Hi wxboss, nice to talk with you.
Hello Touchstone! You do keep my gray matter from getting sluggish.
You made an interesting statement; The ability to scientifically prove the existence of God to whom you conceed has full command over physical law. I ask you if you believe it is possible for God who created the physical laws to be something that is inside or outside of those laws?
If you create it, I’d say you are ontologically “outside” of the universe. But if you create it and are in control of it, being “inside” is not a problem, if that’s your desire. Going from “outside” to “inside” is not a problem. It’s going the other way that’s a toughie.
I’m a software developer, and I write simulations from time to time, sometimes very complex ones. One of the aspects of creating a “virtual environment” in software is that I can mess with it just about any way I want. I’m “outside” the program, but can interact with it as I choose, because I write the source code that governs its fundamental operation.
If He is inside of those laws, then how could He have power over what has power over Him?
Right. I take it as a necessary predicate for this that if God exists as creator of the universe, he’s transcendent. Outside the universe.
But, fully capable of interacting inside it as he chooses.
If He is outside those laws (the Creator of them), then any examination of those laws would reveal that there was a creator of some kind that brought them into being. But to say that we might find some physical evidence in such an examination, like that of a fingerprint, to prove His existence - I would then ask who would be able to identify the fingerprint of God? The achilles heel of atheism is that it is unable to absolutlely disprove what it claims to disbelieve (or more actually, believe). It asks a lot of questions, just not the right ones.
That’s just an intrinsic feature of knowledge and reasoning; it’s impossible in principle to achieve certainty about universal negatives in reality. That isn’t just pertinent to the question of God’s existence, but for any proposition which may be true if it’s true anywhere, anyhow. Does alien intelligent life exist in the universe? No matter what you do to explore, you cannot ever be certain that the answer is “no”, unless you can explore all of it, which isn’t possible in principle.
It’s no problem at all that we do not have certainty that God doesn’t exist. That’s reality; it’s a possibility. There’s no reasonable basis I’m aware of for affirming that there exists a God or gods, but that in no way exhausts the possibilities. Atheism is just a reasoned (or at least it should be/can be – some people disbelieve in God for illicit reasons) conclusion that all things considered, the evidence and explanations available are simpler, more coherent and performative against the evidence than any theistic framework.
It could be wrong. But reasoning is like that – it’s nearly always tentative to some degree or other in its conclusions.
You mentioned the abstract idea of the square root of -1. There must have been a reason why that notion is abstract.
Well, math
as math is abstract as a cognitive enterprise. It’s so easily and usefully applied to the real world, though, that there is often some confusion about this. Using a concept like “the square root of -1” is useful because it does not map well to real world contexts.
But that said, it doesn’t really address this issue of absolutes. Abstract means it is conceptually distinct from observation and experience.
The Law of Mathematics must be the foundation for such a defense hence my argument about using absolutes in an attempt to prove that this theory ; “doesn’t exist as a tangible entity – it’s a concept, a complex pattern of electrons and chemicals in the brain.” That statement just doesn’t hold much water with me.
Why? I wonder if you are confusing
physical law, laws which are descriptive of reality, of uniform physical phenomena, with logical laws, which are not beholden to anything real, but may be purely analytical in nature, concepts having to do with the form and structure of reasoning, a symbolic calculus of rules.
Mathematical laws themselves don’t tell us anything about reality. Many mathematical principles and laws are extraordinarily useful in their application to the real world, but they only realized as related to the real world by the evidence and experience which makes that attachment.
I was just being facetious, but I didn’t give you a reason for thinking so. You know what they say about Internet arguments.
OK, sorry, I should have picked that up. I ruined a breezy bit of cleverness on your part with a clumsy reading.
Fair enough, but I would also add that even though scientists rely on verifiable observations for verification of existence (or proof), would you not also say that scientists throughout the centuries have been motivated to find an answer for that which they observe but cannot verify?
Yes, surely.
Scientists are essentially detectives trying to uncover observable mysteries that have not yet been solved. Mysteries that even after examination, in some cases, continue to leave more questions than answers. And what greater mystery is there than the mystery of life itslef?
Uh, beyond the continuing popularity of Barbra Streisand, I can’t think of anything.
-TS
So they think until the final day comes when every one will meet their maker. Still Love them Nancy