Tom Capuder#Theists:
Some of you think the evidence for #evolution is insufficient.
Where’s sufficient evidence for a #god
____________________
an #atheist vs #faith
myrmepropagandistI'm confused why anyone would want "evidence" for God. Isn't faith supposed to be an evidence-free activity?
Canadian Curmudgeon@futurebird @tomcapuder
Whack-a-mole> An unbeliever says "Show me," and the believer points to their "proof." The unbeliever provides a natural or scientific explanation for it, so the believer points to another "proof." And it goes on.
Whack-a-mole> An unbeliever says "Show me," and the believer points to their "proof." The unbeliever provides a natural or scientific explanation for it, so the believer points to another "proof." And it goes on.
Tom@CdnCurmudgeon @futurebird @tomcapuder Why is there anything at all? Neither science nor subjective faith can ever really answer that at all. Yet here we are. Existence itself is a mystery, whatever laws we find objective repeatable evidence for.
@contextfree @CdnCurmudgeon @futurebird
Have you read Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"?
@tomcapuder @contextfree @futurebird
I have it, and began reading it last year, but got distracted by other reading. It's in the pile to return to this fall.
@tomcapuder @CdnCurmudgeon @futurebird One response on Wikipedia gives this: "In The New York Times, philosopher of science and physicist David Albert said the book failed to live up to its title; he said Krauss dismissed concerns about what Albert calls his misuse of the term nothing, since if matter comes from relativistic quantum fields, the question becomes where did those fields come from, which Krauss does not discuss."
@tomcapuder @CdnCurmudgeon @futurebird Also: George Ellis, in an interview in Scientific American, said that "Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). ...
@tomcapuder @CdnCurmudgeon @futurebird ... Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions." He criticized the philosophical viewpoint of the book, saying "It’s very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy."
@tomcapuder @CdnCurmudgeon @futurebird Back to my own words now. I'm not saying this line of thought proves God by any means, whatever one wants to mean by God. I'm just saying the question has infinite regress.
@contextfree @tomcapuder @futurebird
I am reminded of an old Bill Crosby skit about a kid asking "Why is there air"? And similar questions in the Calvin & Hobbes cartoon strips.
I prefer the more practical philosophers who dealt with simpler questions, like "How should we act?" Cicero, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus...
I cannot find any reason to accept supernatural answers to anything.
@CdnCurmudgeon @tomcapuder @futurebird I think "How should we act?" is best qualified in the context of "What goal do I/we want?" Science can help find answers to how one can achieve a particular goal, conditioned on the caveat that the world is messy, so you only have some of the answer.
@contextfree @tomcapuder @futurebird
"How should we act?" is a basic philosophical question debated and discussed since Plato, and long before anything we would defines as science (Aristotle notwithstanding). It's also the core of Buddhist and Taoist teachings.
I don't believe the focus is (or should be) goal-oriented, but rather how we behave within the community of others. Buddhists have the Eightfold Path:
https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/eightfold-path/
@tomcapuder @contextfree @futurebird
PS after your reminder, I dug it out of my library and started to re-read it. I had read more than half before I shelved it, but I have to admit I have since forgotten much of his arguments. Might have to start again, or at least do some remedial reading to recall them.
PS after your reminder, I dug it out of my library and started to re-read it. I had read more than half before I shelved it, but I have to admit I have since forgotten much of his arguments. Might have to start again, or at least do some remedial reading to recall them.