RE: If there was a loving God, would you accept him?
April 24, 2014 at 12:54 pm
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2014 at 12:56 pm by Darkstar.)
(April 23, 2014 at 9:12 pm)ns1452 Wrote: Can empiricism truly evaluate the theistic argument?If I understand correctly, this is essentially an argument from ignorance, is it not?
I know the initial reaction in our culture is a definitive yes. However, I do not agree. I base this heavily on the fact that we truly believe in absolute realities. Ironically, I think that many of you would argue that the falsehood of God is an absolute fact. However, can empirical investigation truly evaluate the reason or origin of right, wrong, beauty, or courage? Does the intellect alone make us choose right over wrong, be courageous, or define beauty? How about the gut? Does the Gut make us decide right over wrong, be courageous, or define beauty? I would submit that empirical investigation cannot definitively tell us why there are some things that all of us define as wrong, or why the soldier stands up in the midst of battle, or what beauty is.
Ok, so I know that someone is going to say well aren’t those simply determined by chemical reaction? But these studies only describe what is going on. None of them deal with what causes them or why these causes are different from one culture to another. Further, do these studies explain why a soldier stricken with fear will work to overcome the fear? Where does this sentiment for honor come from? The studies show very little about how chemical reactions in the brain can account for one's full range of sentiments.
(April 23, 2014 at 9:12 pm)ns1452 Wrote: If empirical investigation cannot deal with these “intangibles”, than can empirical investigation determine God’s existence? The truth is that there are realities that go beyond empirical investigation. There is a limit to what can be determined and understand from empiricism. Therefore, what value does empiricism have in the debate over whether there is a God?
God is supposedly a being; not a concept, not an emotion, a being. That is, a god is some sort of thing, an entity. Even if we were to grant that this entity were (somehow) non-physical (whatever that means), one would still expect empirical evidence. The evidence would be indirect (i.e. observing the effects that this god has on the universe, rather than the being itself*), but it would be empirical nonetheless. Whenever the cause of a certain phenomenon (e.g. lightning) has been discovered with reasonable certainty, it has not been a god at work; it has been natural.
Why posit a god with no explanatory power, but that requires much explaining itself (or massive special pleading)?
*This is ignoring the fact that the Christian god has supposedly revealed himself in spectacular ways in the distant past, but refused continue doing so once people started to get a good grip on science. Highly coincidental timing...
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.