So all things need a cause except supernatural things.
Next step: Show the world something supernatural that can prove this statement.
Printable View
Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.
"The Moon, the Tides and why Neil DeGrasse Tyson is Colbert's God". © 2007-2011 The Science Network. January 20, 2011.
Food for thought.
Good points ASB.
At least for me, I don't think it's as reflexive as the quote suggests. For example, I don't understand nuclear fission. But I do know there's a tremendous amounts of science behind. Thus, simply because I don't understand it doesn't automatically trigger a belief on a higher power.
How can anyone still believe in a higher power?
Take for instance, Library of Alexandria.
A treasure of knowledge during a time when they believed in a higher power.
The knowledge was destroyed.
And it has taken many, many centuries to rediscover so much knowledge which was lost.
We are probably still behind. There is so much we still do not understand.
So, it is ongoing.
And sometimes, in a world so brutal and so beautiful, faith sees one through the worst of times, because it might be one of the only ways some men can reconcile events and outcomes.
That certainly doesn't prove anything, but it does show why many still have faith in whatever form they have been exposed to or been taught or have discovered for themselves.
That's not how I want to play the game, that;s part of the conversation and generally where it moves to once someone starts talking about proof.
But I would disagree that scientific ignorance is getting smaller and smaller. They may be figuring out things we already know exist or know about. But, it seems to me, for every one thing we figure out we discover there are 1,000 more things behind said thing that we don't know about or existed. And every time we figure out one of those things there are 1,000 things we discover about those. And on and on it goes.
all natural "things" need a cause. The big bang needs a cause, as it is part of our natural universe. I can not show you proof of something outside of our natural universe by DEFINITION.
We can all agree that the cause and effect relationship of our universe appears to have begun with the big bang. That necessitates an uncaused cause which is not part of our natural universe, i.e. supernatural.
I said from the beginning that this is the philosophical proof of god, not scientific. God cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. it is not of this natural universe, and therefore is unobservable.
Completely valid, but I don't subscribe to, and nothing I have put forward suggests, a god of the gaps defense, like that which you linked to is pointing out. The point I have been trying to drive home is that science doesn't prove anything, because it can't. Science only, and can only, disprove:
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality"
"The old scientific ideal of*episteme*— of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge — has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain*tentative*for*ever.
- Karl Raimund Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
These facts only further add to the analogy of science and reality, that a subset cannot prove a superset. This is the rational and scientific foundation for my belief in "God".
This quote (or its theme) has been around for centuries and dealt with ad nauseum. I don't want to insult you but any remedial work that deals with God's existence has any number of obvious responses to this take.
First of all, can good come from evil doings? If so, God has a very good reason to allow evil.
Second, can beings with free will (that would be us) actually be free and at the same time compelled to act in ways that are not evil?
Third, God loves us and wants us to respond to him in love. Only free beings can love, love cannot be compelled or it is not love. By allowing us to rebel we bring evil into the world. There are some things God cannot do, such as sin, or do things not logical such as making a square circle or a one-ended stick. God also cannot create beings free to choose to love him that also do not have the choice to not love him and commit evil acts.
Fourth, what is evil to an atheist/materialist/naturalist? How do you define it? You must consent to some kind of moral law which you use to measure such things, but moral law cannot exist without God. This isn't just a Christian position, many, many famous atheist philosophers agree such as Bertrand Russell and Nietzsche.
Let me use the words of Ravi Zacharias to drive this last point home: "When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question?"
I could go on. That said, my question is "why is there any good at all in the world?" A really smart guy once said "the heart of man is desperately wicked." If you doubt this think for a moment on this. How would you feel if there was a web site where everybody could go and see all of your thoughts you have ever had? How much of that would you want to hide? How would you feel about having your thoughts go across an LED screen on your forehead for others to see when you are talking to them. So again, given that the hearts of men are wicked, why is there so much good in the world?
Your definition of evil is lacking. When Ted Bundy raped and murdered young women that was negative to the women and their families, but not to Ted. So based on whose negative experience do we base evil?
In regard to suffering, most people who have had open heart surgery suffer a lot of pain after. Is open heart surgery evil?