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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
My world view is hardly arbitrarily, it is arbitrated by the rationality of the universe. When it is found to be out of sync, further data collection is conducted and it is adjusted. That makes for a much more consistent and rational view then your approach that the pixies, or some other supernatural being did it.
I don't know if its the same one but I am aware of the philosophical argument that the mind must be separate from the body but its based on Plato's work which doesn't actually have scientific backings but rather his attempt to explain how things are given his limited resources.
Nothing about the creation of the universe is obvious or granted.
Oh. I misunderstood what you meant. I thought you meant that 80% of science was upheld by authority rather than evidence. You meant me personally. That is granted but I don't see how its relevant.
Sorry I was in a hurry. There is only evidence for the physical so we can only assume that there is the physical. If we go off of only what we have evidence for this thins rings true. Materialism itself isn't the rejection of the possibility of the non-physical but rather the pragmatic conclusion that we cannot base our theories and answers on unknown or unknowable possibilities without evidence.
For our universe to have the properties it does we are missing a large amount of mass in our visible spectrum. Therefore there must be mass that we are not able to detect. That is the necessity. However the argument you have provided makes a leap stating god "must" be the answer. The Necessity of a god is not actually needed. We are still stooped in ignorance about the process so how could we know what is needed for the process to have occurred? Though science has already given an answer (though disatisfactory to you I assume) that Dark energy is what is causing the expansion and what may have caused the big bang.
That we do not know the contingency in which your case rests.
Entity or phenomenon would work. I prefer phenomenon.
I do not remember if Plato was sourced or not. I was in over my head and may not have noticed. I did notice many names. Every one an A list genius. The paper was full of science. They either advanced Plato's argument by light years or it was a new one. It does not matter. I hate this theoretical stuff even if it is on my side.
Seems not only obvious but a necessity. Of course what is obvious is subjective.
Glad to find you accommodating. It was a reference to the stands thing. Non-theists object to arguments from authority yet most of the beliefs the hold are just such.
I have evidence for God. In fact I have subjective proof of God. So I am warranted. One of the biggest problems in theological debate is that theists and non-theists are on two different pages. They are not born again and that is where the greatest argument for God exists. I must ignore my best justifications and deal with lesser issues. But we can do more than what you suggest. For example we can find that materialism does not explain many areas of reality. Materialism cannot create it's self, it doe snot explain the universal experience of an objective moral realm, it does not explain ascetics, nor does abstract concepts being rationally valid. So we can without any problem suggest that something more than materialism exists. Combined with the evidence for God and we can easily justify having faith in the supernatural.
That is only true (and it probably is) if all our science is right, at least the mass part. However given the inescapable probability that we have accessed less than the tiniest fraction of what govern reality anything can happen. Do you want to know how assumptive science is? We have tested at best 1 trillionth of a trillionth of a trillions.........................etc % of the universe but have assumed the other 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 infinitum % behaves the exact same way. It is the best we have so I go with it, I just keep these assumptions in mind.
Ok, so not in a modal logic sense. I am happy with a placeholder (technically force is not a good one) for a cause that is independent of space, independent of space time, and independent of matter, is not a known component of this universe, and is probably person as well as being more powerful , more intelligent, than we can comprehend. The necessity of something with those characteristic is almost certain. It being God is more of a theological consistency view and not part of this point. So call that anything that will work and I am fine with it.
I am fine with phenomena. We do not know it exists, how can we even begin to think about what it is or is dependent upon. Space is far more concrete and did not exist in the finite past. Hard to put energy no where even if you have some to put anywhere. I agree that the term dark energy is irrelevant but the concept is what I am discussing. Whatever it is thought to be by any name is a guess and we cannot define properties of a guess unless we know what it caused. You could say that if dark matter or energy is the cause of X then it has theses properties I guess.
In every measurable category it is. In evidence, in explanatory scope, in explanatory consistency, etc..... There is not even a distant second. It has been acknowledged as such by those who do not hold my world view, so the convenient dismissal of it on those grounds is moot.
No it doesn't. Time's model is most often linear or pretty much any functional shape you deem, and it it's self has no physical shape. It is an abstract concept we find useful. Space-time might be spherical as a model. Actually no model of even space time is round I have ever seen and that is about models not time. Time has no physical dimensions of any shape. I was being generous and leaving open the possibility. But your talking about space time not time.
It is strange that something that only exists as a cognitive device in my head can be warped by something like gravity. But then again I suppose that gravity also exists only in my head.
Entirely so actually.
But here is the difference. If I wanted the evidence I could go get it. Its there. I just don't have the time, energy or mental fortitude to learn everything about everything. But it is there and it can be found in any particular case. This is true for all scientific facts. Not all scientific theories that have not been verified however. But for everything in science there is evidence of some kind. Otherwise its just off the wall.
Subjective experience isn't evidence of anything. By definition it cannot be verified. And the best counter I've found to the people who state that they have subjective evidence of god in their lives I can find a lot of people who have taken acid or shrooms to have come out with far greater feelings of intensity in similar ways. We also know that our emotions and experiences (down to forming memories) are chemical reactions in the brain. I find it hard to reconcile anything that happens totally within the brain with reality if there is not evidence for it with reality.
Because we can observe the universe. The laws of gravity seem to be universal. The speed of light seems to be universal (but there is a small group that think that the speed of light may have been different in the early early universe but they have not brought anything to show for it).
I'm glad we are making progress in this. Theologically you can claim whatever you want. However why is it required to be intelligent, a person, or even conscious?
Not necessarily. We can't give properties to anything. We have an observable phenomenon (expansion ect) and we know that there must be a reason for it. This reason is unknown so we have given it a name. Dark energy and dark matter may be very very different, one in the same or otherwise.
