This is a response to a common argument for the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument. I'm sharing this because I imagine a lot of Muslims (and other Theists) reading this are convinced (at least partly) by it and I'm interested to see what you think about it after reading this.
A God of the gaps argument is one that argues that since some phenomenon is unexplained, it must be due to God. It is also a form of non sequitur, since the hand of God is posited without proof and often with complete disregard to other possible explanations. Background
Sometimes a subject such as evolution is not understood by the speaker but may be well understood by many others, such as scientists. Of course, evolution is not a theory of chance, and has well established mechanisms underlying it.
For Bill O'Reilly: The moon causes the tides, due to gravitational tidal effects as it revolves around the earth.[1]
Even when a subject is not well understood (i.e., the origin of the universe), that is not sufficient grounds for assuming an unproven answer like "God did it". Since the "explanation" of God is more complex than the entities that are purportedly explained by God, introducing God without evidence is simply begging the question.
There is a time where people need to understand that there are certain things that we currently do not possess the technology to know about. This is where the dreaded truth must come in - I don't know. Examples
"Scientists can't explain how life came to be. There must have been a god to create the first life form."
"The Big Bang theory doesn't explain what caused the Big Bang. There must have been a god to set the universe in motion."
"The bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved through natural means. Therefore, an intelligent designer must have been involved in its formation."
"Even if the theory of evolution is correct, it doesn't explain how the first life form arose. Perhaps God's hand created life and set evolution in motion."
"Scientists can't explain everything about how consciousness arises, therefore something divine must be at work in conscious beings."
"Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in." [2]
Counter-apologetics
Unstated premise
The argument from ignorance is, at heart, an Enthymeme, a syllogism with an unstated premise:
I don't understand how x could have happened.
Anything I don't understand is caused by God.
Therefore, God caused x.
(unstated premise highlighted.) Gaps are shrinking
A god of the gaps argument is an argument from ignorance: it boils down to "We do not know how X happened, therefore X was caused by a god." However, ignorance is never an argument for something. It merely means we do not (yet) know the cause of the phenomenon.
To see why this argument is a fallacy, we can consider similar arguments could have been made at different points in human history:
2000 years ago: "We do not know what causes lightning, therefore it must be a god throwing lightning bolts from the sky."
1000 years ago: "We do not know what keeps the planets in their courses. There must be angels pushing them along."
500 years ago: "We do not know what causes diseases, therefore they must be punishments from God."
200 years ago: "We do not know how the many species of plants and animals could have appeared, therefore God must have created them."
100 years ago: "We do not know how the universe started, therefore God must have done it."
60 years ago: "We do not know how genes are passed from parent to child, therefore traits must be imprinted upon the soul."
As new explanations emerge, the gaps in our knowledge shrink, leaving less and less room in which to fit a god. Since human knowledge keeps growing all the time, it does not seem like a safe bet to assume that any given gap will remain one for very long. An insufficient explanation
Another objection can be made to the argument's means of ignoring the question it originally intends to answer. For example, answering "What caused the big bang?" with "God did it" still does not answer the question of origins, as the god inserted into the gap still requires an explanation. How, not What
Theists are frequently intolerant of scientific concepts that seek to provide naturalistic explanations. It is not difficult to reach a "compromise" where the theist adopts the full scientific explanation without challenge. By asking the theist "How did God do this?", the theist generally becomes receptive to the scientific explanation.
By presenting arguments in a manner that theists can accept, they gain knowledge, which is always poisonous to theistic belief. Wrong Premise
The real question isn't "Is it possible that God exists in the unknown?" it's "Is it probable?" We should be concerned with whether or not a thing is actually true or likely true - not whether it's possibly true. A Leap of Faith
Even if there is some supernatural being behind what science can't explain, what proof is there that it is the God of Classical Theism rather than Zeus, or Amun Ra, or Cthulhu?
Last edited by Muslim Woman; 08-31-2014 at 04:15 PM.
Yes, having no scientific explanation doesn't mean we must therefore accept God did it, that's a classic example of the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy.
