The practice of science has many assumptions such as the uniformity of nature, the reliability of our senses and cognitive facilities, moral values, and so on. Does God have to exist in order to be justified in believing that these assumptions are true?
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The Assumptions of Science
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostNo, of course not.
But those regularities certainly don't obviate the notion of a creative deity.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThe question is do those regularities make more sense as being a result of intelligence or non-intelligence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jaxb View PostThe practice of science has many assumptions such as the uniformity of nature, the reliability of our senses and cognitive facilities, moral values, and so on. Does God have to exist in order to be justified in believing that these assumptions are true?
The assumption of the uniformity of nature is not entirely an assumption. The uniformity of nature is to a certain extent falsifiable by objective scientific methods. As long as the results of the methods of science produce consistent results in the falsification of theories and hypothesis than the uniformity of nature remains falsifiable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jaxb View PostDoes God have to exist in order to be justified in believing that these assumptions are true?
The question whether an atheist, despite being mistaken about the existence of God, can be justified in believing in these assumptions would also be yes. He would have reason from natural experience and the light of reason, to know that the world is reliable, that his senses can be trusted within reasonable limits (as our senses can be fooled, as can our intellect).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jaxb View PostDoes God have to exist . . . ?
An uncaused existence does not need any kind of god.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostAn uncaused existence does not need any kind of god.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostTrue, but this would be all we can conclude from the evidence. There is no evidence for an 'uncaused cause' beyond the known nature of our existence. The evidence does not preclude that there is not an 'uncaused cause' of our physical existence.
I mentioned uncaused existence.
You mentioned uncaused cause. Which is something else.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWell an uncaused cause is something other than an uncaused existence. What is uncaused has no beginning. An uncaused cause would be a cause without a beginning. But a cause causes beginnings. A cause is then a temporal thing. Uncaused is not a temporal thing. An uncaused cause is both not temporal being uncaused and temporal being a cause.
I mentioned uncaused existence.
You mentioned uncaused cause. Which is something else.
IF the uncaused cause is God, than it is possible that his world in which our physical Creation exists is the uncaused existence,
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostWell in terms of our natural physical existence, it is possible that it is uncaused existence. The uncaused cause in this case would be Natural Law.
IF the uncaused cause is God, than it is possible that his world in which our physical Creation exists is the uncaused existence,
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe uncaused existence would be existence itself, natural law being merely its defining nature. If the world is an uncaused existence, then it makes no sense to apply to it a cause such as a creator god. You can't have your cake and eat it to shunya. Existence can't be both caused and uncaused.
My basic philosophy is that the assumptions of science and the physical nature of our physical existence stand alone from Theological apologist arguments for the existence nor nonexistence of God in terms of Methodological Naturalism.
There is not cake to have nor eat here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostWell in terms of our natural physical existence, it is possible that it is uncaused existence.
The uncaused cause in this case would be Natural Law.
A cause is temporal or there are no events. Either one unique first event or an infinite set of events where there was never any first event.
IF the uncaused cause is God, than it is possible that his world in which our physical Creation exists is the uncaused existence,
An uncaused existence has no cause for it. An uncaused cause would have two natures. Uncaused being eternal in nature. A cause which is temoral in nature. An uncaused cause would always be a second entity to uncaused existence even if they are regarded as the same uncaused entity.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostScience does not support this. Space is a caused existence and affected by the matter in it. Space is effectively defined by the matter in it. Our existence is defined by matter. One fundamental particle plays an essential role - the electron. No experiment in science can be done without it.
No.
A cause is temporal or there are no events. Either one unique first event or an infinite set of events where there was never any first event.
An uncaused existence has no cause for it. An uncaused cause would have two natures. Uncaused being eternal in nature. A cause which is temoral in nature. An uncaused cause would always be a second entity to uncaused existence even if they are regarded as the same uncaused entity.Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-09-2015, 10:14 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYour caught in the ancient Newtonian paradigm of science. Absolutely NO, Space is not defined by the matter in it. The electron has not been considered a fundamental particle for many years. Quantum Mechanics is what currently defines the fundamental foundation of the Physics of our existence. Quantum Mechanics science does not indicate any point in time nor space that our physical existence began. Quantum Mechanics deals with the physical world beyond the electron,
The foundation Quantum world is not temporal, and does not recognize a unique first event nor an infinite set of events.
Again the fundamental understanding of the science of our physical existence is not temporal, nor is it specifically matter in the Newtonian context, nor in terms of electron, protons or neutrons. Yes, it is possible in Quantum Mechanics for our physical world to be an uncaused existence. There is not evidence to support the necessity of a second entity or source to have caused existence.
It is a metaphysical argument that there is an uncaused existence. And uncaused cause is also a metaphysical argument. Uncaused existence and uncaused cause are two different uncaused things. That they might be the same uncaused entity is also a metaphysical issue.
Science has to do with the physical.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
606 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment