Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:29:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1540 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
And this may be the crux of my problem with Science. Science
categorically denies the existence of anything it cannot investigate. It
requires proof, something that is categorically impossible to obtain
outside the natural universe. So, in essence, a god or gods cannot exist
because they cannot be proved to exist, which I find to be conveniently
circular.
|
“Where one cannot speak, there one must be silent.”
|
Sounds wise. Therefore, let science be silent on the matter of the origin of
the universe.
| |
Here, we are confusing the scientific attitude with the attitude of
scientists. Science doesn’t take a stand on God, since the very idea, as you
point out, is beyond the scope of science.
|
But so is the origin of the universe! (which is my whole point!)
| |
Most scientists are Naturalists,
where they ignore God as unnecessary.
Elves, trolls, unicorns, and fairies MIGHT exist. Are we to believe in them
because they fall into your circular argument above? That is, ‘science’ says
they don’t exist because science has no way to investigate their existance.
|
Only if you are claiming that they are not physical.
| |
Maybe you could explain to me how a belief in god is fundamentally different
than a belief in a goblin?
|
There is no fundamental difference. A belief is a belief. My criteria would be
whether one lived one’s life according to that belief.
| |
I should also point out that science has come to accept things that it
originally thought was nonexistant, impossible, or occultic. Gravity, for
one, was originally rebuked because it was thought to be an occultic, magical
force. Positrons and antimatter was also refuted as untrue, until predicted
by theory and confirmed by experiment.
|
If, for no other reason, though, we are arguing about things that are
definitionally beyond the peruse of science.
| |
| |
The fact is that even if God appeared at the United Nations general
assembly, there would be people who wouldn’t be able to accept it, because
Science cannot handle such a concept.
|
If ‘god’ appeared before the UN - it would severely change my definition of
‘god’ - as I don’t think ‘god’ would be able to appear. My sister, a Muslim,
also denies that god could appear in imperfect human form, which is her
rationale for disbelieving in the divinity of Jesus.
|
Certainly would depend upon one’s definition of God (Omnipotency). That Jesus
could be divine and at the same time human is certainly beyond the rational.
| |
| |
But my original point (God = Event1) still
stands: Science cannot handle a concept of God, but it hypocritically
accepts the concept of the existence of all things without probing as to
their origins. The best proof of the existence of God is the simple
existence of stuff. Rationally, it had to come from somewhere (according
to Science).
|
Science doesn’t need to understand everything in order to understand
anything.
|
To me, the origin of the universe is the elephant in the room of science.
| |
As I understand, science is still figuring out how inorganic matter
can turn into life - but that doesn’t mean God did it. Or that life doesn’t
exist.
|
I wouldn’t say that. But the hubris is when science explains the little things
and yet (conveniently) ignores the BIG things.
| |
And your argument, ‘God created everything therefore creation is proof of
God’, is twice as circular as the one you accused science of taking. I could
just as easily say ‘Nothing created everything therefore everything is proof
of Nothing.’
|
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am actually asserting nothing
about God; only that science disingenuously makes, in the example of the origin
of the universe, a leap of faith.
| |
| |
Even if I accept the idea that stuff just always WAS, it is still equivalent
to saying that a Creator just always WAS (God = Perpetual Stuff).
|
No it is not. This is the same form of your above argument - whatever
qualities of the world, God made them, ergo God exists. This is a fallacy.
|
You misunderstand. How do you explain the origin of the universe, Lenny? If
you say, “It just always was”, then that is the same leap of faith as me saying
that it originated from a Creator who always was (God = Perpetual Stuff). My
point is that any discussion of the origin of the universe presupposes some
sort of leap of faith.
| |
| |
In my final analysis, it boils down to a discussion of semantics. But I
think that Scientists want their cake and eat it, too, by refusing to even
consider pre-Big Band era music (Therein one finds, among others, the music
of a Mozart:-)
|
I don’t think that you can boil down the difference between theism and
atheism to semantics.
|
You are putting words into my mouth. I have never once said anything about
atheism. We are talking about science.
| |
You are taking the stance that whatever explanation science provides for
nature, you can tack on “God did it.” This is not a logical argument, nor is
it supported by any evidence.
|
Again, you are misstating my argument. I am saying that whatever explanation
science provides for the origin of the universe, it takes the same leap of faith
that a Creationist who claims the universe was created by God does.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
