Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts
I find you have several good points, and, in general, I find your argument compelling. However, there are some things that I think are flawed.
you've begged the entire issue
Begging the question, as I understand it, is that the person has assumed the antecedent of what he is trying to prove. What has he assumed here? He states quite clearly that there is evidence for the existence of entities which defy scientific proof. Now, I'll admit that the "evidence" he is talking about is eye-witness accounts, so that automatically makes them less trustworthy. However, there is no assumption present.
Either they exist and you have some means by which you know it, in which case the scientific basis is given by the fact of your knowing, or they are speculative, in which case Occam's Razor would tend to dispense with said entities.... My reason for disbelieving the supernatural is lack of experience, the inability of others to reproduce their experience and my own experience of people who tell untruths.
You are correct, that up to this point such entities have failed to stand up to scientific scrutiny. But, is it possible that some of these phenomena are sensitive to the expectations of the observer, e.g. placebo effect? I agree that Occam's Razor would tend to discount such entities, but we, as of this point, don't know everything and can't measure it either. (See this thread.) So, I'm going to withhold judgement.
I agree that I have no evidence that God is subject to physics; I have no evidence of God whatsoever. It is inappropriate to speak of the application of physical laws to fiction.
This is very dangerous ground. In this statement, you have essentially said that a null result implies a negative result. Simply put, just because there is no evidence of a something, does not mean it does not exist. Science can say nothing as to the existence or the nature of the Divine because, almost by definition, the Divine must exist outside of the physical realm, and science deals strictly with the physical. No more, no less.
The fact that your argument ... leads to an infinite regression of proof should also sound an alarm to you.... If at least one thing can exist which is not created, the burden lies upon you to prove why matter is not one such thing.... The regress is the hallmark of invalid logic ...
For the most part, you are correct. The problem here is that this is a problem that has existed for millenia. The Greeks struggled with it. Their solution: the Prime Mover, the initial impetus for everything else. Unfortunately, this hasn't been resolved. We don't know what came before the Big Bang, and, as far as we know, we cannot know what came before. So, what started it all? It is an unanswerable question, and arguing about infinite regress, while a valid criticism, is going to get you nowhere.
The problem with these arguments is that they are bound by logic. As a mathematician and physicist, I can appreciate the rigor, but there are limits to logic. Zeno's Paradox is a good example. The only way out of the paradox is to go outside of the confining logic and make a leap of intuition and come up with the concept of a limit. The method of exhaustion is an early example. Newton's method for generating a derivative, is another good example. But, back to my point, all systems of logic are incomplete, as proved by Gödel. This essentially means that within a system of logic there are statements that can be made that meet all of the axioms of the system, but that cannot be proven by the system. Thus, while it is very tempting to put approach the concept of the Divine from a logical perspective, it is one of those statements that can be neither proven nor disproven using logic.
RE: I will bite
(Original poster again):
I present those two points as my personal reasoning and are in no way intended to sway you either way.
What I really want you to understand is that your lack of faith in a deity is in itself a faith in something else. Something which can be considered just as valid as any religion because it also lacks any kind of scientific basis or logical proof.
For example, if we go back to the big bang example. If I claim a god put the matter there, this is my opinion and you can certainly reject that. If you claim any of the following alternatives:
- It was always there
- It just appeared without any kind of higher being
- Science will somehow eventually prove how it got there
- The Flying Spaghetti Monster put it there
- ...
That is your opinion, and I can, in sound logic, reject that. Either way, we both present arguments that have no evidence, no proof, no valid premise from which to start.
Now if I wanted to prove religion is true to you, then yes, the burden of proof is on me to prove it and I can't so I won't. If you wanted to prove religion is false to me, the burden of proof is on you to prove it and you can't so you shouldn't try. Only a leap of faith would pull me away, and a leap of faith will pull you in.
I am disheartened by the fact you feel your worldview is automatically superior to the religious because your belief system is itself full of contradictions which you cannot satisfy either.
