God
This is just a brief note. I realize that writing a brief note on God would beg the question why or what for, but anyway, maybe in the future i will expand.
So the gist of most of the arguments that claim that science has demolished God's delusion is that all the reasons or attribute people have attributed to God, can now be fully explained by science, with absolutely no need to invent a God to explain those things. Well, let me point out the limitations of this argument. Number one, their thrust is against people who claim in the existence of God and not on God itself. Secondly they rely on the concept of proof and logic. Third their proof is faulty.
So, am I saying that I can prove that God exists? No. Let me explain. First, I do not disagree with those who find flaws with arguments that seek to attribute causes of various natural phenomenon to God. I believe all natural phenomenon have natural causes or explanations, that is it is always or should be always possible to say X is or X happens because Y is or Y happens or something like that. In other words, most of the world works in a "clockwork" fashion, albeit without the connotations of determinism. The universe is a non-deterministic clock work - the future has a definite link with the past, provided you do not think of definite as one to one. In this respect it is right to say that science can or will be explain everything eventually. My question is " is explanation sufficient" in other words, are how questions the only legitimate ones. Maybe not. Maybe why questions are also equally important.
Secondly, it is quite evident by now that logic has its limits, maybe even severe limits, when it comes to accessing truth or achieving truth. There will always be truths that lie beyond logic. Logic is a framework that guarantees correct results within the framework. However, the size, scope and complexity of this framework is finite and limited.
Thirdly, how by showing the non necessity of an entity in a certain process establish non existence of that entity?
to be continued...
So the gist of most of the arguments that claim that science has demolished God's delusion is that all the reasons or attribute people have attributed to God, can now be fully explained by science, with absolutely no need to invent a God to explain those things. Well, let me point out the limitations of this argument. Number one, their thrust is against people who claim in the existence of God and not on God itself. Secondly they rely on the concept of proof and logic. Third their proof is faulty.
So, am I saying that I can prove that God exists? No. Let me explain. First, I do not disagree with those who find flaws with arguments that seek to attribute causes of various natural phenomenon to God. I believe all natural phenomenon have natural causes or explanations, that is it is always or should be always possible to say X is or X happens because Y is or Y happens or something like that. In other words, most of the world works in a "clockwork" fashion, albeit without the connotations of determinism. The universe is a non-deterministic clock work - the future has a definite link with the past, provided you do not think of definite as one to one. In this respect it is right to say that science can or will be explain everything eventually. My question is " is explanation sufficient" in other words, are how questions the only legitimate ones. Maybe not. Maybe why questions are also equally important.
Secondly, it is quite evident by now that logic has its limits, maybe even severe limits, when it comes to accessing truth or achieving truth. There will always be truths that lie beyond logic. Logic is a framework that guarantees correct results within the framework. However, the size, scope and complexity of this framework is finite and limited.
Thirdly, how by showing the non necessity of an entity in a certain process establish non existence of that entity?
to be continued...
posted by zxer | 8:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home