Even when a subject is not well understood (i.e., the origin of the universe), that is not sufficient grounds for assuming an unproven answer like "God did it".
Belief in God is a self-evident truth.
the following is from an article:
Whatever is stated has to have some evidence for it. Either it should be a self-evident truth which cannot be denied or it should have some observable evidence to prove that it is true.
An example of a self-evident truth is the belief in the existence of God. This is a self-evident truth that cannot be denied even without having seen or observed God. The evidence for God is all around us. The existence of the creation is the simplest and most obvious evidence of the Creator, not to mention the other proofs.
An example of observable evidence is the evidence for air. Although it can’t be seen, it can be observed.
“In science, Observation does not mean actually seeing something; it means only that the observer can measure it. For example, physicists do not see subatomic particles, but they can indirectly measure whether or not those particles exist.”
The premise of your argument is that if something exists it is therefore a creation therefore there must be a creator.
But it is not simply a matter of 'who' it is a matter of 'what' and 'how'. We cannot rule out things which occur naturally without the aid of an intelligent creator, the heat of the sun creating water vapour, the water vapour creating rain clouds, the rain creating rivers, the rivers eroding rock to create caves etc.
We cannot simply say;
A. God can create the universe
B. The universe was created
therefore
C. God exists
this is a simplistic use of terminology and again it is a common logic fallacy.
We cannot rule out things which occur naturally without the aid of an intelligent creator, the heat of the sun creating water vapour, the water vapour creating rain clouds, the rain creating rivers, the rivers eroding rock to create caves etc.
What evidence is there that these things occur without the aid of an intelligent Creator? Where did the heat of the sun come from? What made the sun so hot? Who made the sun? Who placed the Sun in space at a particular position? Why should water vapour turn into clouds? How come the water remains in the earth's atmosphere (after evaporating) and doesn't escape into space? Who made all these laws of nature that assist life on earth? If water didn't turn into clouds following evaporation and didn't return to earth as rain but instead disappeared into space, we would have no water on earth and life would not be possible.
What evidence is there that these things occur without the aid of an intelligent Creator?
You can't disprove a negative, how would you prove a talking unicorn doesn't exist if it doesn't actually exist? You cant, that's why the burden of proof is on the person making a positive assertion.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dreamin
Where did the heat of the sun come from? What made the sun so hot? Who made the sun? Who placed the Sun in space at a particular position? Why should water vapour turn into clouds? How come the water remains in the earth's atmosphere (after evaporating) and doesn't escape into space? Who made all these laws of nature that assist life on earth? If water didn't turn into clouds following evaporation and didn't return to earth as rain but instead disappeared into space, we would have no water on earth and life would not be possible.
Again you are using the term 'who', as I said it doesn't have to be a 'who' until we can completely rule out natural occurrence.
Water vapour doesn't float off into space because it cools down and turns back into liquid form, all your questions can be answered with science but you will just persist in asking 'but who made it do that?', do you understand what a logical fallacy is?
wait, are you aware of the funny incident which took place between Sir Isaac Newton and his atheist friend?
An atheist friend of Sir Isaac came into his office after Sir Isaac had finished making his Solar System Machine.
"how wonderful" said his friend in delight at the machine, "who made it?" he asked.
Sir Isaac briefly looked up from his desk and replied "no one made it"
The atheist was confused and again asked "I don't think you heard me, I asked Who Made This Machine?"
Again Sir Isaac looked up and responded with "I told you, No One Made It"
"Now listen Isaac, this marvelous machine must have been made by somebody" he accused "Don't keep saying no one made it"
Sir Isaac looked up from his desk and into the eyes of his friend "Isn't it amazing, I tell you that no one made a simple toy like that and you don't believe me - yet you gaze out into the real solar system - the intricate and marvelous machine which is around you, and you dare to say to me that no one made it. By which logic do you come to such a conclusion?"
As the story goes, the atheist left the office and he was no longer an atheist. He was suddenly converted to the idea that God was behind the laws that were found in creation.
