Re: WTHOT: For John P, But About Books

Once Upon a Midnight Dreary (actually, it was on 12 Jun 2006 17:59:14
-0700), while Jane Pondered, Weak and Weary:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jr@Ease wrote:

My opinion comes from the scientific side of the logical argument, in
that there is no testable evidence for the existence of god, or the
supernatural, so hence it's irrational to believe in something for
which there is no evidence. I understand the intense personal and
revelatory evidence many people feel, and that they may otherwise be
perfectly rational and logical folk; however, to me, their belief is
still illogical. THEY may be logical, but their belief is not, if that
makes ...ummm.... logical sense.


Not really. Let's stick to the scientific side of things.

Whether you believe in God or not comes down to your answer to this
question:
why is there something rather than nothing?

There is NO evidence to support an answer to that question, at the
moment. We can say that matter existed eternally and infinitely, if we
like--but then, where did the matter come from? Why is there matter at
all? Why is there energy? Why isn't there just nothing, period--a
black void, no us, no planets, no black holes.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

LOGICALLY, all you can do is speculate. Even your decision that
there's something because, well, there is, it always existed and always
will, is no more scientific, no more logical, no more rational than
their decision that somebody or something existing outside our known
sphere of reference must have caused it to be. (In fact, it mirrors
exactly Christian theological arguments for the existence of God. You
say matter always is, was, and will be, they say God always is, was and
will be--neither statement has any scientific validity whatsoever.)

But there are good inferential reasons for both sides of that
answer. For the atheist side, there's the simple fact that we know
matter IS here. We can see it and touch it. And the law of
conservation of matter and energy says that neither matter nor energy
is ever created or destroyed. They just change forms. Of course, that
doesn't explain how they got here in the first place, but it's neither
illogical nor irrational to assume that they just sort of are.

On the other hand, there are good inferential reasons for the
theist side, too. Nothing we know of simply pops into existence out of
nothing. And even if something did (as some quantum physicists
speculate may be the case with certain kinds of particles), we'd still
need to explain why it did that. In the actual world in which we live,
everything that comes to be that was not does so because something or
somebody caused it to be. Therefore, looking for the cause of that
"something" is perfectly rational.

So, either way, you end up taking a big leap of faith--you make
an assumption for which you have no evidence, and in fact as of now CAN
HAVE no evidence.

Your belief that something exists rather than nothing is no more
rational or logical than their belief that something exists because
something or somebody caused it to.

For me, like I said, it's just a matter of temperament. For
most of the believers I know, my belief that something is here rather
than nothing because it just is is wildly irrational.

As I said, my thoughts are still evolving.

But you said, let's stick to the scientific side of things. OK. I
still don't see anything scientific about conjuring up a supernatural
explanation for the original creation of matter, rather than searching
for a natural explanation for the same thing. A supernatural claim,
being an extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary evidence. There
is none, at the moment. There isn't even any ordinary evidence. At
best, there is just wishful thinking, and wishful thinking doesn't
rise to the level of a rational argument, to me.

Yes, one has to take a leap of faith, in deciding to opt for a natural
explanation, but it's not faith in the supernatural. It's faith that
science will do what it has consistently done, 100% of the time,
(sometimes after trial and error) since the dawn of man, which is to
ultimately explain the basis for any unknown natural phenomena to the
best and to the extent of then human understanding. There is a history
of human thought to back up that leap of faith, and as such, it is
perfectly logical and rational to keep that faith going, until shown
otherwise. There is no history of human thought that has supported a
supernatural explanation for any natural phenomena since the dawn of
man, and for that reason, I still think it's irrational to hang my hat
on that particular leap of faith.

Religion, since the dawn of man, has had one and only one explanation
for natural phenomena - God. And time after time, 100% of the time, it
has been shown to be wrong, from an explanation for thunder, lighting,
rain and drought, to earthquakes, volcanoes, and eclipses through to
particle physics, and atomic theory. So far, every time God has been
posited as an explanation, and the real explanation has been proven,
it has never been God. Why is it therefore, rational to continue to
think God is the explanation for anything else?

Or maybe I should simply ask, why is it _more_ rational to continue to
hope God comes through to show his hand in the order of things, than
to expect the ultimate natural explanation?

John P
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution Gods joke on science.
    ... the model is as true as any explanation can be. ... evolution didn't happen. ... evidence that can have more then one interpretation. ... Yahweh is a trickster god. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is there a god?
    ... ordinary human beings", "conceived by any human being, no matter ... St. Anselm's definition works especially well: God is not completely ... According to your definition "X is an animal" is evidence for "X is ... different ontologies can be equivalent in practice. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: More Crap from you Darwinians
    ... It's offered as a potential explanation for the evidence.OK. ... when asked for evidence that RNA was used ... Not knowing the process does not necessitate God. ... what morality they may or may not share with humans. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More Crap from you Darwinians
    ... It's offered as a potential explanation for the evidence.OK. ... when asked for evidence that RNA was used ... Not knowing the process does not necessitate God. ... what morality they may or may not share with humans. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More Crap from you Darwinians
    ... It's offered as a potential explanation for the evidence.OK. ... when asked for evidence that RNA was used ... Not knowing the process does not necessitate God. ... what morality they may or may not share with humans. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading