Replies

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.

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.

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,

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.

Great observations, dear Diamond! Thank you ever so much for "interjecting here."

Our friend albionin wants "proof" of the existence of God. So I offered not one, but Five Proofs constructed by the great saint and doctor Thomas Aquinas. All are logical proofs. I gather this is not the sort of "proof" our friend is seeking — for he avers that only by means of the scientific method can reliable information about our world be obtained.

Instantly, I'm saying to myself — Jeepers, I had never thought the scientific method was in the "proof" business; I thought it was in the "falsification" business. Its great shortcoming (to me) is that it is only generally applicable to isolatable quantities that are directly observable by human beings.

And yet, to this day, the quark has never been isolated or measured — that is, "observed." Does this mean that our friend doesn't "believe" that quarks exist — which these days are universally recognized by physical scientists as the underlying constituents of nucleons? Since quarks themselves are non-observables, their existence has to be inferred from the "observational picture" that is accessible by human observers.

Kind of reminds me of a situation that I regard as directly analogous:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: — Romans 1:20

IOW, we (or I anyway) infer the existence of the "invisible" God because the visible world that I observe is the way it is, and not some other way. That it exists at all needs an explanation....

This is the same logic that tells me something called quarks must exist, because there are protons and neutrons.

Thank you for your outstanding essay/post, Diamond! It's always such a pleasure to hear from you!