The logical fallacy is with you bud. You are in the same position as Isaac Newtons atheist friend.
Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, and the [great] ships which sail through the sea with that which benefits people, and what Allah has sent down from the heavens of rain, giving life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness and dispersing therein every [kind of] moving creature, and [His] directing of the winds and the clouds controlled between the heaven and the earth are signs for a people who use reason. - Quran 2/164
Welcome to the forum. I see you are very enthusiastic about discussing the fundamental questions in life.
You know, many years ago I heard a man giving a series of lectures. It was about Native Canadian experiences and ideas, and it was filled with many wisdoms. I remember one story in particular. It was asked:
Q: What supports the world?
A: The world is on the back of a turtle.
Q: And beneath the turtle?
A: Another turtle.
Q: And under that one?
A: Another turtle.
Q: And then...?
A: Well, it's turtles all the way down...
Now perhaps, Frazer, you are smiling indulgently. Ah! These primitive beliefs! But let me ask you: Before the Big Bang, what was there?
As it happens, I have had an interest in these things. And I have looked into various and fascinating ideas of How Everything Began. For instance, it has been posited that there are multiple Big Bangs and Big Crunches. So that the answer to the question: what was before this universe? is: another universe. And before that...? Another...
Or there is the idea that matter and light that is sucked into black holes may perhaps manifest as white holes in another universe, thereby adding to the other universe.Which is all very interesting, but I can't but help asking myself:but where did all this matter/light/energy come from in the first place? Another universe...?
It seems to me that whatever stories we tell, we keep coming back to turtles all the way down...
The problem is, is that the infinite is not quantifiable. And science is about quantifying things. We parcel things up to look at them more carefully. We tease apart components to try to figure out what each particular part does. The scientific method is truly, a very useful tool. But that's all it is. A tool. One tool.
How do you tease apart the infinite?
Perhaps the scientific method is not the appropriate tool for such questions?
I remember reading a story many years ago by a science fiction writer. In it, an explorer comes across a remote, and very inaccessible, valley high in the mountains. All the inhabitants are blind. At first, the explorer is delighted. After all, as the saying goes:in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. But is he king? (smile) Not at all! The locals think he's crazy.Every time he tries to tell them about things he can see, they gently tell him that he must have heard such-and-such, or felt such-and-such, or... really, they come up with many ways to explain away his sight. He then tries to tell them about colour.
Do they believe him? Of course not... they just deny the existence of such a thing. It becomes yet one more proof of his madness.
Finally,the kind-hearted inhabitants of the valley decide to cure this madman of his illness...to remove these “eyes” that he claims are “seeing” all these things...
In kindness, they want to cripple him.
In order to contemplate the infinite, the Divine, other tools are needed. Theists may talk about the Heart (or they may use other terms). (smile) It's not the organ that pumps nutrient-and cell-rich blood around the body. It's the “organ” that is our connection to the Divine. Through this connection we can sense God, tell right from wrong, and sense the sacred in all the rest of Creation.
Just because you can't sense the Divine, does not mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that you are lacking the means to sense it.
But unlike the inhabitants of the mountain valley, our blindness is reversible. You see, you just have to ask God to uncover your Heart,to renew your connection with Him (you have to do it sincerely,though), and He Will Do it.
The one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind may be seen as crazy… but do you think that he wants to lose the beauty of colours?
wait, are you aware of the funny incident which took place between Sir Isaac Newton and his atheist friend?
An atheist friend of Sir Isaac came into his office after Sir Isaac had finished making his Solar System Machine.
"how wonderful" said his friend in delight at the machine, "who made it?" he asked.
Sir Isaac briefly looked up from his desk and replied "no one made it"
The atheist was confused and again asked "I don't think you heard me, I asked Who Made This Machine?"
Again Sir Isaac looked up and responded with "I told you, No One Made It"
"Now listen Isaac, this marvelous machine must have been made by somebody" he accused "Don't keep saying no one made it"
Sir Isaac looked up from his desk and into the eyes of his friend "Isn't it amazing, I tell you that no one made a simple toy like that and you don't believe me - yet you gaze out into the real solar system - the intricate and marvelous machine which is around you, and you dare to say to me that no one made it. By which logic do you come to such a conclusion?"
As the story goes, the atheist left the office and he was no longer an atheist. He was suddenly converted to the idea that God was behind the laws that were found in creation.
The logical fallacy is with you bud. You are in the same position as Isaac Newtons atheist friend.
Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, and the [great] ships which sail through the sea with that which benefits people, and what Allah has sent down from the heavens of rain, giving life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness and dispersing therein every [kind of] moving creature, and [His] directing of the winds and the clouds controlled between the heaven and the earth are signs for a people who use reason. - Quran 2/164
Scimi
We have no evidence to suggest a machine like that can occur naturally, they don't just grow out of the ground or appear out of the sky do they? We do have evidence to suggest machines like that are man-made but that doesn't therefore mean this is applies to the solar system just because it just a representation, a machine and a solar system are two very different things. I can only conclude that Newton wasn't talking literally but making a metaphorical/philosophic point.
This just another 'proof by logic' fallacy. It doesn't matter how many of them you have you can't make a valid logic become flawed or vice-versa.
You can believe what you like but you can't create your rules when it comes to logic.
Welcome to the forum. I see you are very enthusiastic about discussing the fundamental questions in life.
You know, many years ago I heard a man giving a series of lectures. It was about Native Canadian experiences and ideas, and it was filled with many wisdoms. I remember one story in particular. It was asked:
Q: What supports the world?
A: The world is on the back of a turtle.
Q: And beneath the turtle?
A: Another turtle.
Q: And under that one?
A: Another turtle.
Q: And then...?
A: Well, it's turtles all the way down...
Now perhaps, Frazer, you are smiling indulgently. Ah! These primitive beliefs! But let me ask you: Before the Big Bang, what was there?
As it happens, I have had an interest in these things. And I have looked into various and fascinating ideas of How Everything Began. For instance, it has been posited that there are multiple Big Bangs and Big Crunches. So that the answer to the question: what was before this universe? is: another universe. And before that...? Another...
Or there is the idea that matter and light that is sucked into black holes may perhaps manifest as white holes in another universe, thereby adding to the other universe.Which is all very interesting, but I can't but help asking myself:but where did all this matter/light/energy come from in the first place? Another universe...?
It seems to me that whatever stories we tell, we keep coming back to turtles all the way down...
The problem is, is that the infinite is not quantifiable. And science is about quantifying things. We parcel things up to look at them more carefully. We tease apart components to try to figure out what each particular part does. The scientific method is truly, a very useful tool. But that's all it is. A tool. One tool.
How do you tease apart the infinite?
Perhaps the scientific method is not the appropriate tool for such questions?
I remember reading a story many years ago by a science fiction writer. In it, an explorer comes across a remote, and very inaccessible, valley high in the mountains. All the inhabitants are blind. At first, the explorer is delighted. After all, as the saying goes:in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. But is he king? (smile) Not at all! The locals think he's crazy.Every time he tries to tell them about things he can see, they gently tell him that he must have heard such-and-such, or felt such-and-such, or... really, they come up with many ways to explain away his sight. He then tries to tell them about colour.
Do they believe him? Of course not... they just deny the existence of such a thing. It becomes yet one more proof of his madness.
Finally,the kind-hearted inhabitants of the valley decide to cure this madman of his illness...to remove these “eyes” that he claims are “seeing” all these things...
In kindness, they want to cripple him.
In order to contemplate the infinite, the Divine, other tools are needed. Theists may talk about the Heart (or they may use other terms). (smile) It's not the organ that pumps nutrient-and cell-rich blood around the body. It's the “organ” that is our connection to the Divine. Through this connection we can sense God, tell right from wrong, and sense the sacred in all the rest of Creation.
Just because you can't sense the Divine, does not mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that you are lacking the means to sense it.
But unlike the inhabitants of the mountain valley, our blindness is reversible. You see, you just have to ask God to uncover your Heart,to renew your connection with Him (you have to do it sincerely,though), and He Will Do it.
