitations, you are able to cope with them, ameliorate them or perhaps even to push them back a bit. I just got through reading Heinlein's "Expanded Universe". It's a collection of stories from throughout his career. The first was from around 1940 just after fission was discovered by two Austrians. He successfully described a dirty bomb and anticipated the atom bomb before the Manhattan project. But what really amazed me was the ignorance within the story. They just didn't know what fission meant or just how powerful it could be. They moved cautiously and within certain limits. That's not a bad thing and I'm glad they did.

 

[Gambit]

But, subjective experience is unreliable as evidence for anything. So, how can one "rationally justify" the existence of something that only appears in subjective experience? Seems counter-intuitive.

The metaphysical arguments for God's existence are based on the axiomatic method (like mathematics), not subjective experiences. That being said, mystical experiences (which are subjective) definitely can be interpreted so as to justify theistic belief. In fact, mystical experiences can be construed as constituting a form of empirical evidence.

 

[Gambit]

The issue is that "something from nothing" is a scientific claim.

Wrong! Creation ex nihilo is a theological doctrine and a supernatural explanation.

 

[Shad]

Thus, the 'less divine imagination' must be a subset of the Divine imagination.
Thus we are the creation of the Creator.

Your rebuttal also apples to your claims. You are already assuming a lesser mind requires a greater one. Also you have no linked your conclusion with any premises. You made one statement then a conclusion but do nothing to infer any link between the two that is sound or valid.

 

[Shad]

On the other hand, the aTheist cannot deny the marvel of sophistication
which makes up the wonder of the periodic table, the structure of solar systems,
and obviously the beauty of ecosystems and so many other aspects of nature.
Such cannot be the result of 'randomness'.
.

Projection without cause is rejected as such. No atheist is obligated to accept your presupposition. The only common ground is that no one knows. However it is the theist that must admit this not the atheists. Once the theist actually treats their religious views as faith rather than knowledge, as so many claim, then there is nothing to talk about. You want atheists to accept theist speculation, nothing more.

 

[Shad]

The metaphysical arguments for God's existence are based on the axiomatic method (like mathematics), not subjective experiences. That being said, mystical experiences (which are subjective) definitely can be interpreted so as to justify theistic belief. In fact, mystical experiences can be construed as constituting a form of empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence is objection. You contradict yourself by first claiming said experience is subjective then can be used objectively but forget that subjective experiences are not verified nor falsified. Subjectivity in logic can not make a universal objective conclusion.

 

[Gambit]

Not directly but there are ways of observing them indirectly via their effects.

Well, we can also observe the effect of God, namely, the creation. This is the basis for natural theology. The bottom line is that your subjective awareness cannot be objectively observe. So, I have no scientifically valid way to determine whether you are presently experiencing it. But I think it is rational for me to infer that you are based on outward things that I can observe. Inferring the existence of God is just as rational, the atheistic demand for scientific validation notwithstanding.

By the way, on the materialist view, consciousness (subjective awareness) is causally inert. Free will (which materialism precludes) is the only possible role that consciousness can play. In fact, belief in any kind of intelligent agency is a supernatural belief because methodological naturalism (a.k.a. science and the basis for metaphysical naturalism) cannot detect intelligence (divine, human, or otherwise).

On what basis are you declaring God to be subjective though?

The basis is rational. Reason tells me that I am seeking the highest or supreme good (which presupposes a telos and therefore a conscious intelligence).

The rest of your post amounts to nothing more than rambling about nothing.

 

[Gambit]

The opposite problem also exists. If God's eternal existence can not taken without proof, why not the eternal existence of universe be accepted in the same way?

The only rational explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is the theistic explanation. Therefore, atheism is irrational. Indeed, many atheists embrace the absurd as if it were some kind of badge of honor. Such is the spiritually-impoverished worldview that is atheism.

 

[Gambit]

Nevertheless, the question is illegitimate, as it is erroneously assuming that there was "nothing" at some time in the past.

No, it doesn't. In fact, the theist comes to the knowledge that it is impossible for there not to be anything at all because God exists necessarily. And anyone who denies that God is metaphysically necessary, denies God.

 

[Gambit]

What makes you think that nature (whatever you mean with it) has, or need, a cause?

Because reason tells us that every thing that comes into existence has a cause.

