2
2
0
An idea often discussed. Once again, concise and persuasive.
Can you even have science without God?
Posted from americanthinker.com
Religion
Science
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
Obviously. God doesn't exist. Science does. Therefore science exists without god...
(3)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
PO1 Jeff Chandler this post wasn't addressed to you.
You commented on MY post. Not vice versa.
You're suffering from delusions of relevance.
You commented on MY post. Not vice versa.
You're suffering from delusions of relevance.
(1)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
PO1 Jeff Chandler all of these are replies to comments you're addressing to me.
You commented on my post, prompting replies. The initial post was not addressed to you, nor was it about you.
You came on my post and started talking.
If you want me to stop replying, stop talking. That's how conversations work.
You commented on my post, prompting replies. The initial post was not addressed to you, nor was it about you.
You came on my post and started talking.
If you want me to stop replying, stop talking. That's how conversations work.
(1)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
PO1 Jeff Chandler no, I don't want one. But you've forced one on me because you won't shut up and go away. You just keep on typing...
(1)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
PO1 Jeff Chandler - Go ahead. Stop dragging this along because you're bored in the home. It has to be close to pills and jello time, right?
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
There are some very basic assertions in there that are without merit. For example:
"The problem for the materialist is that if the world is purely material, then there is no logical account of universal, rational laws, but rather, all of nature is a result of random, unguided, patternless forces."
This assertion is completely without merit. It's hard to even go into the number of fallacies in that one statement, argument from ignorance, assuming his conclusion, etc. I suspect underlying his argument is that order is proof of god, but if that's the case he's missing a lot of steps in his argument.
Just look at what we can actually observe:
On some level we exist, or at least have self awareness
We can create consistent cause and effect
We appear to live in a material world that that follows cause and effect
What can we conclude from that:
The material world we live in requires some level of order (i.e. this is false "all of nature is a result of random, unguided, patternless forces.)
Since we are made of that material, we couldn't exist in our current form without that order
So materialism requires order and does not require that everything be random. Why that order exist is not answered by any of the observations above. That's gets into why the author is assuming his conclusion.
Belief in God requires faith. Whenever I read something like that I have to wonder if the author is questioning his own faith and trying to find some way to justify it.
"The problem for the materialist is that if the world is purely material, then there is no logical account of universal, rational laws, but rather, all of nature is a result of random, unguided, patternless forces."
This assertion is completely without merit. It's hard to even go into the number of fallacies in that one statement, argument from ignorance, assuming his conclusion, etc. I suspect underlying his argument is that order is proof of god, but if that's the case he's missing a lot of steps in his argument.
Just look at what we can actually observe:
On some level we exist, or at least have self awareness
We can create consistent cause and effect
We appear to live in a material world that that follows cause and effect
What can we conclude from that:
The material world we live in requires some level of order (i.e. this is false "all of nature is a result of random, unguided, patternless forces.)
Since we are made of that material, we couldn't exist in our current form without that order
So materialism requires order and does not require that everything be random. Why that order exist is not answered by any of the observations above. That's gets into why the author is assuming his conclusion.
Belief in God requires faith. Whenever I read something like that I have to wonder if the author is questioning his own faith and trying to find some way to justify it.
(2)
(0)
CWO4 Terrence Clark
SPC Kevin Ford Agree that belief in God requires faith. We each arrive there by different paths. It is always interesting to read of others' journey.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google