The one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind may be seen as crazy… but do you think that he wants to lose the beauty of colours?
Why try to blind him? Is it really kindness?
The problem infinite regress applies as much to the believer as the non-believer.
What came before God?
If nothing then how is God capable of infinite regress?
He just is because he's God and has divine magic powers is not an explanation and it does not reflect the standard of evidence you are asking of me, which is called 'Special Pleading'.
The default position is not knowing, being neutral, until we have substantial evidence to answer these questions we cannot simply choose which ever explanation we like best and turn to others and say 'prove me wrong'. Sometimes the most truthful and ration answer is that we just don't know yet.
Yes, having no scientific explanation doesn't mean we must therefore accept God did it, that's a classic example of the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy.
And yet, when the atheist who adheres to metaphysical naturalism is in such a situation, more often than not, his stance is "I don't know, but I will assume that there is an explanation that is consistent with my worldview". God is not the only thing that can, or has been, used to plug gaps.
This is in reply to the thread Common Argument for the Existence of God, which I cannot find.
In the Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.
Formal Argument
The argument runs like this:
Everything that exists must have a cause.
If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
Therefore, God exists.
The conclusion is: “Therefore God exists”.
This Is a very common and normal conclusion of every human mind and is based on human wisdom. This is a conclusion that is derived from deep and wide spread observation of the universe, of all the creations and the extremely beautiful and excellent management of the universe. For e.g. observe the excellent management done by the Supreme Creator. The cycle of the sun and moon, the regular succession of the day and night, light of the day for work and darkness of the night for rest, the blessing of sleep which is so much essential for our complete rest, comfort and health. Sleep is an extra ordinary phenomenon that cannot be explained by medical or any scientific knowledge!!! So a wise human being can believe justly that an extremely WISE AND INTELLIGENT SUPREME BEING has created everything and is managing HIS worlds in excellent way. But human mind and wisdom cannot think beyond this conclusion. He needs some heavenly knowledge to know more about his Creator, about the purpose of his life and death etc. So an unbiased just and fair human being will search for true heavenly knowledge instead of jumping to the next step that “ who is the creator of God” and then claiming that there is no God!!! Strange is this unjust and unwise conclusion!!!
This conclusion of the atheist is extremely unjust and is very far from human wisdom. He fights against all wise men as well as he fights against his own wisdom and his inner self. Doesn’t he feel unrest inside his heart/ mind when he denies the existence of A Great Supreme Creator??? Can he sleep well or does he depend upon sleeping pills, or alcohol or drugs? So by the use of such things to get his inner comfort his health is ruined and he is ruined in this world and in the Hereafter, alas! Alas!
This is our duty that we sincerely try to protect mankind from getting ruined. Therefore I sincerely inform the atheist that The Supreme Creator who has provided us with every necessity of life like abundant, free supply of oxygen to breath with, huge stores of water to drink etc. etc. has not left us without precious knowledge to live a pious life with perfect peace of mind and comfort here and in the Hereafter.
If it was a light matter, I would have left it but the fact is that it is a very serious matter. Every person comes to know the reality at the time of death. Then an unbeliever will cry and regret, will request to be taken back to this life so that he lives with the belief in absolutely ONE GOD AND IN OBDIENCE TO HIS Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him). His request will not be accepted. He will also call for death but in vain! He will remain in terrible agonizing pain in the Hell Fire forever. A stubborn atheist will argue that he doesn’t believe in all this punishment that will start right at the time of death when he will see the angels beating him with iron sticks and pulling out his soul when the poor soul will try to hide in his body and the angels shall pull it harshly. As for death, no one can deny it. It is by itself a mystery. A body doesn’t get rotten and decomposed even after chronic disease for years but it starts decomposing within minutes after death even if the death happened suddenly in good health. This is by itself a proof to a wise person that something important separates from the body at the time of death after which this body must be buried before it decomposes. Then what is that important thing due to which it was alive??? The Heavenly knowledge tells us that it is the soul!
