Your argument is circular, RCMinor. God exists outside of the Natural Order which allows God to exist outside of the Natural Order which is how we know God exists outside of the Natural Order. It’s true that my understanding is limited by the capacity of the human brain, and it’s also true that our understanding of the phenomena involved in the origins of the universe is in its infancy. But we know a hell of a lot more now than we did 100 years ago, and I have no doubt we’ll know a hell of a lot more in another 100 years, even though I won’t be around to see it. Someone else on another thread referred to so-called scientific or rationalistic “proofs” of the existence of God as “the God of the Gaps.” “Science can’t explain this, therefore science will NEVER be able to explaint this, therefore the only explanation is God.” Luckily for the theists, every door that science opens seems to reveal other doors we hadn’t even known existed before. Answering a question raises more questions, which gives the God of the Gaps plenty of room for retreat, so this argument will probably never be resolved. But it’s strange that the “proofs” of God’s existence seem to rely upon the lack of answers to questions nobody even knew to ask 100 years or so ago.
The text I posted isn’t intended to disprove the existence of God, it points out the fallacy of that supposed “proof” of the existence of God. Many others have been put forth over the years (at least 35 are identified in the book), and they all fall flat.
“Call me when you observe a comet behaving courageously, or some planet jumping in front of its moon to protect it from a sun gone nova.”
If I ever DID see something like that, I’d seriously reevaluate my position. The behavior of inanimate objects is a question of physical laws. The behavior of human beings is a question of psychology. I don’t doubt that human beings are capable of self-sacrifice, and love, and moral choice, but I see no reason to believe that these things are attributable to any sort of God. I see no evidence that the universe is operating according to any “plan”, divine or otherwise.
Your argument is circular, RCMinor. God exists outside of the Natural Order which allows God to exist outside of the Natural Order which is how we know God exists outside of the Natural Order. It’s true that my understanding is limited by the capacity of the human brain, and it’s also true that our understanding of the phenomena involved in the origins of the universe is in its infancy. But we know a hell of a lot more now than we did 100 years ago, and I have no doubt we’ll know a hell of a lot more in another 100 years, even though I won’t be around to see it. Someone else on another thread referred to so-called scientific or rationalistic “proofs” of the existence of God as “the God of the Gaps.” “Science can’t explain this, therefore science will NEVER be able to explaint this, therefore the only explanation is God.” Luckily for the theists, every door that science opens seems to reveal other doors we hadn’t even known existed before. Answering a question raises more questions, which gives the God of the Gaps plenty of room for retreat, so this argument will probably never be resolved. But it’s strange that the “proofs” of God’s existence seem to rely upon the lack of answers to questions nobody even knew to ask 100 years or so ago.
The text I posted isn’t intended to disprove the existence of God, it points out the fallacy of that supposed “proof” of the existence of God. Many others have been put forth over the years (at least 35 are identified in the book), and they all fall flat.
“Call me when you observe a comet behaving courageously, or some planet jumping in front of its moon to protect it from a sun gone nova.”
If I ever DID see something like that, I’d seriously reevaluate my position. The behavior of inanimate objects is a question of physical laws. The behavior of human beings is a question of psychology. I don’t doubt that human beings are capable of self-sacrifice, and love, and moral choice, but I see no reason to believe that these things are attributable to any sort of God. I see no evidence that the universe is operating according to any “plan”, divine or otherwise.