philbo wrote:Would you agree that there must be at least one thing which does not have a cause? Otherwise we're back in a "turtles all the way down" sort of metaphor again.
..and if there is one thing that doesn't have a cause, why not more?
That is the thought process of the God believers...as per science this is a causal universe and everything MUST have a cause. In case you are not aware of this and don't believe me, please speak to some physicists, astrophysicists, theorists, etc
philbo wrote:So my "Occam's razor" simplest explanation is that the laws of nature are as they are simply because they are. Occam's razor isn't a test for proof, it's merely a statement that the most likely explanation is the one requiring the fewest assumptions.
Of course it is not a test or proof. It is, what many "thinkers" say, the best logical way to proceed/infer when we don't have all the info. And given that science requires a causal connection, please try applying the Occam's Razor, or forget the Occam's Razor, please try giving your reason for why there is an electron, why there are natural laws?
philbo wrote:The way I'd phrase it is more along the lines of "an awful lot of the things that used to require God as an explanation no longer do so, thanks to what we have learned with science" - I'm sure you'll agree with that.
Yes, and it must end there but I notice people using this fact to argue that God does not exist...to actually argue that
it is more likely that God does not exist
philbo wrote:Therefore a more accurate way of stating things is that because of science we can be more confident in asserting that there is no god than we would be without those scientific discoveries.
Ah...you just said it! What is the logic in that statement? How does our ability to discover a natural phenomenon necessitate that a God does not exist?
philbo wrote:Any more than that, you have to get into defining "God", as views vary from vague all-encompassing deities to petty, prurient schizophrenic dictators - whether science can make any kind of statement about whether any particular god exists depends on what properties you think that god should have.
Let's leave that. I am interested in your assertion that, "Therefore a more accurate way of stating things is that because of science we can be more confident in asserting that there is no god than we would be without those scientific discoveries." Give me one logical reason for me or anyone else to accept this assertion.
I'll tell you where the problem is...the problem is coming about when you necessitate that scientific discovery = non-existence of God. That has no logical basis. And I am making this point. If you consider the process of logic, it should not be difficult to see why that assertion is not based on logic. If you think that it is logical, please feel free to convince any other Humanist here and maybe they can argue the case in a different way...but I doubt other Humanists will find this to be logical.
For our other Humanists here, the argument is this - Ability of science to discover natural phenomenon does not necessitate the non-existence of God.
Edit : realized some words I used were giving a different meaning than what I intended