An atheist does not stand against a worldly king/ president etc. and does not lie on him because he knows about his power and forces. So the atheist fears his punishment. But he feels very brave against All Mighty God and says big lies on HIM only because he doesn’t see All Mighty God’s Forces to punish him. One may ask: Why don’t we see All Mighty God in HIS real Form? All Mighty God Allah has created us to believe in HIM and to obey HIM without seeing HIM. All Mighty God has created us to worship HIM and HIM ONLY. Allah all Mighty has put us in a test and the world is like an examination hall for us, the mankind. For this purpose Allah all Mighty gave us eyes to see and observe HIS GREATNESS from HIS creation and HIS excellent management, has given us ears to hear the Truth from HIS Heavenly Revelation (The Holy Quraan) and also has given us great mind and wisdom to think with. We must believe in the unseen God who is One Single and unique. The ONE Who has no son, no father, no relative and no helper and being the Supreme owner of all power, doesn’t need any helper or relative!! We must fear HIM and must obey HIM in every field of life. HE doesn’t catch a disobedient servant at once. Rather HE gives long time to the servant to think and reflect. But when HE catches, HIS catching is very painful and severe. And Once HE catches someone in punishment, HE never leaves him. Allah All Mighty is the only One GOD who is the Giver of numerous blessings, the Giver of sustenance, the Provider of all our needs, the Giver of life and death. HE has appointed a Day for passing Judgment. For that purpose Allah All Mighty God shall give us a new life, when HE shall set up HIS COURT and shall pass judgment on every person. Then those who believed in HIM and followed HIS Commands shall be in the blessings of Paradise because they passed the test successfully while those who disbelieved shall suffer the uniquely severe punishment in Hell forever.
Now an atheist who along with his eyes, ears and wisdom lies upon All Mighty God, he does so to his own loss and ruin. We hope that he becomes sincere and sympathetic for himself and chooses the Straight Path of belief in One, Single, Unique God and obedience to Him so that he/she is protected from the everlasting burning in the Hell Fire.
[The Holy Quraan was revealed to the Final Prophet Muhammad (Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him)].
We have no evidence to suggest a machine like that can occur naturally, they don't just grow out of the ground or appear out of the sky do they? We do have evidence to suggest machines like that are man-made but that doesn't therefore mean this is applies to the solar system just because it just a representation, a machine and a solar system are two very different things. I can only conclude that Newton wasn't talking literally but making a metaphorical/philosophic point.
This just another 'proof by logic' fallacy. It doesn't matter how many of them you have you can't make a valid logic become flawed or vice-versa.
You can believe what you like but you can't create your rules when it comes to logic.
So your argument hangs on a thread then?
Look, basically what you have said is "I did not witness the creation of the universe so I cannot say it was God" what beats me is, that you have failed to recognise the simple and undeniably truthful logic from this story abut Isaac's unbelieving friend.
At this point, I will have to say one thing only - God was right, HE has put a veil over the hearts of those who disbelieve in HIS signs, so they hear not, and see not.
You cannot answer why Isaac's friend became a believer - even though the answer is staring you in the face... now that my friend, is truly a logical fallacy.
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
And yet, when the atheist who adheres to metaphysical naturalism is in such a situation, more often than not, his stance is "I don't know, but I will assume that there is an explanation that is consistent with my worldview". God is not the only thing that can, or has been, used to plug gaps.
oh leave it bro Futawwa, he can't see beyond his own shadow.
And yet, when the atheist who adheres to metaphysical naturalism is in such a situation, more often than not, his stance is "I don't know, but I will assume that there is an explanation that is consistent with my worldview". God is not the only thing that can, or has been, used to plug gaps.
I somewhat agree, I do not know because I lack sufficient knowledge but I make no empty assumptions. The reason I reject the God explanation is because there is insufficient evidence to back it up. Science isn't infallible and it doesn't claim to have all the answers, it offers the most rational explanation based on the info we have and it is constantly questioning, experimenting and searching for better explanations. The same cannot be said for religion.
format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar
So your argument hangs on a thread then?
