What are the common, modern-day objections to the existence of God?

[warpspeedpetey]

Not that it needs to be answered, but: ABSOLUTELY! Basic principles are distilled from innumerable observations. The proof of the pudding is that it is edible.

youre ignoring the problem of induction in the scientific method. its predictive power can never be settled, there is always the possibility that another observation will invalidate centuries of work. this has happened a great many times as science has advanced.

empiricism has failed a great many times throughout the centuries for this very reason.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1. The laws of the reality are **not **uniform. You cannot assume that dropping stone will fall down, maybe sometimes it will fall down, but other times it will fall up. How many times do you have to repeat this experiment, before it becomes clear that objects fall down, not up?

again with the induction. there is no number of times the experiment can be repeated that conclusively proves objects always fall down.

the results of the scientific method are great. but when you try to apply a logically contradictory standard of proof like empiricism, to logic systems, it fails. precisely because it is logically contradictory.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Point has been raise and dealt with, please read the thread so we don’t have to keep going over the same stuff.

it wasnt refuted. you are ignoring history, like uit didnt happen.

 

[R_Daneel]

youre ignoring the problem of induction in the scientific method. its predictive power can never be settled, there is always the possibility that another observation will invalidate centuries of work. this has happened a great many times as science has advanced.

No, I am not ignoring this fact. It is the strength of science, not its weakness - which you don’t even understand. Science is a self-correcting phenomenon. It does not provide absolute, ironclad certainties, and it is not supposed to do that. Try to repeat this a few times: “the proof of the pudding is that it is edible”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Scientists are the people responsible for science and many of us, including myself, want to distance their selves as far possible from pointless pursuits like philosophy.

Now if you’ll excuse me it just to happen i have some real science to go and do.

you arent the only person here with a degree, i have a few myself. big deal.

scientists are mostly glorified car mechanics. when every scientific fact is known and taught at your local junior college, like some basic automotive maintenance course. metaphysicians will still be exploring the universe of existential logic.

science amounts to playing with dirt. am i to be impressed at the latest mud pie my child presents me? is this pile of dirt or that pile of dirt really any more interesting than the last pile of dirt, breathlessly discovered?

other then pure utility, no not really. science is only useful in so far as it eases our physical burdens. that is the end all and be all of science.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, I am not ignoring this fact. It is the strength of science, not its weakness - which you don’t even understand. Science is a self-correcting phenomenon. It does not provide absolute, ironclad certainties, and it is not supposed to do that. Try to repeat this a few times: “the proof of the pudding is that it is edible”.

so the strength of science is in the fact that it cant conclusively prove anything, and then when it fails, we get more inconclusive evidence? simply calling the failures of science, “self correcting” doesnt turn them into successes. its still just more inconclusive evidence.

this “proof of pudding” is just another appeal to the self refuting verification schemes.

i have no intention of saying that science isnt useful, simply that as it is a logically contradictory scheme, you cant apply it logical systems like metaphysics and expect
that to be sensical.

again. no one is disputing the general utility of the scientific method. only the idea that it is a standard of truth, much less one applicable to anything other than the basest materialism. it has nothing to say about metaphysics at all.

 

[1holycatholic]

so the strength of science is in the fact that it cant conclusively prove anything, and then when it fails, we get more inconclusive evidence? simply calling the failures of science, “self correcting” doesnt turn them into successes. its still just more inconclusive evidence.

this “proof of pudding” is just another appeal to the self refuting verification schemes.

i have no intention of saying that science isnt useful, simply that as it is a logically contradictory scheme, you cant apply it logical systems like metaphysics and expect
that to be sensical.

again. no one is disputing the general utility of the scientific method. only the idea that it is a standard of truth, much less one applicable to anything other than the basest materialism. it has nothing to say about metaphysics at all.

What you’ll never get from those dedicated to scientism is an admission that the scientific method emerged in the west because of the Catholic Church and not in spite of it, precisely because the presuppositions that underlie the scientific method: the intelligibility and orderliness of the universe are Christian presuppositions, these presuppositions have no foundation in the method itself.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What you’ll never get from those dedicated to scientism is an admission that the scientific method emerged in the west because of the Catholic Church and not in spite of it, precisely because the presuppositions that underlie the scientific method: the intelligibility and orderliness of the universe are Christian presuppositions, these presuppositions have no foundation in the method itself.

dont feel bad, its the education system. they treat science as something more than mere mechanics. as educated as these men are, until we pointed this out. they were absolutely sure that science answered all questions. this is what happens when we try to have a secular education system.

 

[1holycatholic]

dont feel bad, its the education system. they treat science as something more than mere mechanics. as educated as these men are, until we pointed this out. they were absolutely sure that science answered all questions. this is what happens when we try to have a secular education system.

Doh!

“is an admission” should have been “to admit.”

The editing window is too short!

 

[AlbertBall]

you arent the only person here with a degree, i have a few myself. big deal.

scientists are mostly glorified car mechanics. when every scientific fact is known and taught at your local junior college, like some basic automotive maintenance course. metaphysicians will still be exploring the universe of existential logic.

science amounts to playing with dirt. am i to be impressed at the latest mud pie my child presents me? **is this pile of dirt or that pile of dirt really any more interesting than the last pile of dirt, breathlessly discovered? **

other then pure utility, no not really. science is only useful in so far as it eases our physical burdens. that is the end all and be all of science.

He types on his PC LOL

The stupidity makes my head hurt.

 

[AlbertBall]

dont feel bad, its the education system. they treat science as something more than mere mechanics. as educated as these men are, until we pointed this out. they were absolutely sure that science answered all questions. this is what happens when we try to have a secular education system.

Well its sure put paid to a lot of the claims in the bible, eh .

Anyway with you last post about “science amounts to playing with dirt.” this conversation has descended to a level where i feel it is a waste of my time

 

[AlbertBall]

What you’ll never get from those dedicated to scientism is an admission that the scientific method emerged in the west because of the Catholic Church and not in spite of it, precisely because the presuppositions that underlie the scientific method: the intelligibility and orderliness of the universe are Christian presuppositions, these presuppositions have no foundation in the method itself.

Dear me. Its was the enlightenment that pulled the church kicking and screaming out of the dark ages, not the other way about.

Here, you will enjoy part about islam.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-102519600994873365#

From right before the Dark Ages until about a century after, there were almost no important scientific advances.** The Catholic Church **became very powerful in Europe, and religious dogma governed much of what people thought and believed.

As European scholars became exposed to knowledge and cultures cultivated in the Islamic world and other regions beyond their boundaries, they became reacquainted with the works of ancient scholars like Aristotle, Ptolemy and Euclid. This provided a common platform and vocabulary on which to build an extended scientific community that could share ideas and inspire creative problem-solving.

science.howstuffworks.com/scientific-method3.htm

 

[The_Exodus]

He was clearly talking about tangible benefits.

You fail to grasp the significance of the question. You also create some confusion by inserting the word “tangible” - unless you wish to differentiate more clearly the difference between “tangible” benefits and benefits proper?

Why is it beneficial to communicate to another human being? It is impossible to provide me a scientifically verifiable answer to this question, without recourse into philosophy/metaphysics. This is my point. Hence empiricism - while a good tool of reason - is alone not a satisfactory way to explain human existence.

Well, sure. Anything that’s not science is “outside the scope of science.” The goals I set for myself each day are “outside the scope of science.” The delightful feeling I get when I look at fluffy clouds is “outside the scope of science.” The decision as to what I should eat tonight is “outside the scope of science.”

I agree, hence my previous point - science alone is insufficient to explain the human condition. This has been the point I’ve been trying to make for quite some time now, which Albert has yet to realize.

But science isn’t inferior to any of those other things. In order to make decisions about those questions, I’ll need to know things about the world around me, and in order to achieve my objectives, I’ll need to develop tools that can modify my environment to my suiting. Guess what? That is precisely inside the scope of science.

And yet neither is science above those other things, since the only reason it is in effect - as you have here demonstrated quite nicely - is due to a motivation of the human condition which drives it to understand the world around it. Thus science is driven by the desire to know, in order to satisfy a given desire. Ergo, science is built upon a methaphysical foundation. Wardspeedpetey has been trying to get this point across for some time now.

