Solid-Stark said:
Not that I'm arguing against, just some curious observations I've made on this debate. You say we learn what is known, but what we learn half the time are theories and inferences to the best explanations which tend to change (and even tossed out!) upon actual discovery. Science backtracks when it needs to. What can be said then? And the scientific method? Inconsistency isn't tolerated in logic. And let's use the same basis, is this your proof that God doesn't exist?
Just a perspective. |
We don't really know anything about nature for sure. There's just varying levels of uncertainty. When we say we know something, we really mean the level of uncertainty is so low it's not meaningful in any practical manner. But drawing the line isn't that easy. A scientific theory is a model that aims to explain the way things work, and commonly accepted theories are accepted because they're deemed to explain things better than other theories. There's no absolute certainty about anything in natural sciency.
potato_hamster said:
Zkuq said:
Ahem. There's no comprehensive explanation for the existence of the universe. Only religion claims to explain it. It's no evidence but it definitely explain a lot about why people tend to be religious: it's the only explanation we have so far. I'm not saying it's the correct explanation, but you don't really have to look very far to see why people are inclined to be religious. If you think about what we know, first everything was condensed into a very tiny point, and suddenly there was a humongous universe. For all we know, everything was just waiting there forever waiting to explode into a huge universe spontaneously.
And yes, I believe that's the most plausible theory there is right now. I don't think it's a good one, but until there's a better one, this will have to do. But it sounds insane and leaves an interesting question open: where did the original point of matter come from? Don't be so surprised people have a hard time thinking religiously. There's probably other reasons as well for faith, but I think this is the one that's related to reason the most.
|
But what you're aruging is a "god of the gaps" argument. That is, a god represents an answer to every question that humans have yet to be able to answer, and nothing more. It also means that as time goes on, and the pool of knowledge mankind has continues to grow, that god's impact get's smaller and smaller and smaller. All this truly means then, is that it's just a matter of time before mankind can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that any god was never there to begin with.
God(s) used to control when then sun rises and sets. God(s) used to control the oceans and the tides. God(s) used to control the seasons and the weather. Now we know they don't do any of that. Now gods appear on pieces of toast, and crying statues. How will gods make their presence known in 100 years time? By the Cubs winning the World Series? I don't know, but I doubt anyone who says a burning bush told them rules that mankind will follow will be taken seriously any time soon.
|
Yes and no. The thing is, there's still enough unknown things for there to be room for a god (or several) for people to believe in, and for all we know, there will always be. Or perhaps we'll find evidence of a god (or several) once we learn more about nature. I think the most likely thing to happen is like you said, that when we learn more about nature, there's going to be less and less room for a god, and people will finally stop believing, but we're not there yet and you can't say for sure we'll ever be there. For now, to say there's no god(s), you have to believe that what hasn't been proven to exist doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure it's a widely taken stance in science, but I don't think it's quite right (although I do think it's quite close). I'd say it would be wise to assume (instead of 'believe') that what hasn't been proven to exist doesn't exist, and it pretty much fixes the problem.
Anyway, I think I got a bit sidetracked. I was just trying to point out a potential reason, a reasonable one, why people might think there is a god (or several).
