View Single Post
Old 03-05-2007, 02:46 PM   #73
Mike Doolittle
Telling people how it is
 
Mike Doolittle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a shoe with my old lady
Posts: 3,758
Rep Power: 19 Mike Doolittle is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike Doolittle
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

I want to further expand on the following response from you and talk a little about God and creation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicato View Post
All that needed to happen for your god to be pushed past the big bang was for Darwinism to tell it couldn't be the intelligent designer it once was. And guess what, if your perpetual Z gets moved again, it will be because science--a self-checking process which produces falsible evidence--will, in every sense, move it for you--just as it has moved the "soul" (as it was originally concieved) from our bodies, just as it has made our place in the universe much, much smaller.

When physicists talk about the Big Bang, are they talking about a mass of matter and energy floating in spacetime and spontaneously exploding? No. They are talking about the very inception of spacetime itself. Everything that we can naturalistically observe about our universe is by definition bound within this universe's physical laws and our place in spacetime. None of these things existed prior to the Big Bang, at least not as we are able to understand them now.

Thus everything we can empirically observe about our universe is intrinsically bound by its own self-contained properties. This is why it will never be possible for scientists to definitely answer questions like, "What was before the Big Bang?", "What caused the Big Bang?" and "How did our universe come into existence in such an orderly, structured manner which has allowed life to evolve?".

The fact that these questions are scientifically unanswerable is elementary logic: Since the laws that constrain our capacity to observe our universe and indeed the universe itself did not exist prior to the Big Bang, nothing prior to the Big Bang can be known within the constraints of such observations. Whatever caused the Big Bang was, by necessity of both physics and logic, transcendent of our natural laws, or supernatural.

Now, do I have any way of scientifically knowing that what is beyond our universe is indeed God? Of course not. Think about it: how would we "know"? By naturalistic observation? The very idea is redundant. If the supernatural were constrained by our physical laws, it would not be supernatural. Thus all transcendent things, though they must exist, cannot be known or understood by naturalistic observation.

So, no one can ever know whether God created the world, or whether our universe is part of infinitely self-spawning multiverses, or any other such concept that is naturalistically absurd. So where do we get this concept of "God"? Do we fabricate God, like you cynically fabricate the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

To an extent, yes; that is, to the extent that God, like your unicorn, is not naturalistically verifiable. However, your Unicorn has no meaning. It's a satirical device, nothing more. Faith in God, on the other hand, arises out of observation of our world, acknowledgment of the limitations of naturalism, and introspections about things which naturalistic observation has no capacity to describe, such as purpose and meaning. Why do I exist? Why does this universe exist? How should I live, and why?

Can we prove naturalistically that a supernatural God exists? The very idea is absurd. Can we come to a faith that is based on interpretation of naturalistic knowledge, in which we believe that we were created and designed because we see things in this world, and indeed see in the very existence of our world, something transcendent of it that gives it purpose and meaning? Absolutely, we can.

Every argument you've attempted to make against my faith boils down to one maxim: that God's existence can't be proved within the confines of naturalism. It's almost amusing that you continue to harp at it, when I never disputed that in the first place. I'd stated repeatedly that my belief in God, while one I believe to be logical and reasonable, is by no means provable. But if God could be proved to exist within the confines of natural law, you would simply assert that since he is bound by natural law, he must certainly not really be God since God is by definition transcendent. Thus you will never believe in God, even if God could be "proven".
__________________
RIP "littledoc"!

My MySpace Page
My Gaming PC Blog
Mike Doolittle is offline   Reply With Quote