Science is only done because of the meaning felt within human beings - either to possess knowledge, to admire complexity, gain happiness, maintain well-being, prolong life, etc. It is all due to humanity’s existential drive to “be” and find meaning in life.

Well, you mean aside from the fact that there are some pretty interesting evolutionary accounts of “happiness”?

I have no qualms with evolution, so long as it is admitted it has been guided by some intelligent Being. If you propose it hasn’t been - or it need not have been - then I hope you see the consequences of such a belief: i.e. you have no reason to suppose you’ve “evolved” high enough to have an accurate picture of reality, your “feelings” are nothing more than chemicals acting upon matter, and that life is purposeless and absurd, therefore unknowable, unspeakable, unintelligble, and illusory.

 

[The_Exodus]

The benefits are on many levels. Do you really want me to “justify” each one?

Think harder, and justify just ONE to me, in a manner that is empirically verifiable.

This is why i have no time for philosophy, it makes people ask absurd questions like “is stopping suffering a ‘good’ thing?”. OF COURSE ITS A GOOD THING, now why not spend you time pondering things that will actually have practical benefits for mankind?

You feel stopping suffering is such a good thing, and I agree with you that it is, but my whole point is, this very feeling which you will not relinquish, is simply that – a feeling!

It is not verifiable under the scientific method. Of course you can explain its existence (i.e. it is these chemicals acting on the brain, which makes you feel empathy, etc.) but you cannot explain whether or not the feeling you are experiencing is relevant/meaningful. Hence, if a chronic child molester were to be examined, it would probably be found he has certain chemical reactions in his brain to produce a sexual desire for children. Simply because this desire – this feeling exists – ought it to be followed?

After all, if we live in a universe with no absolute purpose, who are you to tell another person they should not act a certain way? The only means you have a of justifying yourself are the same means everyone else who disagrees with you has. Why are your feelings any more valuable? Additionally, why is suffering a bad thing? It is merely matter acting upon matter, albeit in complex ways. But still, I don’t get worked up about the breakup of chemical reactions in a lab, why should I care if they are happening elsewhere - like in someone’s brain?

 

[1holycatholic]

Dear me. Its was the enlightenment that pulled the church kicking and screaming out of the dark ages, not the other way about.

Here, you will enjoy part about islam.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-102519600994873365#

From right before the Dark Ages until about a century after, there were almost no important scientific advances.** The Catholic Church **became very powerful in Europe, and religious dogma governed much of what people thought and believed.

As European scholars became exposed to knowledge and cultures cultivated in the Islamic world and other regions beyond their boundaries, they became reacquainted with the works of ancient scholars like Aristotle, Ptolemy and Euclid. This provided a common platform and vocabulary on which to build an extended scientific community that could share ideas and inspire creative problem-solving.

science.howstuffworks.com/scientific-method3.htm

What is the relationship between Islamic occasionalism and the scientific method? How does it differ from the Judeo-Christian understanding?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well its sure put paid to a lot of the claims in the bible, eh .

which one is that?

Anyway with you last post about “science amounts to playing with dirt.” this conversation has descended to a level where i feel it is a waste of my time

the mere mechanical isnt very important. after all, when youre dead. the physics matter much less than the metaphysics. and you spend a whole lot longer dead than you do alive.

in the end. we win.

 

[cranster]

Scientists are the people responsible for science and many of us, including myself, want to distance their selves as far possible from pointless pursuits like philosophy.

Now if you’ll excuse me it just to happen i have some real science to go and do.

Out of curiosity why are you participating in a Catholic philosophy forum if it’s pointless?

 

[Greg27]

I think there are lots of objections to God’s existence. I think though the two main assaults against God in the present time come along these lines:

1. The lack of evidence for God’s existence
2. The problem of evil.

In relation to 1, the most fervent attack on the credibility of belief in God on the grounds of lack of evidence comes from secular philosophers and scientists. With philosophers, there is a tradition from Epicurus to David Hume to Bertrand Russell that the arguments from experience which claim to prove God exists (i.e. the argument from design or the cosmological argument) have been destroyed because the quality of the evidence upon rational scrutiny is poor and unreliable and does not support the inferences it is trying to make. David Hume subjected the evidential and providential arguments for God’s existence to devestating criticism in his Dialogues on Natural Religion, to the point it was sufficient to change entirely the views of as great a thinker as Kant (who afterwards believed these arguments, despite their former long prestige and persuasive authority, were worthless for proving God’s existence). With secular scientists, you have scientists from Darwin to Dawkins losing their faith or even vigorously arguing against it because the natural order is nothing like what you would expect an intelligent and loving God to make, particularly in light of the findings of the theory of evolution, modern physics and cosmology. Such scientists usually argue the laws of nature, combined with chance and time, are enough to explain natural phenomena and thus nature is a closed system metaphysically speaking, and requires no supernatural intervention to create, explain, or maintain its order and beauty.

In relation to 2, this was also commented on by Epicurus in his famous paradox (the evil in the world shows either God does not exist, or if he does exist, he is unwilling or unable to stop evil, which makes the deity worthless) and picked up and commented on by Hume in the abovementioned dialogues. Hume proposed the evil and suffering in the world and nature demonstrated the vacuity of appeals to an intelligent God designing a world that was good and morally just. Theistic philosophers such as Liebniz tried to argue against this but it was enough to suppport Kant’s turn to agnosticism. The problem of evil has become especially difficult to reconcile with God’s existence after the events of the 20th century, where millions of people (including devout believers in God) were slaughtered with no apparent intervention on the part of God. This raises some very serious questions about the classical notion of God’s omnipotence, even in the claim God respects human freedom. Surely if God had the power to create an entire universe, God also has the power to prevent or at least stop an event like the Holocaust. The accounts of the Bible show God’s willingness to rescue the Jews from the Pharoh and according to the Bible, God’s providence extends to the flowers in the field and the hairs on a person’s head (as recounted in the Gospels) so why does God not stop evils from the everyday common criminal to the Holocaust?

In my view these two objections are probably the most cogent ones against theism.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Such scientists usually argue the laws of nature, combined with chance and time, are enough to explain natural phenomena and thus nature is a closed system metaphysically speaking, and requires no supernatural intervention to create, explain, or maintain its order and beauty.

Of course, the question becomes: what explains the laws of nature, then? I suspect this position reduces to the ol’ “it’s turtles all the way down” routine.

Hume and Russell seemed to think that metaphysical questions are unanswerable. But, considering that they had such a position, they made an awful lot of metaphysical claims, themselves.

 

[AntiTheist]

science alone is insufficient to explain the human condition.

It depends on what you mean by that. Science is perfectly sufficient to explain where humans came from and what their reality consists of (including the way their minds work).

It’s not sufficient to tell us what we should do with our lives, but that’s so obvious that it’s not even worth mentioning.

Thus science is driven by the desire to know, in order to satisfy a given desire. Ergo, science is built upon a methaphysical foundation.

I guess, but it’s built on a “metaphysical foundation” (those assumptions mentioned earlier) that are increasingly confirmed through experiential evidence. This makes science something utterly different than, for example, the nonsense that is idealism.

I have no qualms with evolution, so long as it is admitted it has been guided by some intelligent Being.

There’s no evidence that it has been.

If you propose it hasn’t been - or it need not have been - then I hope you see the consequences of such a belief: i.e. you have no reason to suppose you’ve “evolved” high enough to have an accurate picture of reality

Neither do I need an “accurate picture of reality.” I just go where the evidence points. Whether that evidence indicates something that is “accurate” or not is only something I could ever know by measuring more evidence.

your “feelings” are nothing more than chemicals acting upon matter

Correct.

and that life is purposeless and absurd

I agree that life has no “purpose” apart from the one that individuals choose to give themselves.

therefore unknowable, unspeakable, unintelligble, and illusory.

These claims do not follow from your premises. I am perfectly capable of describing and speaking about something that does not have a conscious “purpose.” In fact, the universe works on consistent laws that we are perfectly able to identify and describe. These in no way imply the existence of an Intelligent Being of the kind you mean.