Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Non-scientific evidence
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 36 of 98 (559890)
05-12-2010 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Pauline
05-11-2010 7:48 PM


Hello Dr. Sing,
I've been watching your discussion in the other thread and I find your insistence on unscientific PROOF of God's existence quite interesting. Not because I'm quite sure what you're getting at here, but because I'm curious as to what you think constitutes evidence of God's existence, whilst completely avoiding scientific methods. You never quite explained what you were referring to in that thread, so I'm glad that you are making that effort here.
First off, I'm going to be honest with you. I'm very skeptical of your claims of "unscientific proof". Mostly because I'm not sure we're using the same definition of either "scientific methods" or "proof". I consider anything that can be studied empirically within a framework of rigorous analysis and critique to be something to which scientific methods can be applied. I consider proof to be something that objectively demonstrates a given statement to be true. Mind you, absolute proof is difficult to come by in the "real world", although the term can be applied in mathematics.
Finally, to preface our discussion I'll give a bit of background on my own views. I'm a theist, raised as a Christian, although over the past year or so I've begun to question many of the beliefs I once took for granted. As such, it may be more accurate to consider me an agnostic with a (understandable) bias toward theism. Perhaps you will provide me with some solid argument to restrengthen my beliefs. Perhaps not. In any case I will, for the sake of discussion, take the devil's advocate position in this debate.
Dr. Sing writes:
1. Why am I here/ Why is the world here?
Because that's the way it is? Does there have to be a reason beyond the natural forces that are demonstrably capable of producing planets such as ours?
Dr. Sing writes:
2. Where did I come from/ Where did this world come from?
From the same accretion disc that produced the sun.
Dr. Sing writes:
3. Is there an unseen world out there? Can we know anything about it? If yes
I don't know. And I'm not sure if anyone knows. Can it be studied/observed by any means at all? If not, how does it differ from the fantasy world full of talking animals that I made up when I was three?
Dr. Sing writes:
5. Who is the greatest authority? If we term HimGod, then is He real?
Is there a greatest authority? Isn't the existence of God something you're supposed to be proving to me? How does asking the exact same thing that you're trying to prove help you advance your argument?
Dr. Sing writes:
6. How do we define God?
Differently.
Dr. Sing writes:
7. Do we need God? If yes/no, why/why not?
I would like God to be real. But my opinion or need does not constitute evidence of His existence.
Dr. Sing writes:
8. Are there ways to test the existence of God i.e are there reasons for His existence to be true? Are these reliable, logical, reasons that are supported by physical observation of the seen world around us?
I used to think that the structured universe and the amazing fact that I exist was bona fide evidence of God's existence. But the more I learned about how the world works the less obvious was the need for a God to make things like people and planets. It became clear to me that God is often used to explain the yet unexplained, pushed back once we've learned to explain phenomena by other means. For example, Newton invoked God to explain the stability of the solar system, his conviction being that a system that complicated could only be kept stable by continuous intervention. As our knowledge grew we no longer had any need of that hypothesis.
Of course, if God intervened in the physical world causing an observable effect, He could be studied scientifically. Something like a world-wide flood perhaps, or mana from heaven. If either of these things happened today, in an age of scientific methodology, at least the effects of God's existence could be studied empirically.
Dr. Sing writes:
9. How much can empiricism tell us about God?
That depends entirely upon whether there are any observable indications of God's existence. How much can non-empiricism tell us about anything?
Hopefully my answers will be of relevance to this discussion and I look forward to seeing what arguments you bring to the table.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Pauline, posted 05-11-2010 7:48 PM Pauline has not replied

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 62 of 98 (560277)
05-14-2010 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Pauline
05-13-2010 11:18 PM


Re: Stage 2
Hello Dr. Sing,
I'm very familiar with all four arguments, so I'll just briefly summarize my disagreements with all four.
1. The Ontological Argument
To say that God must exist because he is the ultimate perfection assumes that something exists which has the ultimate perfection. Furthermore, one can think of a lot of things that are perfect, yet which do not exist. I could think of a "perfect" island, or a "perfect" rabbit, but that doesn't mean that either exists.
2. The Cosmological Argument
The cosmological argument basically tells us that every observed effect has some kind of cause. Let's just assume this to be true, although I'm not sure that it need always be the case. Causes always precede their effects. However, if time began with the Big Bang, there would have been no "before" where a cause could have taken place.
Creation takes time. There has to be a moment when the creation does not exist, followed by a moment in which it does, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to say there was a moment of creation. Now if T=0 was the Big Bang there would be no "before" the beginning, at least not in a meaningful sense. If so, what does it mean to say that the universe was created? Subsequently, how does one fit a creator into such a scenario?
3. Teleological "Fine-Tuning" Argument
This was once my favourite argument for God's existence. However, after giving it some serious thought, it almost seems the worst argument. Yes, the universe does have certain traits that allow us to exist. It also has a lot of qualities that are very detrimental to human life. As far as we know, Earth is the only planet with any kind of life. Not particularly impressive if the universe was carefully "fine-tuned" for life. Even our own planet would not have been comfortable for human life during much of its history. Not to mention the massive extinction events that have taken place in the past, wiping out most of the planet's biodiversity.
It is impressive, looking at the rest of the barren universe and marveling at how well suited our planet is for life. It is impressive that we exist at all given how hostile the universe is. But a universe barely capable of sustaining any life is not good evidence of careful fine-tuning, unless the Creator was satisfied with a sloppy job.
4. The Moral Argument
Dr. Sing writes:
We all know that animals lack conscience. They steal, but do not feel guilty. They kill, but do no view it as a sin.
This would be interesting, were it true. But other animals have been observed acting morally. I'm too tired and lazy right now to look up specific examples, but check out the wiki article Altruism in Animals
Most of the behaviour can be chalked up to simple instinctual behaviour (although human morality is probably instinctual to some extent). But more intelligent social animals, like chimpanzees, have morality that closely resembles our own. They behave altruistically, sharing food with each-other. Dolphins have been observed lifting wounded conspecifics to the surface, and even, I believe, doing the same for human swimmers.
We humans have much more complex social behavior than dolphins and chimps, and this is why we're able to live and function in larger societies. It is not surprising therefore that our parents teach us to behave in such a manner that we can function within the societies we are born.
Respectfully,
-A tired Meldinoor *yawn*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Pauline, posted 05-13-2010 11:18 PM Pauline has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024