legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
With all due respect -- and I say that because I know from your posts you do value intellectual honesty -- you have no basis to say there is no "need" for God or an Intelligent Designer.
Simply because we can speculate on numerous possible theories and hypotheses which could be used to explain processes we have yet to more accurately observe and measure, none of which would require an omnipotent, omniscient super-being.
Sentence fragment. "Simply because [what you said afterwards]," then what? I'm not getting on your case for a typo. I'll assume the 'then what' is what follows in your next sentence.
I meant the "Simply because . . ." on the basis of an answer to your rebuttal concerning my assertion that there is no 'need' for a 'God' to explain how our Universe works. Try reading it as though I were answering to you as though you had said, "Why do you believe your assertion to be true". Perhaps I didn't phrase it clearly enough in that sense and so you read it as the lead-in to an assertion, as opposed to the clarification of a previous answer.
Ah, I see
So, on the basis that explanations exist which do not require an omnipotent, omniscient super-being, they are by default *more likely* to be correct as they do not invoke infinitely more complex elements, namely, god(s).
This is incorrect, aside from the fact that it says virtually nothing. When I say it is "incorrect," I mean that it is actually you, here, who is introducing unnecessary assumptions. You are assuming that it is "more likely" correct that an omnipotent God is not the missing explanatory element, which itself is likely based upon another, unspoken -- and more fundamental -- assumption that there is no means of determining whether an omnipotent God is necessary or not. If there is a means to determine whether or not God must exist by necessity, then we would also have a means of making such a determination in the absence of
any assumption.
And when I say that "it says virtually nothing," I'm speaking to the obvious fact that no explanation/theory includes that which is outside of its own scope. You're essentially saying something along the lines of, "A theory can be assumed to be more correct because of that which it can't account for." It might not seem to you like this is what you are saying, but in the absence of any knowledge about whether there is actually a means for accounting for what is beyond current explanation, then it is indeed what you are implying.
I am applying Occam's razor in determining, in that it is possible for us to hypothesize explanations for Universal characteristics which are drawn from already-proven scientific theory, possible answers to questions about our Universe which have yet to be more definitely proven through multiple-disciplinary scientific observation and measurement. If we can propose answers which are at least based on what we know, as opposed to answers based on spurious and wildly speculative arbitrary claims towards entities derived solely from human imagination for which there exists no quantifiable characteristic, ergo far more complex given that non-quantifiable characteristics of an entity require the introduction of a whole new realm of supposition outside of known Universal laws, then we are more likely to be introducing elements which are closer to defining the true characteristics of the thing we are seeking to understand.
I'll get to this at the end of reply. As a primer, let's just say that there are philosophical and logical reasons which provide a basis for the fact that invoking God as I do is not a spurious, wildy speculative claim.
On one hand, a telescope can provide us with data that lends to the extrapolation of an expanding universe from a single point in space; on the other hand, the fact that we observe galaxies in similar stages of development equidistant to our relative locality (i.e. to our right, we see galaxies at age x and at distance y, but we also see this if we look left, up, down, etc.) seems to suggest that we are always at the center of the Universe. Empirical methods have no means of resolving empirical paradoxes, and it is only by deferring to abstract methods such as logic and mathematics that we can possibly resolve these paradoxes.
You are basing your argument on scientific limitation through technological measurement on a single-point of data, namely, a telescope, which you already know to be insufficient a reliable empirical observation, yet you show you are more than aware of the multi-disciplined nature of accepted scientific theory by mentioning the need for objective reasoning through logic and, of course, the use of mathematics. But in citing how erroneously interpreted a measurement can be from the objective data gathered from a single piece of technology, you are ignoring the fact that all accepted scientific theory is based on numerous technological tools, as well as logic and maths.
We don't have to rely on our faulty perceptions and we don't need to imagine ourselves an omnipotent super-being as a reasonable answer to anything because said super-being would be infinitely more complex as it would need to exist outside of Universal natural law.
But without knowing 'all that we can know,' we 1) can't assume God does or does not exist, and 2) can't assume that exploring the issue and possibly arriving at a conclusion won't yield practical value that is currently unknown to us.
That sounds to me like a plea for science to stop being so unaccommodating to the idea of a God! Trouble is, you want the 'issue' explored and, let's be honest here, science is more than willing to explore anything and everything that it is reasonable to study, but as we have covered long-previously, you cannot define any element of this 'God' because, by its very nature, it is supposedly beyond our Universe. So how can we study something for which exists no definable characteristic other than the claimed omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence? The only way to study for something like that is to go all 'god of the gaps' which I'm sure you're not willing to accept as a reasonable position because it essentially says if we don't have an answer yet for what goes in that gap in our understanding, then God.[/quote]
This also ties in with my "primer." For simplicity, I'll reserve my full reply until the end.
Edit: The most intellectually dishonest point you make is even saying things like "philosophical gymnastics" to begin with. Absolutely all knowledge is predicated upon logic and Philosophy. Hearing you talk like this is like hearing BADdecker refer to the theories of science as "science fiction." A logical explanation, equal-to or greater in scope, trumps a scientific explanation 100% of the time, all the time, every time.
LOL, ok fair point. I know how much you love yourself plenty of philosophy. I'm just saying that you appear too ready to use broad philosophical brushstrokes to claim, "Hey, there could be a God", while ignoring the practical realities of what that actually translates to in terms of the difference between there being a invisible incorporeal floating dragon in your garage or something that you've probably just imagined up as being possibly there.
[/quote]
Okay, here we go. Finally there
The problem here is two-fold:
First, it's a false-analogy to liken an omnipotent god to some imaginary dragon, even if you ascribe the imaginary dragon to be omnipotent. This is where logic weighs in on things and can catch subtle distinctions which make a world of difference. Instead of an imaginary dragon, let's use the well-know examples of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russel's Teapot. Again, for simplicity, let's just focus on the FSM.
Specifically, the problem is that the FSM, even if omnipotent, is a false analogy. This is because the identifying characteristics (i.e. what constitutes its identity) of an omnipotent god is its omnipotence, whereas for the FSM it is both omnipotence
and the topological characteristics of being a monster made of spaghetti who flies, i.e. its physical constraints. So, an omnipotent god, or ID for "intelligent designer," is defined in terms of a total lack of constraint, whereas the FSM is defined in terms of both constraint and a total lack of constraint.
This is critically important because it means one cannot be the other. If an ID omnipotently assumes a level of topological constraint, it does not lose any aspect of its identity because it remains omnipotent and thus is still equal to itself. However, if an FSM omnipotently changes its topological constraints, e.g. it becomes a teapot or a dragon, then its core identity is changed and is no longer equal to itself. An FSM who becomes a teapot is no longer an FSM no matter how omnipotent it is.
Second, and stemming from this first point, we must then concede that if an ID exists, it falls totally outside of observation and empiricism, and is therefore
a priori untouchable by empirical science. Therefore, Occam's Razor, which only applies to empirical phenomena, is irrelevant. What then matters is whether an ID is
implied by logical necessity, and the method of exploration required to determine this is in no way based upon observation of empirical events. There needn't be any assumption of a "God-of-the-gaps" if you can determine what is logically necessary at a fundamental level, and at a 100% level of tautological confidence.
