(March 10, 2017 at 2:28 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(March 10, 2017 at 2:10 pm)pocaracas Wrote: How about you prove that a god is required for any of those things.
No argument from ignorance allowed. (because that's a fallacious argument, you know...)
I have done so in so many places that I have grown weary of it. Besides there is a difference between proving with absolute certainty (especially, with people who deny to there are absolutes) and the best explanation. If you're going to say that God is not the best explanation then it is reasonable for me to ask with what are you making comparison?
God would be, at best, a tentative explanation. One that would require some more evidence to be accepted.
Kinda like string theory...
We: Everything is made up of 11-dimensional strings? really?! prove it, scientist!
Scientist: I'm working on it... gimme a break!
There, until it is proven, the scientist can play all he wants with the speculative nature of the hypothesis... but we, the public, shouldn't act like mindless drones and say, "Yes, yes... the strings exist. A scientist says so, so he's right! They must! They are the only thing that can bring a whole bunch of universal features into focus!"
No, it's silly.
(March 10, 2017 at 2:29 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote:(March 10, 2017 at 2:10 pm)pocaracas Wrote: How about you prove that a god is required for any of those things.
No argument from ignorance allowed. (because that's a fallacious argument, you know...)
A rational explanation that ties a lot of things together in a cohesive manner does not demand to be a requirement. Science, that many here often reference, is based on assumptions, parameters, accepting some level of unknowns.
Neo-Schlolastic is proposing a position for theism, its plausibility, how theism answers some important philosophical questions, as compared to an atheistic response.
Yes, and I'm saying that the hypothesis posited by him need not be the unique answer.
It may be the answer... but it also may not be.
I'm asking how can you tell?
