![]() The point is that for logical arguments, about matter or philosophical, you must always start with some set of a priori content to work off of – axioms in logic and the universe in physics. The story would be no different if the scientist was talking to a priest, and neither would its message be. Thus you may believe in God, the Universe or only in the things you can scientifically prove it matters not, because you still exist and perceive. And under those rules, God is not knowable. ![]() The rules are quite good, and they have served us well thus far, so there is no need to question it's validity or usefulness outside of strictly philosophical limits. ![]() In the realm of science, we have to abide by the rules thus set, and how we define what is knowable. With that said, I think it's pointless to speak about God in the realm of science, because there is no way of scientifically proving that he's real or not. The surface which is lit up by the spotlight represents our collective knowledge about reality, and the further up you move the spotlight, the more of the field you will light up, and thus know about.Įxcept, how much is it left to know about outside of circle that the spotlight lights up? Picture a spotlight shining down on an infinite field. Your assumptions seems to be that there is a limit to what is knowable. Nature is obviously what nature is, why can't we accept that something simply is without being created? The very question betrays an entrapment in a space-time mentality where "there must be a before where nothing was, hence divine intervention" but we already know, form physics, that that is not the case. Now, _if_ we can build a consistent model out of that assumption, _then_ we might have a chance to actually explain something. The "one free miracle" philosophers (and scientists) blabber about. we consciously pick an informed primitive. ![]() And the next "level down" might as well be God, we won't know. We don't know if the next "level down" will completely wrap around our understanding. We have tech, we have understanding and ability to interact with scales that are enough for human life and progress, everything is merry but we have _truly_ explained nothing. Effectively, we have explained nothing, but provisionally everything works due to theoretical models. It's not that the discovery of quantum mechanics shrinked anything, on the contrary expanded it beyond our understanding. The unknown is infinite, so we can recursively explain something in terms of something else which is more fundamental, but we simply don't know where/when the rabbit hole ends. And since religious people never want to do that, we find ourselves back at the place we started, saying that religion is a manifestation of human culture, which is different from a thing that defines a method for explaining novel phenomena. If you want to prove the truth of a religious assertion, you have to approach it from a neutral place and look for all the possible falsifications. And it would need to be investigated by people who aren't invested in any particular outcome. But even if they did, it wouldn't prove the existence of the afterlife, it would be something else. I mean I'd be the first one to express delight if they ever come up with something that was genuinely novel and interesting after all the years they've been on TV. It's like when you watch a show like Ghost Hunters. You would think that people who believe in the wonder and miracle of God's creation would be overflowing with ideas like that, but for some reason they always dry up when challenged. ![]() If you make an assertion that a process can't work without divine intervention, the burden of proof is on you to explain at what specific point the intervention occurred, and what kind of event that was, and what did it do exactly. The reason ideas like Intelligent Design don't get any traction is because the people who promote those ideas never provide any details. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |