- Status
po18guy
Well-known member
Thank you. However, if we will it, we can know of an uncaused Cause to a moral certainty. But that comes via revelation. Some things cannot be empirically or scientifically proven, as they are immaterial, such as the Spirit we call God. His effects, however, may be seen.
Thus, science has always been, is and always will be limited in scope - it is a purely human endeavor and we are limited in both time and space.
N
niceatheist
Guest
I’ll leave “moral certainty” to the religious. It doesn’t do much to me. The only caution I’ll raise is that it’s dangerous to park God in the gaps in knowledge.
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
We can also know it with a philosophical certainty.
What can’t be explained by science can usually be known phenomenologically or philosophically, It is only the hubris of some people who think all things must be explained scientifically else it is not reality. To quote from Shakespeare, “There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy (science).”
N
niceatheist
Guest
There really is no such thing as “philosophical certainly”. If there was, we wouldn’t have philosilophical schools. That’s a nonsense phrase meant to try to do an end run around having to actually justify your argument. I simply don’t accept that Aristotle and Aquinas understood the natural world well enough to make grand declarations on it. Things have advanced a lot since their prospective times.
po18guy
Well-known member
Are you, who apparently (maybe not) oppose absolutes, speaking in terms of absolutes?
Can the negative be demonstrated by a positive? Or, put otherwise, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
As it is with cancer, science can only prove that you do have cancer, and not that you do not have cancer.
Can the negative be demonstrated by a positive? Or, put otherwise, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
As it is with cancer, science can only prove that you do have cancer, and not that you do not have cancer.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
First of all, science isn’t in the business of proving things. Proof, as the joke goes, is for math and liquor. Science comes up with the best explanation based on the data at the time, and it certainly can’t disprove, say, the existence of God.
For instance, science can’t disprove that Thor causes thunder. It can, however, come up with a testable and ultimately more parsimonious explanation. But nothing science could do could disprove the claim “Thor makes thunder.”
For instance, science can’t disprove that Thor causes thunder. It can, however, come up with a testable and ultimately more parsimonious explanation. But nothing science could do could disprove the claim “Thor makes thunder.”
N
niceatheist
Guest
I accept science with its limits, and that’s a about it. It means accepting uncertainty, and even the possibility that we may never know the answers to some questions.
N
niceatheist
Guest
I’ve already been down that road. It didn’t really satisfy me the first time around, and I’ve decided, no matter how limited it may be, that I’ll live with uncertainty, and not simply accept claims because somehow they might make feel better. I’m sorry, faith doesn’t do it for me.
I
intjhatesyou
Guest
But a perfect thing can not possibly exist…logical fallacy.
F
Fauken
Guest
So would you agree then that science isn’t perfect and has deficiencies?
Last edited:
I
intjhatesyou
Guest
I most fervently would agree, as would any scientist.
G
Gorgias
Guest
That’s a very good and substantially critical, question!
However, we would have to posit that material things – which, by their very nature, do not persist in form – do not have to have had a beginning. I mean, we really could suggest that energy always existed, and something happened to cause that energy to transform to matter. (But, that would be _really difficult to substantiate.)
And, having substantiated that, we would still have to ask ourselves “whence the energy, then, since it’s part of physical reality?” After all, (at least from a Judeo-Christian perspective, we would claim that “everything created” means “everything in the physical universe”. So… if everything in the physical universe must have a cause… then what’s the cause?
If we say “it always existed”, then we have to substantiate that claim… or else we are faced with an open-ended dilemma. Now… we could turn to science, and say, “gee, we can measure the Big Bang… but we can’t measure anything prior to it”, that’s fine. But it doesn’t answer the question… does it?
I agree. So… unless we have a solid metaphysical answer for the question “how does the universe – a physical phenomenon – itself come into existence?”, we’re leaving a gaping hole in our explanation. Those who believe in a god – whether we call him ‘Allah’ or ‘YHWH’ or anything else – actually do have an answer. Do atheists?
Precisely. So, our current physics can only shrug and say “I dunno, man…”.
Did your free will exist prior to the point your parents met? Of course not. Therefore, your free will had a cause.
My personal take is that the whole “God of the philosophers” vs “God of the Bible” debate is over-wraught, and not reasonable at its source. That’s a different discussion for a different day, though…
S
Sophia
Guest
Let’s recall that matter and energy are the same. So this “energy” converted into “matter” is already a nonsensical proposition. And “always” presupposes an absolute time, which is refuted by the General Relativity. STEM - Space Time Energy Matter - are not separable.
The question itself is nonsensical, just like “what is on the other side of the Mobius strip?”. You say that “God simply exists - requires no explanation”. In other words, “God is a brute fact”, which means: “God is the ontological foundation of everything”. I have no problem with that. That is exactly the same what atheists say about the Universe. Your “explanation” is sufficient for you, the atheists’ explanation is sufficient for them. There is one important difference, however. The Universe is available to our senses (and their extensions), while God is not.
They assert that they have an answer. Can they “prove” it? Nope.
No. Meaningless questions do not require answers.
Yes. Nothing wrong with that. To the best of our knowledge we shall NEVER be able to answer certain questions, like: “What exists outside the light cone?” or “What are the conditions inside the Schwarzshield radius?”. Or “what will Jack and Jill have for dinner?”.
Playing word games? Or are you really unable to see the difference between the mind, which is necessary to make a decision and the decision itself? If you really don’t understand, I might take the time to explain. Then again, I might not.
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
Such silliness. I am out of here, especially on an alleged Catholic Forum
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
That’s an interesting observation, and a critical one, I suspect.
I would ask, I think, why it’s reasonable to presume one is pre-existing and the other is not. From the perspective of a believer in God, the answer is “God gives rise to the universe”. From the perspective of a non-believer, the answer seems a bit more foggy. “'Cause we can see the universe and not see God”, maybe? “'Cause the domain of reality is only what is physical”, perhaps?
What makes it difficult for me to wrap my head around the non-believer’s answer is that I can justify God’s eternal existence on His deity – which presumes his conscious and personal existence. How can we say the same thing about ‘energy’ or simple ‘matter’?
Ahh… but there’s the rub: who gets to rule on what’s a ‘meaningless’ question?
No, I’m not playing games. You claimed that your free will pre-existed your existence, didn’t you? Or did I misunderstand what you were asserting?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Silliness is precisely the reason why we need a Catholic forum!
- Status