If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Lex parsimoniae and the preclusion of God from science
Okay so I posted this on another forum a couple of weeks ago, and I thought it'd be interesting to see what some people here think, so here we go (:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
Don't worry- this isn't an "Occam's razor therefore God" or a "science therefore no God" thread. I'm hoping my thoughts will be a little more sophisticated than that
So yeah, I've been doing a lot of thinking about intelligent design recently, and my thoughts on God and science have essentially come about as a result of that. Basically, is it not true that no scientific observation will ever point toward the existence of a god due to the methodologies and heuristics employed by science? A being as "big" as God will never be necessitated by any observation or empirical evidence, as there will always be another explanation that requires fewer new assumptions to be made. Science will inevitably select this "simpler" explanation over God, because the God hypothesis would be unnecessarily complex.
This isn't me concluding that God doesn't exist, and this isn't me concluding that science is stupid... it's just what I've deduced must be the way things are: science continues to rule out possibilities that are entirely consistent with the evidence that we have, and it could not function as a method for the investigation of reality without doing so.
For example, imagine that we observe a particle travelling from Position A in direction x at time t(1), and then at time t(2) observe the same particle travelling in direction x arriving at Position B. We conclude from this that the particle travelled from A to B in time |t(1)-t(2)|. In fact, though, it is entirely consistent with the observational evidence that we have that a supernatural being took the particle immediately after our observation at time t(1), flew it from one end of the galaxy to the other and back again, causing it to orbit Betelgeuse 746 182 times in the process, and then replaced it back on the same trajectory immediately before time t(2) - our second observation. We rule this out - quite rightly, you probably think - because it requires far more new assumptions that the explanation that the particle simply travelled from A to B...
This, my friends, is exactly why God will never be the result of a scientific study: there will always be a simpler explanation than the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent being for any given set of observations.
Re: Lex parsimoniae and the preclusion of God from science
The current dominant scientific framework eliminates God as a possibility from the beginning of the matter at a philosophical level, that is, the essence of Philosophical Naturalism.
Also, such an approach to science is often why people say, "there is no evidence for God", what they fail to understand is that they are committing an error of category.
_______________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE30Nnah0Nc <--- Logic presupposes God.
Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
Re: Lex parsimoniae and the preclusion of God from science
Very interesting...
so tl;dr: Science always assumes that the simplest empirically provable idea = the only true and correct idea?
it's an intriguing thought but ultimately, it's not testable. But I suppose that's always been the problem with not only science, but human thinking in all areas (science, religion,law), that which can not be tested, observed or measured can not be questioned and is dismissed as possibility until it can be. If that made sense.
Re: Lex parsimoniae and the preclusion of God from science
I find the world too complex to see any explanation as absolute, science or no science, God or no God.
So, I do agree.
Mistakes are made, and regrets are our luggage; we will drag them with us to slow us down.
The victories are flashes of light, sudden and unlasting, which allow us to glimpse the road ahead before darkness descends.
Love is bitter, yet it is the bread that keeps us. Over and over it fills us up, only to starve us.
The people whom we love shape our destinies and our strengths,yet leave us cold and alone in the darkness.
Re: Lex parsimoniae and the preclusion of God from science
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cookie
Very interesting...
so tl;dr: Science always assumes that the simplest empirically provable idea = the only true and correct idea?
it's an intriguing thought but ultimately, it's not testable. But I suppose that's always been the problem with not only science, but human thinking in all areas (science, religion,law), that which can not be tested, observed or measured can not be questioned and is dismissed as possibility until it can be. If that made sense.
What exactly are you referring to when you say "it's not testable"?
It's inductive reasoning biting us up the arse again, I think... unfortunately, we wouldn't get anywhere in science with formal deductive logic.
_______________________________
The above post is not intentionally rude or offensive.
"If you must mount the gallows, give a jest to the crowd, a coin to the hangman and make the drop with a smile on your lips."
Re: Lex parsimoniae and the preclusion of God from science
Well I believe in god, and to add to your topic, scientists or philosophers want an evidence of god right? Something that is practical that they can measure, well, here it is " FAITH " yeah, religions and relationships are based on faith same as the one with god. So, let them measure "FAITH" and find a way to define it as I am sure they have faith in the people around them, so that's in evidence of something that exists even to them, right? But they can't measure faith, can they now? Meaning, it's bigger than them and you can't deny something that is bigger than you.
Also, they can't define how a body has a soul or what the soul is, and they never will because some stuff are just not for us to know or to be able to know.
" They did cloning experiments but they never managed to put a soul or to know how to make those cloned creations even move "
Today's Toppers
2Likes
Lex parsimoniae and the preclusion of God from science
