Re: First Cause (to Dave)

Aaron Oakley (s_aarono@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU)
Mon, 7 Apr 1997 09:59:34 +1000 (EST)

> Aaron O.-
> You say that if we deny that a creator exists, then we must know
> where we came from. This is not true. It is better, in my opinion,
> to withhold judgement if there are insufficient facts to draw
> a firm conclusion.
>
> (DAVE 4/4) Aaron: That is perfectly reasonable - but "insufficient facts"
> means you don't know that there is not a creator either - to deny a creator
> means you have sufficient facts to do so. I don't think you do, respectfully.

Aaron O-
You are absolutely right to say that I can't prove that a Creator
does not exist. The problem, I'm sure you will agree, comes down
to one of negative evidence. I can't prove that God does not exist.
I can't prove that Santa Clause dos not exist either. I would
have to search the entire universe simultaneously to disprove
the existence of Santa Clause, and even then, it would still be
possible to argue for the existence of such a being.

>
> Aaron
> It is unreasonable to state that "I don't
> know where we humans came from, therefore God made us."
>
> (DAVe 4/4) Aaron: Agreed.
>
> Aaron
> Of course, ALL of the scientific evidence points to an evolutionary
> origin for the human species.
>
> (DAVE 4/4) Aaron: Agreed. What we have anyway. Is it conclusive?
>
> Aaron
> The argument then comes back to
> where the universe came from. Our knowledge of the origins
> of the universe are incomplete. But that does not mean that
> we should fall back onto the "God did it" hypothesis. This
> explanation is just as bad as no explanation at all.
> The burden of proof lies with the proponent. If you believe that
> God did it, then prove it.
>
> (DAVe 4/4) Aaron: You're mixing two strands of thought here. You are
> saying that your knowledge of the universe's origin in "incomplete", yet you
> are justifying eliminating a possibility? On what grounds?

Aaron O-
I don't think that I have said it explicitly, however, I don't think
that I can eliminate the possibility of the Creator, because
of the problem of negative evidence (see above).

>
> And who is saying that just because we don't know, that God must have done
> it? That's a preposterous conclusion as well.
>
> Are you saying that there is no creator Aaron? No God?
>

Aaron O-
I don't think that there is a Creator or God. But that is because,
as far as I know, there is no positive evidence for the existence
of such a being. I also think that Santa Clause and the Easter
Bunny (and all of the myriad of divine entities of the religions of the
world) don't exist, for the same reason. But I can't prove that these
beings don't exist. The burden of proof lies with the proponent.

Kind regards,

Aaron