(April 19, 2014 at 10:24 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(April 19, 2014 at 10:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: The existence of such a scientific explanation would make either premise 1 or 2 or both premise 1 and 2 false. If you accept 1 and 2 as true it precludes you from saying there is scientific explanation that we have yet to discover.
I don't think this is the case at all. We understand that any "truth"(*) discovered by science is always provisional in nature, and always subject to revision by later discoveries.
(*) The whole notion of "truth" in this concept is a bit nebulous in the first place. "Truth" is in the wheelhouse of philosophers, not scientists.
If you provisionally accept premise 1 and 2 as being true then it follows that premise 5 is provisionally true. If your atheism depends on a provision that something you think is true....might not be true.....isn't that atheism of the gaps?
