Aaron O.-
I don't know if you read my other posts on this topic. I said
that I cannot prove the non-existance of God. I also said that the burdon
of proof lies with the proponenent. You say that I deny all
evidence for the existence of God *a priori*. This is not, strictly
speaking accurate because I don't think that there is any such evidence.
Inductive reasoning is all very well, but it can be used (or abused,
if you like) to make a case for the existance of any hypothetical
being. My philosophy is this: I don't believe in God because I
don't think there is any positive evidence for the existance of such
a being. I don't believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or faries
for the same reason. If you have any POSITIVE EVIDENCE then we
can discuss that, but so far I have been unimpressed with what
people bring up as positive evidence.
Walt Jr.-
In other words, if God exists, then it is perfectly reasonable for some
anamolies to exist that science just simply can't resolve. This seems to
be the case in many of the scientific disciplines. For instance,
scientists recognize that the universe is finite and temporal...therefore,
what was the sufficient cause for the universe? Unless you maintain that
the universe is eternal, like Till, then your only alternatives would be
that the universe spontaneously popped into existence out of nothing and
by the power of nothing, or something outside the universe's space/time
dimension created it. I guess your other option would be to hold to an
infinite number of past causes, but this turns our to be impossible
within a material world.
Aaron O.-
As I said before, scientific understanding of the origins of the
universe is incomplete. And I think that it is wrong to simply conclude
that "God did it", just because of the incompleteness in our
understanding. It is better to recognise that we don't know than to
invent explanations *ad hoc*.
Walt Jr.-
Therefore, from the alternatives that you have for the origin of the
universe, it seems very reasonable to maintain that the cause of it was
something that transcends it (God). If you disagree with this, then tell
me why and which alternative seems more reasonable to you. Take care.
Aaron O.-
I disagree because you have no positive evidence to back up
your proposition. Your idea would be just as valid as mine if I had said
that the Easter Bunny transcends the Universe and created it.
Implicit in your reasoning (above) is the idea that there are a limited
number of explanations for the origin of the universe. This
represents a false dichotomy. There are many possible explanations
that we have not thought of. I believe that it is wrong to
accept a particular explanation just because it agrees with one's
pre-conceived notions. I also belive it is better to be uncertain
where there is no conclusive evidence.