| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> This is how I went from everyones idea that science is great for knowing the
> known universe, to this idea of Richards that Science is God:
>
> Logical construct:
>
> If there is always something new to study, then there must be an infinite
> number of things *to* study.
>
> If there is an infinite number of things to study, that's *everything*
>
> Therefore, science can show us *everything*
I'd caution that "infinite" still does not mean "comprehensive," since we
could in theory study the potential spatial relationships between two
particles and find an infinite number of potential combinations, and that's
just two particles. And anyway I don't think that's what Richard was
getting at.
> > I was demonstrating that it is very possible to prove the non-existence of
> > something, which seems to be central to at least part of the larger debate.
>
> And I have no problem in dispensing with non-existant things--if they don't
> exist then they don't exist, so this has what to do with *something* outside
> the sceintific domain?
?? Not necessarily. I can prove that there's no elephant in my
refrigerator, and that's part of the physical universe (ie. the scientific
domain). Why do you think that I'm referring to something outside it?
> > I would say that science is, in principle, able to
> > explain everything in the physical universe. By "in principle" I mean that
> > we might not literally be able to explain the motion of every quark in the
> > history of the universe, but there is no phenomenon in the physical universe
> > that is inherently--ie, by its fundamental nature--inexplicable by science.
>
> Perfect, I couldn't have said it better.
But be careful--it looks like you're taking this as my endorsement of
something beyond the physical universe, which it is not. Take this bit, for
instance:
> But since we're both on record for saying that there may
> be more, let me have my faith.
I'm not sure where I'm on record as having said that. In fact, I've
asserted quite the opposite. Using Occam's Razor, which we've previously
mentioned, I would suggest that in the absence of evidence of something
beyond the physical universe, it is extraneous to assume that such exists
(but I make a related point below).
> If I have *faith* in God, how can my faith be shown? If you're looking for
> me to point there and say, 'Oh, there's God impacting the physical universe
> there, and over here too!' then you're talking to the wrong Christian, my
> friend.
So stipulated. But many (well, in my personal experience, most)
Christians seem to say "God is everywhere, all the time" which seems to me
either:
1) He is part of the universe
2) He is the universe
Either way, I'm not going to hold you accountable for others' views.
> And your premise 'if the universe is finite (which I do continue to assert,
> and I think is a scientifically viable theory--who agrees with me?),
> therefore even God can be explored thru science' I think, is not even close
> to valid. The universe is finite, that does not mean *my* God is.
> If someone thinks that God interacts with the physical universe, and does
> stuff until we can explain it thru a theory of science, we're back to the
> god of the gap. Hey, that's not *my* God.
Does your God interact with the physical universe? If so, then he is most
certainly part of it, and you've already asserted that the physical universe
is finite. If the whole is finite, so are each of its parts. Of course, if
only "part" of God interacts with the finite physical universe, then only
that "part" of God need necessarily be finite. Hmm...
If your God does not interact with the physical universe, then how do you
know him? By what criteria to accept him as the best ultimate explanation
of things? Is it a feeling or an intuition? That's fair, but I submit that
these are physiological phenomena explicable through scientific means. If
you believe that they are otherwise, or that they transcend the physical
universe, then that's where we irretrievably part company.
In any case, I applaud you for not stuffing God into the tiny uncertain
spaces between two atoms; I believe it was you who said something like "a
god who inhabits the unknown places is an ever-decreasing god, an unworthy
god" and I would certainly get behind that statement (but my doing so is not
an endorsement of any god's existence, either!)
> I don't have to have an undocumented 'super-sense' that allows me to
> transcend the boundaries of the physical universe (and if you want to make
> what you just finished expalining to me 'a true straw man arguement', then
> go ahead, I won't balk and move on...) I have faith that *my* God exists,
> and moreover, since it doesn't fit into the scientific framework, you can't
> say I'm any less a person than you for having that faith, for things *may*
> exist outside the purview of science.
Well, let's all just understand that I haven't decried you as a lesser
person because of your faith; you didn't quite accuse me of it, but you were
close, and I wanted to clarify.
> Yes you can come up with a construct
> that will prove the non-existence of green faeries. However, you cannot
> come up with one for God.
Do you accept that the demonstration of irreconcilable and fundamental
inconsistencies in the nature of something is adequate proof of that thing's
non-existence? If so, then I can list several of such inconsistencies re:
God. If not, then how would you demonstrate something's non-existence? I
ask, because if you assert that we cannot prove the non-existence of a
thing, then you must by definition accept the existence of every single
thing I assert to exist.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) K, lets look at the one quotatoin that this is directly in resonse to, and let me try to show you how I interpreted it without any straw men in sight: Quoteth Richard (I think): (...) "My (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
