4 ms·
The story would be no different if the scientist was talking to a priest, and neither would its message be. The point is that for logical arguments, about matte
by kamray23 3y ago
The story would be no different if the scientist was talking to a priest, and neither would its message be. The point is that for logical arguments, about matter or philosophical, you must always start with some set of a priori content to work off of – axioms in logic and the universe in physics. Any physical process by definition can only work when given a universe to work in, you can't possibly derive the universe from nothing because all scientific models by definition describe how the world evolves, and a lack of the world can't.
A naïve person would then argue that hydrogen must have been created by their God, that the existence of the universe must be the doing of their God and that proves that their God must exist. A scientist would interject, as that's a whole load of assumptions which are untestable and the simpler theory, that the universe just exists as an assumption in itself, is a much better one. A less religious person, however, would argue that God is that abstract fact of pre-existence, a pre-existence that all the scientific investigation in the world could never get rid of.
All philosophy of science starts with the set of assumptions known as materialism: the world exists objectively, and its phenomena can be measured and explained. We can't possibly ever escape the assumption that the world exists with any scientific theory and therefore must accept some kind of pre-existence.
The argument does not actually support the existence of a conscious, material God any more than just saying that you believe in him. It simply argues that science can never explain the existence of the universe, just its development. Intelligent design is pretty much excluded.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoThere is absolutely no reason to assume God as an axiom. God is not a priori. God only exists after being declared to exist. To contrast, the ground under my feet existed before I started writing about it just now. It existed before I looked at it. It existed to other people. It existed to the objects that were dropped on it. It continues to exist under experimentation. There is nothing wrong with the argument - alone - that science cannot prove the origins of life. We already know that it hasn't proven any yet. But bringing a God character into that argument is just as absurd as claiming that science has found the answer. > The argument does not actually support the existence of a conscious, material God any more than just saying that you believe in him. Bullshit. To say that you believe something exists, but it doesn't really exist to other people, is to blatantly and directly contradict yourself.
- kamray23 3y agoI find it a little difficult to discuss with you? That's not what I was saying. The argument says that there will always be some pre-existence, which you could call 'God' if you liked. Or you could call it 'the universe just existing', as I do. The argument doesn't say that a specific God exists. It says that there will always be some pre-existence, and in saying that the argument is valid. That is the point.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago> The argument says that there will always be some pre-existence, which you could call 'God' if you liked. The story did. I explained why I would not (God is superfluous). Beyond that, any notion of "pre-existence" is as circular as a notion of "beginning". To present God as a part of this story only serves to present the unkown as "settled", which I find absurd.