The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
An Imperfect God
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 17308

Severiano wrote:

Interesting point of view, I'm well aware of the difference between induction and deduction. I still don't understand how you get around the fact that Aquinas' arguments as stated were all deductive, so for me at least it's a really big stretch to say that he was really arguing inductively and not about proving God's existence since science doesn't really seek to prove things deductively. If anything it's more of a knock against Aquinas which I'm not really trying to do. In reality he may have, and was probably using language about Proof of God in a different way than folks who would argue laws of nature or universal laws, which are still a little mysterious when it comes to counterfactuals and explanations. The thing that many people forget is the nature of laws and proofs isn't as clear cut as many assume. There is still a little mystery as laws we take for granted may hinge on accidental truths.

hmm, I think I misstated or you misunderstood what I was saying. The argument for God's existence, all of them that are any good, are all deductive arguments. It simply not something you can argue inductively because when you boil it down, you are dealing with metaphysics. The reason this must be the case is that metaphysics is more real than what we would consider intuitively as physical reality. That's because it deals in absolutes and does not rely on observation to be true.
The thing about cosmology, is that it's more of a method than it is an argument. What I mean by that, is that by applying a regress, you can start from any point physical or non-physical and reach the same conclusion. If you take a pencil off your desk and strive to know everything about it that ever could have been known about it, you will end up with a cosmological argument. It's inevitable, there is no option.

When it comes to the physical universe as we know it. We may or may not understand the laws that guide it, but the laws are still there. They exist whether or not we know about them or not. Further, nothing physical can exist without it's metaphysical component.

http://plato.stanford.edu/...#BasQueWhaItLaw

End of the day, I end up right back at square 1. And it isn't my goal to give Aquinas a black eye by pointing out that science doesn't seek to prove anything as it works with induction, observation, hypothesis testing etc (all inductive). Making deductive arguments about God's existence a bit silly, like playing pin the tail on the dartboard.

Science is a wonderful tool for making sense of the physical world around us. But not everything is a nail and science cannot answer everything, it can give us clues, but we have to draw conclusions from them.
There is nothing arbitrary about the cosmological argument. It's not random or hopeful in it's premises or conclusions. The premise is existence and any form of it's existence will ultimately rely on an Uncaused-cause for it's existence. It's the only conclusion that can be drawn. It's impossible to draw another. The rules of logic dictate this necessity.

But, I think it's rather interesting to imagine God in the metaphysical realm. If he's in charge of that realm, he's in charge of everything when you really think about it. It works because it's outside of time and is independent (though meaningless without man to interpret it) of man. It fits in a strange, but logical place in my mind.



Correct. That's how it works. Everything physical gets reduced to the metaphysical, and the metaphysical gets reduced to the Necessary Being. It's elegent, it's simple, and it explains a lot.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 17308

dmaddox wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:<<< I don't believe <> in sky fairies, >>>
NO SKY FAIRIES!?!?!?!?! And here we were gittin along so good for a minute there too. =[


your sarcasim is epic.


I was hoping they'd be a little hotter.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

dmaddox
Level 3

Join date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 6008

pat wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:<<< I don't believe <> in sky fairies, >>>
NO SKY FAIRIES!?!?!?!?! And here we were gittin along so good for a minute there too. =[


your sarcasim is epic.


I was hoping they'd be a little hotter.


Push might have some for ya.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11