The only argument that is marked as 'scientific' in the playlist is the Cosmological argument and that's not a scientific argument.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:40 amI think it would be a good idea if you looked at some of them...if you're interested in the OP, that is. I can't tell you how interested you should be. That's up to you, of course. But they do give a tidy little introduction to some of the arguments that are expanded to full-academic levels in the book.
But if you really intended the OP to be a question, and you cared about it, then I think you'd want to look at them.
You could always read the book, of course...
Or, if you just want to accept that there ARE such answers, but don't want to look at them, then I guess that's another alternative. But since the material is there, I don't think it's reasonable any longer to say "there are no scientific arguments." That's the one thing that's clearly untrue.
Is there a God? If so, what is She like?
Well, I don't mean to put it unkindly, but that response does suggest that either you don't know what "scientific" means, or you don't know the Cosmological Argument. But if you prefer, you could go for the Design Argument. That might be more what you have in mind...
I can assure you I do know what scientific means and I do know the Cosmological argument. Are you saying the Cosmological argument is scientific? If you are then you don't know the argument very well.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:52 amWell, I don't mean to put it unkindly, but that response does suggest that either you don't know what "scientific" means, or you don't know the Cosmological Argument. But if you prefer, you could go for the Design Argument. That might be more what you have in mind...
I'll have a look. Would you like me to explain why the Cosmological argument isn't scientific?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:03 amI am. Causality is the keystone of all science, as a matter of fact. But I'm saying that maybe the Design Argument will fit your expectations better. Why not have a look?
It is quite simple really. For causation to be scientific one needs to be able measure effects. In other words, we need to be able to show a direct relationship between cause and effect. In the Kalam cosmological argument no such relationship exists between cause and existence.
However, I will grant you that the relationship is intuitive.
Very easy AND very simple.
Oh, and by the way, how are 'you' defining the word 'God' here?
See, scientific explanations can only be provided, successfully, after the definitions of the words in the discussion are accepted, agreed upon, and known.
But it is NOT a big topic AT ALL. There is actually NOT a lot AT ALL here.
This is VERY True.
If this was even remotely true, then it would be VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE for you to provide this, supposed and alleged, "work".
But what if one did BELIEVE that there was NO scientific explanation for the existence of God, and thus did NOT want to find ANY, alleged and supposed, scientific explanation for the existence of God, then they would be disappointed here, correct?
Well this is one way of 'trying to' DEFLECT, from what is now OBVIOUSLY CLEAR 'you', "immanuel can", can NOT do.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:28 am For those who want some quick summaries of some of the many available arguments in a very entertaining video form, I recommend this playlist:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH ... DHdx6v8xl5.
I think you MISSED the point of the opening post. It is; 'you', "immanuel can", are invited, or have been challenged, to come up with a scientific explanation for the existence of God.
So, if you can do this, then just do it. Or, if you can NOT do this, then I suggest just being OPEN and Honest and just admitting that you can NOT do this.
Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, which is completely and utterly WRONG and FALSE.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 amScience can only deal with what it can tangibly measure with the materials that are already available for experiment.
So God is always a problem for the human thinking mechanism. . ( aka mind)
Do not forget that absolutely EVERY thing that 'you', human beings, have done and achieved, from the OPEN Mind, was once considered IMPOSSIBLE.
What is the, so called, "problem" here.
What from what I have observed, this ability to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' separately, is what has helped the human being species to be able to continually SEE and UNDERSTAND thee Universe more and more.
It this an ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE FACT, or just what the one known as "dontaskme" thinks and/or believes is true?
If you use the word 'some' here, then what you would have said here is VERY, VERY, REAL and True.
Could there be ANY further or new knowledge added on to this, sometime in the future? Or is thee One and ONLY True knowledge, which will last forever more?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:28 am And so what happened with the mind is it became a believing entity, even though this entity was only a thought in the brain that the brain believed to be real. So the literal thinking mechanism that was the mind, really took off, launching itself off it's own self made platform. It then wanted to KNOW it's creator, not realising it was already the knowing that wanted to know. And that there was no other knowing outside of it's own self made knowing.
Are you now saying that there is only One Mind?
