Science and religion

[jstrodel]

Referring to your metaphysical position as opinion was not intended to be degrading to your position. It was just the most accurate word to describe it. I know you have said there is good evidence and good arguments for God, but I have yet to see any, and honestly, faith requires no evidence and is kind of the cornerstone of your beliefs. Key word "belief".

No, the key word is not "belief" it is "experience". Christians can have certain knowledge of the world around them through experiencing the Holy Spirit. Some things are not experienced directly, but are based on faith in the supernatural working of God.

By using this word you are actually admitting a level of agnostism. You are admitting a possibility of being wrong.

You are putting words in my mouth. A mature Christian has faith in God, and belief in God, but the belief is based on their daily experience of the reality of God. Immature Christians do not have this. The knowledge of God is not the same as a philosophical belief people may have about a certain state of affairs in the world, it is absolutely true and real.

You may have strong reasons for your own personal conviction and to you it may very well seem as though those are enough for others to hold your same position. However, if you are to enter this conversation with the intent to logically debate the subject, your own personal feelings cannot be used as arguments or evidence to strengthen your argument. Until you provide good argument or factual data of some kind in support your your beliefs, they will remain only an opinion held by you.

I do not accept that the only way to justify knowledge is through science. Can you provide evidence that science is the only way to justify knowledge? Christianity is not an irrational belief system, but it predates science and has its own ways of dealing with the justification of truth claims. Do you even understand how these mechanism work? Evidently not, if you think that Christian belief reduces to a kind of fideism. You have probably never read a serious book on theology in your whole life.

I would be happy to engage in a logical debate with you, and because I do not think it neccessary to explain to you what it means to switch the burden of proof, I will assume that your request of evidence from me was satisfied by this reply

It is not satisfied. Why should atheist beliefs and elements of the atheist worldview not require evidence? If atheism is only non-belief, the only thing that atheists can say is "I do not accept the claim that God exists". Why not restrict all other discussions that depart from this?

...I hope this illustrates where we are right now. Between you and I that is. So, if you have any sort of good argument or evidence. Please share it.

I posted arguments and evidence, but I think a greater form of evidence lies in the church's own mechanisms for dealing with truth claims. There is external evidence for the existence of God, just as physics may reveal some useful things about history, but I think that basically trying to impose upon theological methods an external standard greatly compromises the integrity and clarity that comes from the experience of God on Gods own terms.

But people do not want to seek God, and they do not want someone to tell them what to do. So theology is asked to submit to science and philosophy, which it does, and offers arguments. Perhaps they will be convincing to you, there are good arguments for the existence of God. But this is a tiny portion of the brilliance and order and holiness of God, who is very ready to reveal God's nature to people, if they will first seek God and listen to God on God's own terms.

That is different from trying to win a debate.

You have not demonstrated that theology relies on fideism and you have ignored the evidence that I have posted, as well as others I have linked to.

---

But on could say that

The only religion that gives a matching model for God is {insert preferred deity here}

And the statement will still be "true" for a given value of true.

I just LOVE the way that the abrahamic religions NEVER talk about how The Dagda, Morrigu, Tuatha De; Tiamut, El, Ahura Mazda, Ishtar and Shekina (and the some 8,000 other gods we have invented over the millennia) are not mentioned...ALL immortal, ALL omnipotent, ALL eternal. Really this abrahamic cult is but a new comer to the religious scene and islam barely an infant.

Quite pathetic really when you think about it

Many of the religions are quite similar to Judaism and Christianity. You might argue the existence of many different religions implies that there is no God, another might argue it is evidence of the existence of the supernatural and that it brings to question to the front: what concept of God is the best?

You have not listed the missing argument that ties the existence of many Gods to atheism. What is it?

---

@jatrodel

"1. A human experience of morality is observed.
2. God is seen to be the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
3. Therefore, God exists."


