Fundamental Question in the Philosophy of Religion - Page 8

David Sklansky · #71 07-12-2005, 01:01 AM

You guys are getting too technical. Maybe I am not be rigorous in my use of the word "evidence". Everybody else knows what I mean though. Namely that there are things going on that science is not yet close to explaining, but would be explained easily if there was God.

drudman · #72 07-12-2005, 01:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Namely that there are things going on that science is not yet close to explaining, but would be explained easily if there was God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huge difference between this and "There is evidence for God."

David Sklansky · #73 07-12-2005, 01:18 AM

I don't distinguish beteween "there is evidence for" and "there is reason to think that".

drudman · #74 07-12-2005, 02:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't distinguish beteween "there is evidence for" and "there is reason to think that".

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, fine, but unexplained phenomena do not give reason to think that there is a metaphysical being that causes it.

Bodhi · #75 07-12-2005, 03:15 AM

I agree with drudman that replacing evidence with "reason to believe" is not going to solve any of the difficulties with the possibility of evidence for a deity.

maurile · #76 07-12-2005, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are getting too technical. Maybe I am not be rigorous in my use of the word "evidence". Everybody else knows what I mean though. Namely that there are things going on that science is not yet close to explaining, but would be explained easily if there was God.

[/ QUOTE ]
They wouldn't be explained, unless you consider "Goddidit" an explanation -- which it isn't, any more than "it just happened" is an explanation.

An explanation requires specifying how God does it. What's the mechanism? "He snaps his fingers and then, poof!" is not an explanation.

Why are humans conscious? "God snapped his fingers, so we're conscious." "The universe has particles and fields and stuff in it, so we're conscious." Both statements have equal merit as explanations -- which is to say none, since neither one gives a mechanism.

David Sklansky · #77 07-12-2005, 04:25 PM

Keep in mind that my god is not necessarily omnipotent. As I said before, he could be a six year old boy, living in the eighth dimension, playing with his chemistry set.

Anyway your high falootin answers are just wrong. Here's the proof: Suppose that every Sunday at noon, the sun turned green and reformed itself into the shape of an ostrich for 43 minutes. Would you dare say that the fact that scientists couldn't explain it, still is no evidence for God?

Prevaricator · #78 07-12-2005, 04:46 PM

who created the boy in the 8th dimension? This line of thought just leads to the problem of infinite causation.

Of course a claim like this is always possible as it can never be disproven. The universe could be some experiment in somebody's basement. But this solves nothing, and complicates the situation infinitely.

drudman · #79 07-12-2005, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that my god is not necessarily omnipotent. As I said before, he could be a six year old boy, living in the eighth dimension, playing with his chemistry set.

Anyway your high falootin answers are just wrong. Here's the proof: Suppose that every Sunday at noon, the sun turned green and reformed itself into the shape of an ostrich for 43 minutes. Would you dare say that the fact that scientists couldn't explain it, still is no evidence for God?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am shocked that you think that it would be evidence for God.

maurile · #80 07-12-2005, 06:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that my god is not necessarily omnipotent. As I said before, he could be a six year old boy, living in the eighth dimension, playing with his chemistry set.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what way would he be a god? Suppose we find out that an eight-dimensional boy turns the sun green every week. In terms of the power required, that's laughably out of proportion to creating the universe. To believe someone could create the universe because he turned the sun green is no different from believing he could create a star because he turned some red pentane solution green (using a chemistry set from Wal-Mart).

Even if he does produce evidence that he created the universe, does that mean we should worship him?
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway your high falootin answers are just wrong. Here's the proof: Suppose that every Sunday at noon, the sun turned green and reformed itself into the shape of an ostrich for 43 minutes. Would you dare say that the fact that scientists couldn't explain it, still is no evidence for God?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would no more be evidence of a six-year-old with a chemistry set than it would be evidence of a man in blue tights from the planet Crypton.

All it's really evidence for is that the sun does some gnarly stuff. If you want to start drawing inferences about what is causing the gnarly stuff, you need separate evidence for each inference. If the sun really becomes shaped like an unmistakable ostrich, I would grant that there's probably a conscious will behind it. Explanations involving a conscious will would seem less far-fetched than explanations involving coincidence.

Do you think human consciousness or the other examples you mentioned are like an ostrich-shaped sun in that respect?