Me: It is not a lack of imagination but a lack of credulity and an inability to abandon reason and accept things on faith.
Betty boop: And yet it seems many people of your camp have unlimited faith, not only in the scientific method, but in unlimited “human progress.” I can’t tell you how many times I have been told over the years that, “yes, it is true science doesn’t have all the answers re: X problem [fill in the blank] YET; but it will at some future time.”
Me: Well you couldn’t say that anyone in my camp, Objectivism, has faith. If they did they wouldn’t be in my camp. Human beings are limited by our nature just as all things are. We can only achieve that which is in our power to achieve. We are not omniscient. It is true that science can’t answer every question right now. No one can look into the future and say what knowledge science will uncover, but we can say that if we are to have any answers to these questions then science is the only way we will get them. There is no other tool at our disposal. I can’t tell you how many times over the years I have been told that if science can’t answer some question then that means it must be a supernatural being controlling everything. Not too long ago you could have said since science can’t explain why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west then it must be caused by a supernatural being. Of course many people still believe that but science has a pretty good handle on what is going on with the sunrise. I’ll tell you what I never get from your camp: a rational argument for the existence of God.
Betty Boop: If this isn’t an example of “faith,” then I don’t know what it is. It is faith in an unshakeable (sic) epistemically prior conviction that the regnant scientific “methodological naturalism” approach can answer all questions — if not today, then eventually, i.e., at some future time.
Yes, you don’t know what faith is, or rather your definition is too broad and makes no distinction between how knowledge is gained. The bible defines faith as “the substance of that which is hoped for” and “the evidence of that which is not seen”. The substance of that which is hoped for is a wish. The second definition means that belief is evidence. That is pure subjectivism. That is consistent with the teaching of the bible of a subjective reality. Science rests on a completely opposite metaphysics and epistemology, namely an objective reality and reason and logic as the means to gaining knowledge. To lump faith and reason together is to destroy the concept of reason. So don’t equate belief based on reason and logic with religious faith. I do believe that science and methodological naturalism can answer any proper question about existence. the question of who created the universe is improper and wrong on principle because it contradicts the three fundamental axioms of philosophy: Existence, Identity and Consciousness.
Instead of attacking reason and logic why don’t you just provide a rational argument for God. That is all you have to do. Just one.
Damn Alby I take it back you did man up.. I should have bought more popcorn last time at the store.. This could get interesting.. I havnt seen a true believer like you here in a good while.. Heck, I even dally with Jehovas Witnesses from time to time to keep me on my toes.. or even a Mormon..
Interesting to me how people can re-define words and precepts in a second reality or projection.. Not all waste time with that but I like people.. and am interested their preconceptions.. and how religious the non religious can be.. Mah-Boop is a force to reckon with.. And the Alamo chick can be almost prescient at times.. I might have to save your soul and rescue you out of this thread.. Be careful of circular logic them babes will eat you up and spit you out if you do that..
Already you seem to be on the cusp of circular logic..
Projection is such a weak defense...
One would have to stand apart and wholly independent of the thing being observed, in this case 'reality' - in order to speak objectively.
That is a cusp of circular reasoning as hosepipe suggests.
St. Thomas Aquinas came up with five proofs of the existence of God. All are based on our ability to directly observe the world around us; all are thoroughly logical, rational. The influence of Aristotle — specifically his doctrine of causation (i.e., the Four Causes formal, material, efficient, and final) — is evident. As you are an Objectivist, I assume you have some respect for Aristotle — Ayn Rand certainly did.
Anyhoot, here's a summary of St. Thomas' Five Proofs:
1) The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never have got started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God.In my experience, the above observation in bold-italics is certainly true. If one denies God — if this is one's "epistemically prior" commitment — no proof is possible or acceptable.
2) The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause — its maker — and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on. But if there were just an infinite series of such makers, the series could never have got started, and therefore be nothing now. But there is something everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was not itself made, and that First Maker we call God.
3) The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now — the world and everything in it — so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being we call God.
4) The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way, something that is the truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we call God.
5) The Proof from Design. As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design — the bird's wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God....
The irony of proving God exists is, to a non-believer it can never be proven, but to a believer, proof of God can be seen just about everywhere.
But remember, that denial is a free choice.
If you don't mind me interjecting here, the presuppositions undergirding your statements here, notwithstanding the internal inconsistency of the statements themselves, are the best rational argument for God.
Regarding the inconsistencies of your statements, first, since you are not omniscient then how do you know for certain that 'there is no other tool at our disposal" other than 'science'? Have you looked everywhere? How could you since you're not omniscient?
Second, your statements themselves are not statements of science, they are philosophical statements about science, which renders them self-refuting.
You presuppose and acknowledge the existence of things such as reason and logic, the inductive principle, etc upon which science itself depends. (I can tell that because you don't want' us "attacking reason and logic".) Yet everything you have have stated and all of your argumentation assumes the inductive principle and the uniformity of nature, for which you have given no rational foundation, and which is contrary to the atheist view of the universe.
That's why your own presuppositions are the best proof of the existence of God; namely, that the internal inconsistencies inherent in your own argumentation demonstrates the impossibility of the contrary.
Cordially,