Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I challenge you to tell me what created the universe, if not God. You guys claim science of the gaps for anything and everything--from origins to evolution. Logically speaking, science cannot account for the origins of the universe.
You make a very good point there. Very good point.
Actually, the point is seriously flawed.
The challenge "tell me what created the universe, if not God" ...
attempts to shift the burden of proof
ignores without explanation or basis various coherent theories on the origins of this universe
assumes, again without explanation or basis, that a catalyst must have the quality of 'Agency', including intentionality
appears to presume that existence itself was necessarily created
The criticism "You guys claim science of the gaps for anything and everything" ...
is entirely unfounded; most worthwhile material that I've read on the philosophy of science makes abundantly clear that there exist matters outside the domain of science
demonstrates an ignorance of the difference between 'science' and 'scientific explanation,' with the former being a methodology and the latter being the result of the effective application of that methodology.
So, "Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?" One of my favorite quotes comes from Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues ...
Quote:
In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience).... 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: "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
In other words, no, but this can in no way be seen as in any way validating a belief in preternatural agency.
^ Again replying only to the on topic stuff and not the personal stuff:
I never claimed that "the universe exists therefore science". Not once. So you are putting words in my mouth now. You however are claiming this with lines like "The universe exists, therefore a creator must have caused it." and "tell me what created the universe, if not God."
The "if not god" suggests that somehow this is the default answer. It is not. The question is open. The reason there is a universe and the source of it are things we simply do not know and we need to work on finding those answers to satisfy our own curiosity. Science is just one methodology by which we are attempting to do that. Declaring one hypothesis somehow the default however does not help this and is not an argument.
Yes, I am willing to consider all hypotheses presented to me if they come with supporting arguments, evidence, data or reasoning. If they do not however they stay on the shelf with me. Asking the same questions over and over despite me having answered it numerous times however is not an argument, evidence, data or reason to support your god hypothesis.
As I've tried to say....your default position is to point to a natural cause. I get that. You can't fathom the idea of the supernatural. You keep saying that you've answered my questions, but I have yet to see it. You have not given an explanation for the existence of the universe other than the big bang. When asked "what caused that?", you have nothing.
The challenge "tell me what created the universe, if not God" ...
attempts to shift the burden of proof
ignores without explanation or basis various coherent theories on the origins of this universe
assumes, again without explanation or basis, that a catalyst must have the quality of 'Agency', including intentionality
appears to presume that existence itself was necessarily created
Why is the burden of proof on me to negate your opinion?
Quote:
The criticism "You guys claim science of the gaps for anything and everything" ...
is entirely unfounded; most worthwhile material that I've read on the philosophy of science makes abundantly clear that there exist matters outside the domain of science
demonstrates an ignorance of the difference between 'science' and 'scientific explanation,' with the former being a methodology and the latter being the result of the effective application of that methodology.
So, "Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?" One of my favorite quotes comes from Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues ...
In other words, no, but this can in no way be seen as in any way validating a belief in preternatural agency.
Why? You guys claim that you have no idea how the universe exists.....but it can't be a personal creator. You don't know how, or why....but you just know science will some day tell you. That's science of the gaps. Call it what it is.
You have not given an explanation for the existence of the universe other than the big bang. When asked "what caused that?", you have nothing.
If someone asked you for an explanation for the existence of God, what "caused" him, you would not be able to give one any better than people who hypothesize about the origin of the universe.
If someone asked you for an explanation for the existence of God, what "caused" him, you would not be able to give one any better than people who hypothesize about the origin of the universe.
At some point, we need to establish an uncaused cause. What existed before everything else, that caused everything else?
Do you know? Are you willing to explore that question? I haven't seen anyone here so far that is. All I get is "science tells us..." and "we can guess that..."
If someone asked you for an explanation for the existence of God, what "caused" him, you would not be able to give one any better than people who hypothesize about the origin of the universe.
Sorry, but this is not at all comparable. The 'regress' argument, thought to be so clever by some, is specious.
May I ask why?
Furthermore, if one is to presume an uncaused cause, on what basis must one presume Agency?
Why must there be an uncaused cause? Because everything needs one. Nothing exists without origin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