Look, basically what you have said is "I did not witness the creation of the universe so I cannot say it was God" what beats me is, that you have failed to recognise the simple and undeniably truthful logic from this story abut Isaac's unbelieving friend.
At this point, I will have to say one thing only - God was right, HE has put a veil over the hearts of those who disbelieve in HIS signs, so they hear not, and see not.
You cannot answer why Isaac's friend became a believer - even though the answer is staring you in the face... now that my friend, is truly a logical fallacy.
oh leave it bro Futawwa, he can't see beyond his own shadow.
Scimi
The fact Isaac Newton convinced a friend to believe in God is not (by definition) an "undeniable truthful logic" nor is it evidence in anyway that God does exist. If I gave a similar story about a believer becoming an atheist would that be an undeniable truthful logic or evidence that God doesn't exist? No, exactly.
I somewhat agree, I do not know because I lack sufficient knowledge but I make no empty assumptions. The reason I reject the God explanation is because there is insufficient evidence to back it up.
And what exactly would constitute "sufficient evidence"?
format_quote Originally Posted by Frazer
Science isn't infallible and it doesn't claim to have all the answers, it offers the most rational explanation based on the info we have and it is constantly questioning, experimenting and searching for better explanations. The same cannot be said for religion.
And why is this comparison even relevant? Science and religion are two categorically different things. It's not apples to oranges, it's apples to LEGO bricks.
And what exactly would constitute "sufficient evidence"?
And why is this comparison even relevant? Science and religion are two categorically different things. It's not apples to oranges, it's apples to LEGO bricks.
Thats a good question, I think an experience alone wouldn't be enough, there would be a possibility that I was having some sort of hallucination or even some other sort of concious thought or intelligence was playing tricks with me, how would I know? I think I would also need some sort of explanation of how God and the universe really work, religion has failed to convince me of this.
When you said that God is not the only thing that has been used to plug gaps I was assuming you were referring to science.
Religion and Science are different subjects but they're almost unavoidable when it comes to debating the big questions.
Thank you for noticing one of my points: your idea on the creation of the universe ends up pointing towards the infinite.
You say: ah, well, so does yours. You are correct. But then, I am very comfortable with this. God, by definition, is infinite. If all paths seem to end up pointing towards the infinite…(smile)
You then say: well, if I cannot sense “x”, the best thing to do is to posit that “x” is not real. This may not be a reasonable approach, however. Imagine you are anosmic (your sense of smell is not functioning). What if I were to tell you: I can smell a dangerous gas here. Would it be sensible to remain in the room and get poisoned? Or would it be more reasonable to decide: well, I can't smell it, but maybe MuslimInshallah can. She seems like a truthful sort. So, to be on the safe side, I'll leave this room.
But perhaps you might feel more comfortable thinking: if I can prove “x”,even if I can't sense it, then I'll believe in “x”. But if I can't prove it, then logically, it cannot exist (personally, I'd be cautious and leave the room, but to each his own).
The mathematician Gödel showed that it is not possible to prove everything that is true. He was talking about natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4...) and the relations between them. Do they not exist then?
Logic is a useful tool, I agree. But it, too, has its limits. Actually, there is more than one method of logic, is there not?
I do see your conundrum, Frazer. You can't measure God, you can't prove His existence with our methods of logic, and you can't sense Him.
What can I say? I can sense Him.
Would it be rational of me to deny my perception because you can't?
@Frazer
What is the point of attacking peoples belief in god/s? Is it for political purpose's? Are you one of those UN Marxists trying to make the world in your image? A godless world where there is nothing to worship but the State and the State funded scientists? Scientists that rave on about "global warming" when we are actually heading into an Ice Age. And now they call it "climate change" even though they need hundreds if not thousands of years of data to make such claims, as data has only been monitored since the last hundred years or so.
People do not know what god/s actually is/are. All they know is that they are divine beings beyond their comprehension so how can they be scientifically denied?
The Creator or Creators cannot be scientifically denied.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks