Do natural processes deny God's existence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wozza
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wozza

Guest
There are what we describe as natural processes. From planetary accretion to the formation of black holes to the formation of continents and chemical reactions to nuclear fusion and photosynthesis. And these processes are described thus because we can understand them using the scientific method.

If they are natural (and therefore not supernatural), is it valid to use them as an argument to deny God’s existence?
 
Last edited:
No. One can say that God sustain things based on their natures. Science cannot tell you why the natural processes are like that. No need to say that one should describe how God sustain things based on their natures.
 
Wozza said:
If they are natural (and therefore not supernatural), is it valid to use them as an argument to deny God’s existence?
Click to expand...
It is OK to use them, but whether they will succeed in constructing a valid argument to deny God’s existence remains to be seen.

Anyway, atheists in general do not have to prove that there is no God. The burden of proof lies on the theists or the believers. However, atheists can raise objections to the proofs presented by believers. And that is generally what they do.
 
I think a great book that you should read is St. Hildegard of Bingen’s Physica. She was an abbess who studied deeply into natural sciences.
She said in her book, “The devil hates all God’s creation.” and explains how gemstones, natural herbs, and etc. can heal a person in God’s name. This is important as she boldly mentions “God’s name”. The creations cannot heal a person alone, but only with God’s assistance.
She says the devil absolutely hates the earth’s creation because it was made from God. She studied how the gemstones were made by God and how it was formed by God- and how to use it to counteract against the evil spirits.

Now, this is not confirmed by science- about her healing instructions- but that is what she wrote in Latin. You can get this in Kindle as well.
I’m a jewelry maker/rosary maker so these books are always interesting to read!
 
I’ve just told my wife we can’t go out tonight because I have to spend 6 bours watching some videos as a guy on the internet couldn’t be bothered to formulate an argument or comment on a particular thread. Cut and pste seems to be the modus operandi of forum members these days.

But hang on. I could just reply in kind! No need to discuss these matters - we can let others do our work for us:

slate.com

The evolution of creationist astronomy

Oh you wacky creationists! You make it all too easy. A warning: while easy, it does take some time to debunk a creationist's blatherings. So I indulge...
slate.com slate.com

OK, girl. We’re off out tonight after all!
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
There are what we describe as natural processes. From planetary accretion to the formation of black holes to the formation of continents and chemical reactions to nuclear fusion and photosynthesis. And these processes are described thus because we can understand them using the scientific method.

If they are natural (and therefore not supernatural), is it valid to use them as an argument to deny God’s existence?
Click to expand...
No. A teleological argument would argue that God is necessarily indicated by anything having natural processes at all, and the cosmological argument isn’t interested in what here would be considered accidental efficient causes, but instead on their essential efficient causes. The conclusion is that there must be a God for there to be a natural order. An argument from perfections could still hold, as well as an argument from abstract objects, with additional background explanation. I’m not a proponent of the Kalam argument, I have my concerns with it, but from another angle, natural processes in themselves wouldn’t be what invalidate it.

In short, though, there are a plenitude of rational arguments for God that aren’t dependent upon any claims that God is supernaturally causing what can be explained by natural processes. So the physics of the universe being explained by natural processes isn’t contradictory to my views. Again, I haven’t made any of the arguments in the first paragraph here, I’m just reiterating that none of the lines of argument indicated above are impacted by there being natural processes. If there are valid objections to them, the objection asked about in the first post isn’t one of them.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
There are what we describe as natural processes. From planetary accretion to the formation of black holes to the formation of continents and chemical reactions to nuclear fusion and photosynthesis. And these processes are described thus because we can understand them using the scientific method.

If they are natural (and therefore not supernatural), is it valid to use them as an argument to deny God’s existence?
Click to expand...
The fact that things can be explained naturally is never a proof against God as a creator unless it can be found that a physical thing exists necessarily requiring no ontological causes and is the cause upon which all other physical things rely upon for their existence. The scientific method alone cannot prove such a thing.

What can i say…some people can’t stand the idea of there being a natural explanation for anything. It causes existential anxiety about their place in existence because whenever something amazing that one feels is a sign of God involves a natural explanation it causes a secret doubt of God’s existence.

The assumption underlying that doubt is of course the idea that if any particular thing in a given system can be explained naturally that therefore the entire system could possibly be explained naturally. I of course disagree, and would even go as far as to say that such an assumption is a real example of the fallacy of composition. But that is neither here or there since even if there is a possibility that the universe needs no explanation, that in its self is not an excuse to ignore what can reasonably be known to be true.

When a Christian ignores evidence, that is not a sign of a strong faith. And the reverse is true for an atheist, for if they too ignore evidence for God that too is not a sign of an intellectually supported atheism.

