(June 6, 2016 at 11:41 am)ChadWooters Wrote:(June 5, 2016 at 2:30 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: But if you're so big on evidence, why don't you provide some. Show me some evidence that God is uncausedYou must be Irish. Rather than address the question on the table you want to talk about something else. That is fine. I’m not asking you about any specific conclusions drawn from a certain observation; but rather about the observation itself. For example, Newton observed the apple falling toward the ground. Based on this observation he came to certain conclusions leading to the theory of gravity. I thought that was how people gain knowledge? They observe things, then they reason about it, then they reach conclusions. When asked about the evidence that supports their conclusions, they then point back to the initial observation. That seems pretty basic to me. Are you suggesting an alternate process for learning about the world?
My observation, one that seems pretty obvious is that only actual things can cause change. Is the observation itself valid? Is there a compelling reason to suppose that this observation is an illusion? Why do you feel justified excluding this particular observation from rational inquiry?
I don't even know where to start with this self professed scholar .....
Newton observed (disputed this even happened) an apple falling then set about explaining the process with science, his observations weren't his evidence ....
When Newton came to the frontier of what he could scientifically explain he then evoked God to fill the gap in his knowledge ....
Observation isn't evidence its a question that requires answers .... God is like Dark energy/matter/force a term to explain what we don't yet understand ...
Religion is the top shelf of the supernatural supermarket ... Madog