 

[Gambit]

The divine mind seems suspiciously like the figment of the imagination of far less divine ones.

Metaphysical naturalism cannot be validated by methodological naturalism (not even in theory).

 

[Shad]

Well, we can also observe the effect of God, namely, the creation.

Nope you observe the universe. You speculated and attach your speculation after the fact.

This is the basis for natural theology. The bottom line is that your subjective awareness cannot be objectively observe.

You contradicted your previous post about subjective experience being evidence.

So, I have no scientifically valid way to determine whether you are presently experiencing it. But I think it is rational for me to infer that you are based on outward things that I can observe.

You could also infer delusions, hallucinations, lies, etc. You only pick the one your presupposition supports.

Inferring the existence of God is just as rational, the atheistic demand for scientific validation notwithstanding.

Nope since you have zero arguments to infer this at all.

By the way, on the materialist view, consciousness (subjective awareness) is causally inert. Free will (which materialism precludes) is the only possible role that consciousness can play. In fact, belief in any kind of intelligent agency is a supernatural belief because methodological naturalism (a.k.a. science and the basis for metaphysical naturalism) cannot detect intelligence (divine, human, or otherwise).

Yes it can since it there are other animals with intelligence which have been found. Variious apes use tools discovered by using the very method you thin cant'. The only thing it can't detect is the supernatural but it can detect anything within nature. You have no idea what methodological naturalism is.

The basis is rational. Reason tells me that I am seeking the highest or supreme good (which presupposes a telos and therefore a conscious intelligence).

Your reasoning is flawed since you hold a priori without cause. Baseless assumption, nothing more

 

[Gambit]

While it's in vogue to point out the God of the Gaps, we also need to discuss the Science of the Gaps. Science may or may not be able to close those gaps.

Science will never be able to explain the mystery of existence because that is something beyond the purview of science. Atheistic materialism is a belief that cannot justify itself. As such, it is ultimately irrational.

 

[Shad]

Science will never be able to explain the mystery of existence because that is something beyond the purview of science. Atheistic materialism is a belief that cannot justify itself. As such, it is ultimately irrational.

It can since it is the only thing that have been objective confirmed. It can be falsified but no one has done so yet.

 

[Gambit]

I couldn't disagree with that more. Aquinas wasn't clear at all, and he used definitions that merely utilize circular logic, such as "the eternal", the "uncaused cause", the "necessary being". They don't define God other than to prove his own argument ... a.k.a. "circular logic".

If you deny that God is necessary, then you deny God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The only rational explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is the theistic explanation.

I read that, but where is the rational explanation?

Because reason tells us that every thing that comes into existence has a cause.

Except God. He is there for no reason.

Science will never be able to explain the mystery of existence because that is something beyond the purview of science.

That is a pre-supposition.

If you deny that God is necessary, then you deny God.

Oh yes, we atheists deny God. Has in no way affected our health.

 

[McBell]

If you deny that God is necessary, then you deny God.

you seem overly fond of this mantra.
To bad it is not true.

 

[Shad]

If you deny that God is necessary, then you deny God.

No, I reject the claims and concept of God. Denying God means that God is objectivity confirmed which you admitted can not be done. You contradict yourself again.

 

[Gambit]

Shad,

I not going to have a metaphysical debate with someone like yourself who is unwilling to take a metaphysical position.

 

[Sunstone]

Science confines itself to what can be objectively observed.

All observation is ultimately subjective: This is an inescapable fact. There is no such thing as an "objective observation" (except in the narrow sense of the phrase being shorthand for an "inter-subjectively verified observation").

Thus, science "confines itself" to what can be subjectively observed and inter-subjectively verified (among other things).

In light of this, your remaining argument posits a straw man since it crucially depends on the meaningless and empty notion of "objective observation":

Since the divine mind (like any mind) is inherently subjective, it is not possible (even in theory) to objectively observe it. The fact is that science cannot objectively observe human consciousness, let alone divine consciousness.

Put differently, science cannot "objectively observe" human consciousness because it cannot objectively observe anything. But science can subjectively observe human consciousness and then inter-subjectively verify those observations.

As for "divine consciousness", if such a thing can be experienced (i.e. subjectively observed) by two or more people, then it can be (in principle) inter-subjectively verified.