Evidence for the existence of God

[Neo-Scholastic]

The post from which his objection is this one: http://atheistforums.org/thread-47143-po...pid1489317

The question I addressed was whether the models and descriptions of science strongly suggest that the apparent order of the physical universe reflects real fundamental order. If no such underlying order exists, then scientific inquiry isn't oriented towards any external object to informs or proscribes such an order. In that case, science does not produce actual knowledge.

This takes us deeply into semantics and meanings of words, unfortunately, as, by one way of looking at it, science actually does not produce "knowledge".

---

  It doesn't increase what we "know" about the universe and, in fact, it's fundamental nature is not to "know" anything.  Once you "know" something, once it is "true", then you don't question it.  Once you stop questioning, you stop learning.  I would say science produces "understanding", or perhaps even just "perceived understanding".  The underlying theory does not have to be correct, it just has to be useful.  And science should not be "oriented towards" any particular goal more than simple understanding.  Any such goals would add an unacceptable bias.

---

[/quote]

The definition of knowledge has been well established since Plato and is "justified true belief." Personally, I consider the qualifier "true" redundant. With respect to the findings of natural science, or any other belief, the question is whether a belief is justified, meaning we have sufficient reason to suppose that the belief is true. Some people argue that some specific beliefs are properly basic, as i did earlier for uniformatarianism. A properly basic belief does require justification by a positive reason; the lack of a defeater suffices.

Also, I would need to to explain what you mean by "order"...Can you give any examples of order which are not easily explained by physical laws or which, if held true, would necessitate something other than ordinary natural causes?

Order is the opposite of chaos. In orderly world causes have regular effects by necessity. In a chaotic world, causes may have regular effects but could be otherwise for no reason. Since we are talking about the universal orderliness of the world (which encompasses all natural causes) and not various local examples of order your request cannot be met. Nor need it be.