E
Elioenai26
Guest
Do scientists use philosophy and logic as tools in understanding the world in which they live?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sure, if that evidence can be presented, you are correct in your statement.
The problem is, that evidence has not been presented, so the concept is not even remotely plausible.
You would require further evidence to tie it to a specific god rather than just a God in general. If your first point isn't plausible, this point is even less so.
This is absolutely correct.
Yes and No.... Namely, no to the Philosophical argumentation, and yes to the scientific.
The matter of the existence or non existence of something is a scientific matter, not a philosophical one. You can make a perfectly philosophical, logical justification for belief.... however, without evidence, you still have no actual reason to believe. This is why it's a scientific matter.
That's what apologists do... Make up logical and philosophical arguments with no backing in reality (and usually full of logical flaws). They then pick and choose the science that doesn't directly contradict their views, or mislabel non-scientific things as scientific to try to back their case.
There is not one piece of scientific data that supports the idea of a God or divine creator at all, period
On the other hand, we look for actual evidence, actual reason to believe. If we find some, we will believe. Until then, we dismiss the idea as unsound.
In the absence of evidence for multiple uncaused causes, it is incorrect to suppose them. This is what is stated by Occams Razor that one should posit the minimum number of causes sufficient to explain a particular phenomenon.
In other words, we should not multiply causes unnecessarily. Thus, in the absence of evidence for them, it would not make sense to suppose the existence of multiple Causes if one Cause is a sufficient explanation.
Also, this Uncaused Cause could not be an unintelligent or impersonal force. For if it were possible for some sort of timeless, impersonal force to cause something, its effect would also be timeless. In order for a timeless force to create an effect in time, it would have to intend it, and intention implies Mind.
Therefore, it is logically impossible to have two omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial, uncaused causes.
Two uncaused causes cannot exist because if they did, then one would not be uncaused at all, but caused by the uncaused omnipotent cause.
You cannot have two all-powerful beings or two all-knowing beings. The attributes such as all-knowing, and all-powerful among others, by nature make it impossible for more than one being to possess them.
The response that this is special pleading is fallacious for two main reasons:
1. The greatest conceivable being has to be uncaused by definition because the greatest conceivable being cannot be caused by another.
2. This is not special pleading for God because that is precisely what atheists always have said about the universe, matter, and energythe universe is eternal, and uncaused.
If atheists maintain that it is special pleading to say that God is uncaused (which is what He is by definition being the greatest conceivable Being), then they must also maintain that it is special pleading to say that the universe is uncaused!
This quote is simple to show to be true.
None of us caused ourselves to be. We are contingent upon something greater than ourselves. The world did not cause itself to be, nor did the solar system, nor did our galaxy, nor did the billions of other galaxies, nor did the universe itself.
Ex nihilo nihil fit states that from nothing, nothing comes. But the universe is something, therefore it could not have come from nothing. There exists something beyond the universe. This makes the universe contingent upon this Uncaused Cause (which is beyond space and time) for it's existence.
You are not paying attention to what has been asked nor what has been given in response.
His question was:
Is there a good reason to assume that there´s only one single such "unmoved mover/uncaused cause" - i.e. would the validity of this argument really make a case for monotheism?
I have answered this question Mr. Ellis.
Maybe you can explain for him, what his post was about, I still do not understand how what he said related to what I said.
Do scientists use philosophy and logic as tools in understanding the world in which they live?
When it comes to determining scientific matters:
Logic, yes. Philosophy, no.
They may use philosophy in certain aspects of their life however, but science is based on empirical evidence and testable claims. Philosophy does not deal with those.
If we apply Occams razor:
"The universe is uncaused"
Is simpler than:
"The universe is caused by another uncaused entity"
They both require at least one uncaused entity.
So, you can't apply Occams razor if you wish to posit God.
If the argument begins that "everything" needs a cause then it can not end with a god that doesnt.
When it comes to determining scientific matters:
Logic, yes. Philosophy, no.
They may use philosophy in certain aspects of their life however, but science is based on empirical evidence and testable claims. Philosophy does not deal with those.
It has been shown logically, philosophically, and scientifically that the universe had a beginning at some point in the distant past Therefore the universe is caused. If you dont believe me, read Stephen Hawking.
Therefore your application of the Razor to proposition one is useless.
The argument does not begin with "everything" needs a cause. I do not know where you got that from?
Some things are in motion
Nothing can be the cause of its own movement
All things in motion were put into motion by another
We cannot have an infinite regression of movers
There must be a first mover
The first mover is God
Is it possible for there to be nothing?
That would be a misunderstanding of what Hawkings proposes. I am guessing you know this because Hawkings himself dosen't think the universe requires a creator.
It can be shown that the universe as it exists today regresses to a beginning.
We do not (and can not) know what happened at that beginning (at that instant) or "before", as it would be speculation where even the most theoretical math breaks down. Hawkings is a brilliant man but even he knows he dosen't know that.
If the universe existed before that point as a timeless entity then it certianly dosen't need an external cause, it just always existed, and this is especially true if time began simultaniously with the creation of the physical universe.
Since we don't know we are left with two alternatives:
A. The universe is uncaused or
B. The universe is caused by an external cause that is uncaused.
Tell me which does the razor preferr?
It's the origional form of the argument. The one you are familiar with is an attempt to bury the special pleading.
This argument stems from the general rule that everything needs a cause. It was a bad argument when Aquinas first envisioned it.
(what moves the first mover?)
Remember special pleading is not a problem if you can justify it. The problem is you have to justify the supernatural entity you envoked here.
Good question.
It is always interesting that people assume that "nothing" is even possible or at all required.
Good points, I think.I think there must be one uncaused causer (not necessarily God), but which I mean the the fundamental ground of existence. Part 1 (and Part 2?) of Spinoza's 'Ethics' might address this well.
I guess my question if there were two or more would be 'what divides them'? It seems there must be a reason why there is more than one. One seems to be much simpler. Whatever the reason is for the division would seem to be the true uncaused cause. It really depends what you mean by caused. If you mean the logical finishing point where no more questions can be asked then I think there must only be one.
To even say there is only 'one' is deceptive. To say there is only one uncaused cause could just mean that is only one 'Everything'.
So I think the words 'uncaused cause' really need to be clarified more to give a definite answer.
Is there a good reason to assume that there´s only one single such "unmoved mover/uncaused cause" - i.e. would the validity of this argument really make a case for monotheism?
In defense of the existence of a (generic) god we often hear the argument that an "uncaused cause/unmoved mover" is necessary as an explanation for the existence of the physical world.
Leaving aside for a moment all the weaknesses of this argument:
Is there a good reason to assume that there´s only one single such "unmoved mover/uncaused cause" - i.e. would the validity of this argument really make a case for monotheism?
Occam's Razor for one.
Something else that you could do, is to just subsume varios different causes under just one. That has more to with how you look at it. For example: 7 Billion people vs Humanity
If you will share with us your view on how the universe began we would be delighted.
Because the fact that it did begin at some point in the distant past is an accepted scientific fact.
So enlighten us as to how this took place.
It has been shown logically, philosophically, and scientifically that the universe had a beginning at some point in the distant past Therefore the universe is caused. If you dont believe me, read Stephen Hawking.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?