Subject:
|
Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:31:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
928 times
|
| |
|
|
I missed this post in all the commotion, so I didn’t reply earlier. My
apologies to John for the delay.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
But the key difference is that I am saying “I accept that the universe may
always have existed,” rather than “I believe that God has always existed.”
I offer and accept the universe’s existence as a possibility, but I don’t
put faith in that assertion the way theists put faith in God’s existence.
|
Okay, you are toying with me, but to be honest, you have to start somewhere
to logically explain stuff. At the beginning of any one of those theories
must be faith, because something from nothing is not scientific.
|
What’s unscientific about it, exactly?
Thermodymanics allows for “something from nothing” as long as the net effect is
zero. Quantum vacuum fluctuations (about which I have, admittedly, only a
layman’s knowledge, but I encourage you to read
this for a
primer) can likewise accommodate something from nothing.
| |
| |
But that’s just the ontological argument for God, and it’s a fallacy. And
it’s special pleading because you’re saying that we’re not allowed to engage
your cosmogonical theory on the same terms as any other theory. Simply
declaring outright that something is unique is the same as assuming that
something is unique, and, since that’s the essence of the argument, your
argument is circular.
|
The problem is that concept of God cannot be explained logically; it is
beyond logic. Faith.
|
But you’ve been trying, through multiple posts, to express the logical need
for God! You can’t claim mid-stride that He’s fundamentally beyond logic.
I have true, metaphysical faith in absolutely nothing, so you’ll need to do
better than that. Further, the concept of God is beyond logic if and only if we
A assume that He exists and B He chooses to hide from our inquiry. That
would mean that he is deceptive and therefore not infinitely good.
Additionally, you’re using a likewise circular argument, and I reject it once
again.
To attempt to end an argument by the declaration “Faith” is, as I’ve said
before, equivalent to saying “I’ve stopped questioning it.”
| |
| |
And there are many, many other options (explaining universal origin).
|
But they are all disingenuous at their core, because they cannot
scientifically explain the sudden appearance of stuff.
|
That, too, is argument by assertion, and it’s circular. Further, as I mentioned
above, science currently offers numerous theoretical explanations for the
“sudden appearance of stuff,” so your claim is incorrect as well as circular.
| |
The notion that Science may one day explain what we all know is by
definition unexplainable is dishonest.
|
First of all, I’ve never claimed that science will explain all that we know.
Instead, I assert that science can, in principle, explain anything in the
natural world that can in principle be explained. God, assuming He exists, is
supernatural and therefore obviously beyond the purview of science. That’s
certainly no argument in favor of faith, however.
Second, you can’t simply assume the existence of something and then assert that
it’s uniquely unknowable. That, once again, is the fallacious and utterly
debunked “ontological argument.” You might as well argue about the
characteristics of your imaginary friend.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 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
|
|
|
|
