Question to Christians re humility

[Darkstar]

---

My argument gave the best answer at hand. Science is about finding answers. You seem content to say "I don't know" and revert to a naturalistic default. I’ll repeat what I told Darkstar: if you wish to make naturalism the default, give an argument why.

---

Because it is. We have never observed something supernatural, and there is good reason to doubt such a thing could even exist.

There is no “natural unless proven supernatural” court of law. If you think there is, you must explain yourself. Don’t assume your version of epistemology (source of knowledge) is true.

Here is my explanation: nothing supernatural has ever been observed. Ever. People used to think lightning was Zeus, or that the sun was a god. We have time and time again proven that what was once thought supernatural was in fact natural. It would be unreasonable to have the assumption that something is supernatural as the default position.

In my argument, I made the case that natural laws lead us to the supernatural.

Apparently it wasn't a very good one...

That’s science. Just because science leads outside of the scientific realm does not mean you should abandon your search for answers.

There is no such thing as 'outside the scientific realm' unless we are referring to personal tastes and whims. We haven't given up the search, you have. You are content with goddidit, while scientists search for the real answer.

---

In absence and extension of observation, scientists use reason. Black holes are one example, evolution, gravity… in fact, all the universal laws of science extend only so far as observation of their affects.

---

So...your point is... We have never observed the 'effects' of god; we have always found the real answer. How is observing the effects of gravity not the same as observing gravity? By the way, evolution has been observed firsthand in bacteria, and black holes are points of uber-dense matter causeing incredible gravity, by which they are observed, so observations of black holes and of gravity are basically the same.

I can’t see thermodynamics, but I use reason to theorize about why it is the case.

Thermodynamics works, religion doesn't.

Yet you accept theories on these subjects because they agree with your worldview.

No, our worldview agrees with theories on these subject because they work.

If science leads us to God, why are you afraid of that?

Well, god is a horrible monster, so.... In all seriousness, the fact is, science doesn't lead to god.

A causeless entity should pack no more punch than any other theory, like quantum fluctuations.

Quantum fluctuations occur at the molecular level. You really think that an all powerful being with infinite knowledge of the universe could just appear when disordered atoms cannot?

He/It is only the Black Hole that stars revolve around (metaphorically speaking). We can’t see Him/It, but we know He/It has to be there, and we know He/It has to have certain attributes in that place.

Uh...did you miss the part about scientists finding the real reasons for natural phenomena? What about rainbows? Did we need god to figure out how they really appeared?

---

The observed ‘uncaused’ events in quantum mechanics are examples of breakdowns of existing energy. Where did that energy come from? In the case of radioactivity, the atom is releasing stored energy because the unit does not have enough of its own energy to contain it.
There are unobserved events in theoretical quantum mechanics also. These involve positive and negative energy. The theory assumes negative energy has an essence and is not just a measurement in the absence of positive energy. There is no direct, observable evidence of negative energy—there are only affects, like the wind. This is the type of reasoning Rhythm condemned me for. It substitutes reasoning in the places observation doesn’t reach. Beyond a lack of evidence for negative energy-as-a-counter-to-positive energy, quantum fluctuation theory lacks an explanation for where the ‘vacuum’ for fluctuations to happen comes from. Quantum field theory is the more defined and version of this, and it requires fields with which to work in, containing all the universe’s present laws and constants. If you believe the universe is a closed system with a beginning, you need another answer. If you believe in an open, eternal system, you must identify the force that is changeless so as to exist eternally, and how it can possibly remain so in spite of our laws conflicting with its existence.
In short, the observed part of quantum mechanics explains nothing about the origin of energy. And the unobserved part (on which you base your theory of the origin of the universe) is as much rooted in faith as God is.

---

You keep saying 'well where did that energy come from' and keep insisting not only that an eternal being must exist, but that an uncaused uber-being is less complicated than uncaused random atoms, which have not even been proven to be uncaused. Why exactly do you say that if the universe is an open system that there must be a god? Just because science doesn't know yet doesn't mean it won't ever. Just keep shoving your god farther and farther into those shrinking gaps...