As such, I do not recommend attempting turn this into an argument of "I believe this so let me see if you can agree." You and I both know full well that we aren't going to be swayed towards either argument. Instead, I hope that we can reach a mutual understanding that we are both sitting on premises, that while we personally hold them to be true, are just as valid as the next and will not necessarily convince the next person. I have entered this discussion knowing full well that my view can be wrong. I hope that you will leave this discussion with the same idea. I also certainly hope I can help you find some new found respect, or at least understanding, of religion, but I do not demand it :) .
I think another poster said it well that logic doesn't always produce a correct answer. As long as we are missing key premises, the conclusion will never be met and we are both stuck with contradictions.
RE: I will bite
And here I thought my presentation was so complete that no dispute was possible.
This is called the Bill O'Riely complex.
In all seriousness, it is easy to defend religious faith. Faith is a belief in things to come, what has yet to proven. Scientists use it all the time when they form hypotheses. They experiment to see if they were right (a luxury which we don’t get with religious faith).
Right now I believe that Jacksonville will win the Superbowl this year. I have no solid evidence to prove it, but that is what I have gathered by what I have personally felt and experienced while watching them.
Likewise, I believe a God rules this universe, as living in it has convinced me of it. It is not a scientific argument- it doesn't have to be. This is my hypothesis of what sits outside of the realm of physics (if God created matter, he created time and relativity, and thus sits outside of it all). Thus, there is only one way to test the hypothesis - with the final question every human gets to ask.
RSS
RE: I will bite
And here I thought my presentation was so complete that no dispute was possible.
You start with an incredibly provocative statement without the least evidentiary or argumentative support; you've begged the entire issue. Where is the ample evidence of 'entities without scientific basis' e.g., angels, demons, etc.? Either they exist and you have some means by which you know it, in which case the scientific basis is given by the fact of your knowing, or they are speculative, in which case Occam's Razor would tend to dispense with said entities.
Your further assumptions about the nature of spiritual disputants and there necessarily only being two sides in the conflict [the existence of which you've begged] is similarly lacking in any evidence or argumentative weight whatsoever.
Next, if you believe that some metaphysical problem exists with matter existing eternally, you've failed to state what that problem is and why it wouldn't apply to any given deity. I agree that I have no evidence that God is subject to physics; I have no evidence of God whatsoever. It is inappropriate to speak of the application of physical laws to fiction.
The fact that your argument re: first causes leads to an infinite regression of proof should also sound an alarm to you. If the nature of existence is such that existing things must be created, your point is not merely about physics, but about all which exists, including a deity. If at least one thing can exist which is not created, the burden lies upon you to prove why matter is not one such thing. You have proof that subatomic particles must be created and must be created by a sentient being? What is that proof?
The regress is the hallmark of invalid logic, while the utter lack of evidence is a hallmark of an unsound starting premise.
It is not faith which leads me to doubt the supernatural, it is the purported definition of the term 'supernatural' and the utter inability of anyone who advocates the existence of such to be able to produce it. I'll take a pragmatic stance here ala Charles Peirce. I need a reason for a radical program of disbelief as much as I would need one for a radical set of beliefs. My reason for disbelieving the supernatural is lack of experience, the inability of others to reproduce their experience and my own experience of people who tell untruths.
Finally, you misunderstood my claims about religion and ethics. They hold true even for a Christianity unconcerned with good works. The source of moral authority still lies in God in such a metaphysical scheme whether or not you include the concept of divine grace and asking sincerely for forgiveness of sins. In fact, moral authority inheres all the more strongly in the deity in such a setup as only the deity's 'grace' allows us to overcome our inherent sinfulness and to redeem our naughty ways.
How would you differentiate a faith in that kind of deity vs. faith in a deity who will reward you for killing a busload of nuns and yourself? How do you weigh the dichotomous moral commands if your standard of proof for a moral authority amounts to belief in the absence of any evidence?
View Full Discussion