Science, Philosophy & The existence Of God

[MindOverMatter]

As far as an argument that provides an alternative to creation from nothing, I think the idea of an all power creator would need to be an actual argument for it in the first place.

Logically valid arguments have already been given.

It’s a philosophical notion and nothing more.

That the universe exists outside of my mind, is a philosophical notion. That objective reality exists as i perceive it with my senses, is a philosophical notion. It seems to me that we can’t even do science with out philosophical beliefs. Surely one is not arguing that we must prove everything by science before they can be considered a logically valid belief? Such a conclusion is more then absurd, its wishful thinking.

There are a bunch of ideas out there as to how the universe formed that do not include any kind of god but of course they’re untested.

They can’t be tested. None of them change the fact that out of absolute nothing comes nothing. None of them change the fact that change cannot account for its own existence.

Once you understand that fundamental fact; then perhaps you will stop chanting the same old invalid mantras.

Because something can’t be explained, the only thing that says is that we don’t know and that’s perfectly fine with me.

Of coarse it would be, why would you want to believe that you have a moral responsibility to your creator? Its easier to play blind man.

The notion of a creator just fills in the gaps of our lack of knowledge

Nope. It explains what physics can’t explain in principle.

even though there’s nothing beyond philosophy to back it up.

Logic backs it up quite nicely thank you.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

The problem with science, as it has become, is that it fails to realise that in assuming that it can explain everything that is, it can only possibly come up with a materialistic explanation - whether that explanation is a true representation of what is or not, since material reality is all that science can reasonably deal with. This is all based in core positivistic assumptions which have underpinned science since halfway through the 19th century, and have now become dogma.

Luckily, the rest of us don’t have to make the same dogmatic assumptions to go on with our daily lives

What we can literally be scientifically sure of can be written on a postage stamp. Delude yourselves otherwise - the rest is a matter of assumption - and belief. Descartes realises this - Dawkins doesn’t. So much for progress.

 

[Benadam]

The elements of the universe are organized in such a way that it has the ability to ask ’ why do I exist’ .This is not just a question man asks but is a question the universe asks. Matter of the universe gathered in the formation of man. In that light the ability to ask ‘why’ proves the existence of God.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

The elements of the universe are organized in such a way that it has the ability to ask ’ why do I exist’ .This is not just a question man asks but is a question the universe asks. Matter of the universe gathered in the formation of man. In that light the ability to ask ‘why’ proves the existence of God.

Sounds good, and it makes sense - but it is not absolute proof. Also, this is philosophy, which can encompass teleological explanations such as this. Much as it would like to appear to be so all-encompassing, science cannot stretch this far, and to consider the possibility of such an unquantifiable, unqualifiable being as God, beyond nature and matter, is certainly beyond what science can possibly factor into it’s calculations realistically. Which is why the assumption that God isn’t there to mess up our sums is such a major element of modern science

 

[Benadam]

Sounds good, and it makes sense -

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Hi Benadam,

Cheers!

. Like you say it doesn’t stretch that far.

But that’s the problem - there are an awful lot of people who believe that modern science does stretch that far, and measures the limits of what can be considered possible, probable, or rational - despite the inevitable limitations of the scientific method itself.