Are you now suggesting that human beings are NOT a 'created' 'thing'?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:28 am And so any thing created cannot know it's a created thing because both the creator and created are one in the same instant of creation. Even though the illusory belief they are separated is very strong and real.
And that's the only reason why humans invented God, because they wanted to know their creator.
You did, after all, just say ANY thing 'created' can NOT know it is a 'created' thing. BUT, you then when on to say that the ONLY reason WHY human beings INVENTED God is because they wanted to know THEIR 'creator'.
This, OBVIOUSLY, implies are NOT 'created', which would infer that they are ETERNAL.
Or, have I missed something here?
This appears VERY True, from my perspective of things.
Although in the Truest, and thus ONLY REAL, sense of 'things' what you have said here is absolutely and irrefutably True, you would still have to admit that there is a VERY STRONG apparition of 'you' and 'I', correct?
And, if this is correct, then could it be POSSIBLE that this could be able to be EXPLAINED, scientifically, sometime down the track, in the future to 'you', human beings, when this is being written?
Or, from 'your' perspective, this is just NOT POSSIBLE?
Have you actually SEEN EVERY and ALL 'arguments' and/or 'explanations'?Ginkgo wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:31 amActually, I was hoping you might provide your version of a scientific argument. However, it is the case that scientific arguments for the existence of God invariably are nothing more than pseudoscience.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:28 amIt's a big topic, because there's actually a lot. Fortunately we don't have to talk them all through laboriously here. The work has been done, and done well, by others.
But the best source you can probably locate, and certainly the most scholarly, would be The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, 698 pgs.) Anybody who picks up that volume will not be disappointed.
For those who want some quick summaries of some of the many available arguments in a very entertaining video form, I recommend this playlist:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH ... DHdx6v8xl5.
Or, are you here just referring to ALL and EVERY one that 'you' have SEEN, SO FAR?
'you', "immanuel can", may NOT be able to make that person look at some, alleged and supposed, "answers" in some book. But, you could very easily and very simply provide some explanations here for 'us' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS. After all, 'you' were "invited" to do so, anyway.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:37 pmYou'll find that's not the case. But you'd have to look in order to know that. And you haven't looked. I can tell, because you write...
.BTW your youtube clip is mainly about objective theories of morality, not about science
Well, in the first place, it was not one clip but a bunch, a playlist...and they are on different topics, some very scientific indeed. But you didn't watch the playlist. If you did anything, maybe you "bounced off" the first video, and made your comment. But you can go back and see that you were wrong. Watch more of the playlist.
And as for the book I recommended, it's the best thing you'll find on the subject, I would say. It's very scholarly, very well-documented indeed. And there's certainly no way you had time to read 698 pages before responding.
So if you are sincere about your question, you have good answers in hand. But I can't make you look at them, so that will be up to you.
The ability to 'PROVE' is here.DPMartin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:40 pmif its worshiped its a god. but revelation of the Living Creator and Judge known as the Lord God of Israel is the knowledge thereof. and since He is Living therefore its at His will.
so scientific explanation of what you can't prove unless God sees fit to reveal that He is with you to others, seems pointless. without the ability to prove, there's nothing scientific about it.
Finding those, who have already been, and are thus, prepared, for the PROOF, is another matter.
See, the PROOF that human beings were going to just fly one day, let alone fly to the moon and beyond could NOT be REVEALED to those, who were NOT YET prepared and ready for this KNOWLEDGE.
What is going to be EXPLAINED, and which can be VERIFIED and PROVEN scientifically, is ALREADY HERE NOW. This knowledge, however, is just waiting for those you are prepared and ready for 'it'.
WHY do you CLAIM 'this'?
If 'this truth' is, obvious, then WHY can 'I' NOT SEE 'it'?
And, what actual PROOF do you have that a 'scientific explanation' for the exist of some 'thing' would then, supposedly and allegedly, put that 'thing' "out of existence"?
I though 'scientific explanations', which VERIFIED the existence of some 'thing' could, conversely, put that 'thing into existence'. That is; for those who had NOT YET SEEN this 'thing' before.
But maybe this is exactly WHY you used the word 'paradox' above here. This word is, literally, a 'paradox' in and of itself.
There is absolutely NO issue in moving 'to one', is there?