The bottom line is, i perceive no possibility of disbelief on the premise that science has found something. And it is unreasonable for any Christian to think that science can somehow discover something that would conflict with their faith. Science has been made out to be the big boogy-man forever disproving religious claims. But that is simply not true.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
There are what we describe as natural processes. From planetary accretion to the formation of black holes to the formation of continents and chemical reactions to nuclear fusion and photosynthesis. And these processes are described thus because we can understand them using the scientific method.

If they are natural (and therefore not supernatural), is it valid to use them as an argument to deny God’s existence?
Click to expand...
No. If anything they lend credence to the existence of God. All these processes are caused by something before them and something before them. Following this all the way to back the beginning you get God who set it all in motion.
 
As Catholics believe, God created everything from nothing.

In other news, we have books by Richard Dawkins like The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker. Imagine being blind, you know nothing about the parts needed to make a watch but are told to do it.
 
edwest said:
As Catholics believe, God created everything from nothing.

In other news, we have books by Richard Dawkins like The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker. Imagine being blind, you know nothing about the parts needed to make a watch but are told to do it.
Click to expand...
The two books are on different subjects. The first is a personal rejection of God. The second is a treatise on a scientific matter, which is his area of expertise. He is a scientist.

If the person writing both was a butcher, would you say that his area of expertise had any relevance to his personal opinion?
 
Last edited:
His “personal opinion” is not the issue. Exploiting his title and position, he goes on national TV to rail against a being he claims probably doesn’t exist but his atheist rants are cloaked in science and he should be roundly criticized for this - scientist or not.
 
Wozza said:
And these processes are described thus because we can understand them using the scientific method.
Click to expand...
Wrong. In the Universe there are elements at work that cannot be explained. Dark matter and dark energy. They hold the universe together and they are a mystery to scientists. Both in their composition and in their interaction.
 
The money i could make writing a book supporting intelligent design versus science. I could cash in on religious peoples’s insecurities and make a ton of money. But i just can’t do it. It would be wrong.
 
Last edited:
edwest said:
His “personal opinion” is not the issue. Exploiting his title and position, he goes on national TV to rail against a being he claims probably doesn’t exist but his atheist rants are cloaked in science and he should be roundly criticized for this - scientist or not.
Click to expand...
Then you seem to have answered the question. That natural processes (explained by the scientific process) cannot be used to claim that God does not exist.

We are in agreement?
 
No. He poisons other people with his rants. He offers science as proof that there is no god of any kind. He was part of the atheist bus campaign in the UK.

"Its slogan – “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” – can already be seen on buses in central London. A total of 200 bendy buses in London and 600 buses across England, Scotland and Wales will carry the slogan from today and tomorrow following a fundraising drive which raised more than £140,000.

"The money raised will also pay for 1,000 advertisements on London Underground from Monday. Organisers today unveiled a set of quotes from famous writers and thinkers who endorse the atheist message.

“The launch, held today near the Albert memorial, featured speeches by Dawkins, author of The God Delusion; Ariane Sherine, creator of the Atheist Bus Campaign; and Hanne Stinson, from the British Humanist Association.”
 
Last edited:
edwest said:
No. He poisons other people with his rants. He offers science as proof that there is no god of any kind. He was part of the atheist bus campaign in the UK.
Click to expand...
So he cannot offer proof that there is no God by using science. I’m glad we can agree on that.
 
edwest said:
No unilateral agreement, please. It doesn’t work.
Click to expand...
Sorry, am I missing something here? You said that Dawkins was using science to prove that there is no God and that that cannot be done. I agree with you.

Where is the problem?
 
edwest said:
No. He poisons other people with his rants. He offers science as proof that there is no god of any kind. He was part of the atheist bus campaign in the UK.

"Its slogan – “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” – can already be seen on buses in central London. A total of 200 bendy buses in London and 600 buses across England, Scotland and Wales will carry the slogan from today and tomorrow following a fundraising drive which raised more than £140,000.

"The money raised will also pay for 1,000 advertisements on London Underground from Monday. Organisers today unveiled a set of quotes from famous writers and thinkers who endorse the atheist message.

“The launch, held today near the Albert memorial, featured speeches by Dawkins, author of The God Delusion; Ariane Sherine, creator of the Atheist Bus Campaign; and Hanne Stinson, from the British Humanist Association.”
Click to expand...
Well, i imagine that this is a response to similar activity by Christians. But his atheist promoting activity has nothing to do with science, and if he is using science to justify his position then he either doesn’t understand the epistemological limitations of science or he is deceiving people, possibly deceiving himself.

At the end of the day, atheists have freedom of speech, so if they say something that’s not true then we have to point that out. But that doesn’t mean that evolution is a lie or that Christian fundamentalism is right.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top