10 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloArgument from analogy is perfectly acceptable, of course; and one can argue (well or badly) for the “supernatural” from evidence found in the natural cosmos (though I no longer find such arguments particularly compelling) but—
the point, dj2, is that your analogies here are really sucky: you are referring to natural things and trying to generalize to supernatural things.
that is why no one is giving you the time of day in this thread.
…you are referring to natural things and trying to generalize to supernatural things.
And that is the dividing line! Well and succinctly put! Have not theists on here accused non-theists of doing exactly that? Concluding from natural evidence that there is (or at least need be) no God? Appeals to the Holy Spirit, etc.? Has not bbarr inquired of rationalist theists why "mystical experience" (for terrible want of a better term) should not be admitted to the bar of knowledge, or why the divine ground of being should even be effable (and I agree with him)? Do not some "supernatural theists" object to "naturalizing" God (e.g., Zen Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Taoism) as much as some non-theists object to "supernaturalizing" nature? "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," as the old saw goes.
How much clearer the debates might become if we kept ourselves at least aware of that “dividing line,” no matter which side of the debate you’re on. Kudos, LJ. I will take some time today to ponder that “dividing line” a bit….
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI am saying that there are things with physical qualities which cannot be experienced using our limited human senses alone. This is not an open door to the existence of the supernatural which undoubtedly you will presume it is.
Are you saying that there are natural things with 'physical qualities' which have never been seen or experienced by any of the senses?
However, I refuse to get into this debate with you again, we've had it in the past and I have neither the time nor enrgy to go through it again.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by StarrmanThis is not an open door to the existence of the supernatural...
I am saying that there are things with physical qualities which cannot be experienced using our limited human senses alone. This is not an open door to the existence of the supernatural which undoubtedly you will presume it is.
However, I refuse to get into this debate with you again, we've had it in the past and I have neither the time nor enrgy to go through it again.
That is true simply because you said so?
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat is true simply because you said so?
[b]This is not an open door to the existence of the supernatural...
That is true simply because you said so?[/b]
No, it is true because 1) there may be other alternatives than the supernatural; 2) that seems to be how human knowledge (and science) proceeds: “First you don’t see it, now you do;” (Greek philosophers speculated about atoms long before there was any attainable physical evidence); and 3) along the way, we have learned that there are things that we can only “observe” using tools that go beyond our limited senses.
Another point: As a non-scientist, I “believe” in atoms, though I have never seen one, because (although there are abuses from time to time) the whole scientific method is based on repeated experiment in an honest attempt to try to refute theories—not cling to them. And scientists would not consider it a “failure” if improved methods led to the conclusion that there were no atoms: that would be scientific progress. Religion seldom seems to apply the same critical methodology (again, there are exceptions).
You might beware, here, of falling into the “God of the gaps” trap—i.e., whatever science can’t explain, we can call upon God as an explanation. The problem is, as scientific knowledge expands, there is less for God to explain. From your side of the debate, that is a reason to beware of those “open doors.”
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by vistesdAre you saying that ultimately science has no limitations?
[b]That is true simply because you said so?
No, it is true because 1) there may be other alternatives than the supernatural; 2) that seems to be how human knowledge (and science) proceeds: “First you don’t see it, now you do;” (Greek philosophers speculated about atoms long before there was any attainable physical evidence); and 3) along the way, w ...[text shortened]... d to explain. From your side of the debate, that is a reason to beware of those “open doors.”
[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by StarrmanIf you are too slow let me explain. The point is that if there are limitations to science it would mean God could fill the gaps. If there are ultimately no limitations to science it would mean that God could not fill the gaps. Was that too complicated, or do you follow?😀
Lol, you have an utterly amazing talent for making jumps in process. I cannot concieve how your mind works that you can go from his statement to yours. It is simply staggering.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by vistesdThe problem is, as scientific knowledge expands, there is less for God to explain.
[b]That is true simply because you said so?
No, it is true because 1) there may be other alternatives than the supernatural; 2) that seems to be how human knowledge (and science) proceeds: “First you don’t see it, now you do;” (Greek philosophers speculated about atoms long before there was any attainable physical evidence); and 3) along the way, w ...[text shortened]... d to explain. From your side of the debate, that is a reason to beware of those “open doors.”
[/b]
How so? Are you saying that scientific knowledge and God are incompatible?
10 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerHahahaha, sorry, excuse me while I try and stay focussed in between bouts of laughter.
If you are too slow let me explain. The point is that if there are limitations to science it would mean God could fill the gaps. If there are ultimately no limitations to science it would mean that God could not fill the gaps. Was that too complicated, or do you follow?😀
Your reasoning is that if there are things science has yet to explain, that means god exists? Is that what you are saying here? I wouldn't want to come across as slow or anything...
Apart from the fact that your reasoning would suggest that every time science fills one of those gaps (which it does), god would diminish in stature, you are also saying that a lack of current knowledge is equivalent to god and finally that science and god are opposite forces which cannot exist at the same time. Do you ever think about what you say before you say it, or indeed what you have said after you have said it?
Yes there are limitations to science (at present), no this is not proof of god's existence. There are not only plenty of other possibilities, but nearly all of them are more likely to be true.
EDIT: Arrgghh, what am I doing? Right, I'm not getting involved with you anymore dj2becker, it's like wading through treacle, I'm out.
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerA couple of problems:
Are you saying that ultimately science has no limitations?
1. The gaps are always shifting—and, in general it seems to me—narrowing historically. Somehow, I don’t think you’re understanding of God would be compatible with just trying to plug those moving gaps.
2. The limits of science are not known. What were the “known” limits 5,000 years ago? A thousand years ago? A hundred years ago? Similarly, what are the limits of philosophy?
Exception: the important “dividing line” that LemonJello offered. But that means, I think, taking the supernatural as your starting point if you want to see that as a “gap.”
EDIT: Just read Starrman's post above and saw he made similar points.
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerAre you saying that scientific knowledge and God are incompatible?
[b]The problem is, as scientific knowledge expands, there is less for God to explain.
How so? Are you saying that scientific knowledge and God are incompatible?[/b]
Nope. How could you possibly read that into what I said?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdBeacuse it seems you are saying that God (who has no limitations) cannot be used to fill the gaps of sceince which do have limitations.
[b]Are you saying that scientific knowledge and God are incompatible?
Nope. How could you possibly read that into what I said?
[/b]
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerOkay, go read my post and Starrman's right above it again. If you still want to "use" God to fill in the gaps, go ahead. But it's a terribly weak approach for a theist to take--a gap that you used God to fill this year, might not be there next year... Ooops, no need for God for that one! Also, please note my "dividing line" exception--though I may well be challenged on that one by a non-theist, and I haven't thought it through thoroughly....
Beacuse it seems you are saying that God (who has no limitations) cannot be used to fill the gaps of sceince which do have limitations.