This is not a logical argument. You understand that right? Your argument is intended to show that God actually exists. Your second premise cannot assume the conclusion and certainly can't be an opinion!. Watch how this example also begs the question:

A human experience of Christmas exists.

Santa Claus is seen to be the best or only explanation for this experience.

Santa Claus exists.

This is a failed syllogism fraught with logical errors.

That is not a serious objection because no one thinks that the existence of Santa Clause is necessary to explain Christmas. It is a dirty trick designed to demean religious belief and the subject matter seems intended towards playing on peoples sense of maturity.

What is wrong with seeing the existence of morality as being evidence for God's existence? What do you propose to replace it with? Morality is probably the most important question that exists in any society, and anyone who attempts to reduce morality to a mere reasoned opinion, in virtually every society, is quickly marginalized and ridiculed. What is your explanation for morality? Not an explanation of how people can have opinions about what morality is, you explanation of the most dominant factors in human societies that it is required for people to be good people, that it is not an option, that all people must be good people. How do you explain this. I don't think you want to understand the answer, because you posted about Santa Clause which is obviously irrelevant.

It is not fraught with logical errors. It is formally valid. The question is whether statement two is true. You have not provided any evidence that it is not true.

1. a
2. if a then b
3. b (MP 2,1)

It is not a syllogism. A syllogism looks like:
All S is P
All P is Q
All S is Q

---

Which doesn't imply anything supernatural at all. QM says the least that can possibly exist is 'quantum foam' with the inherent potential to spontaneously form a universe of space, time, matter, and energy.

It is not necessary for the cosmological argument to demonstrate that a supernatural being exists, only that a universe requires some sort of first cause. Aristotle, maybe the greatest philosopher in history took a similar form of this argument seriously.

1. A human experience of morality is observed.

Now that's a sound premise.

2. God is seen to be the best or only explanation for this moral experience.

And this is sneaking in what you want to prove as a premise AND it's mere assertion AND science explains it better. Fail.

Obviously the argument hinges on the truth of proposition two. You have not provided any evidence that "science explains it better". I have never seen anywhere where science remotely treated the issues surrounding morality seriously. The times when I have seen science or academic philosophy look seriously at the moral argument, usually they come out denying proposition 1, or at least denying that it has any objective value. Some scientists like Francis Collins, who sequenced the genome, have considered this argument (maybe in another form) to be the reason that he became a Christian.

Non sequitur.

In two words. That is all? Non sequitur? You have not proven why it is always required to have uncontroversial premises. If you disagree with premise 2, what is your rational for that?

Argument from incredulity, fallacy of composition.

What does that mean? Richard Rorty left analytic philosophy partially because of what he called "the appearance of rigor". How do these words refute the argument?

You can't get to success by adding your failures together. Magic is just as good an explanation for things not yet explained by science. And if all that were true, it would be easy to prove it.

You don't have anything right now. You are totally lost in a world without meaning, preoccupied with your cultural understanding of philosophical rigor that has value only to train people in philosophical thinking and helping industries and the military grow.

You have not really refuted my arguments so much as shared your presuppositions about what you consider valid epistemological approaches. You havn't provided any evidence for these.

Because an argument does not meet a certain standard of proof, does not meant it fails and should be discarded. This is your presupposition about the way that truth claims relate to one another. You haven't given evidence for it, so your claim is unacceptable.

---

Certain particles and a number of other things in the quantum world come in and out of existance uncaused all the time. I would do some research on that one. This has been true for a long time now.

That totally ignores the primary issue of the origin of the universe, which is explained by God.

You are also making an assumption that because everything inside the universe that comes into being has a cause, the entire UNIVERSE whcih came into being (but not in the sense you are implying) must have had a cause. This is the fallacy of compostition. Not to mention your conclusion doesn't follow given that certain things do not have causes.

Are you arguing that the universe does not need to have a cause or that the problem of the origin of the cosmos is not explained by the God hypothesis?