I can show you a universe? Why does it exist?
I don't know. But the fact that I
don't know has no bearing on whether there was a priori
an intelligent creator.
I can show you order, life, mind and experience. Why not complete chaos?
Because there are physical properties that facilitate all this even at a subatomic level. Why are they there? See my previous answer -- it could be dumb luck just as easily as it can be an intelligent creator.
I can show that the universe itself is "creative" striving?
I look forward to you showing me this
I can exhibit the universe is rationally intelligible and obeys mathematical laws.
And I'll just as soon exhibit where you don't understand the mathematical laws that you think the universe obeys. How? I'll just find a single solitary exception. Or I'll show you how a mathematical law is a human construct developed from a finite data set, and its universal application cannot be completely assumed.
I can infer that "mind" "qualia" is much more extensive in nature than science can demonstrate.
And I'll respond that your personal inferences are not empirical proof to a group of impartial observers.
I am not sure what you want. Do you want god to talk to you, to show him or herself. Who is employing primitive and anthropomorphic concepts of the divine in this discussion?
We're not talking about the divine. We're talking about an intelligent creator of the universe. I've got a birthmark on the bottom of my left foot. I can prove its existence to the entire world without a shred of doubt. Easy as pie. I can prove that cats eat mice but mice don't eat cats. I can prove that plants need sunlight. I can prove that insects have ectoskeletons and vertebrates have endoskeletons.
But your proof of the ultimate creator of the entire universe rests on your inferences
, and rests on human equations?? That is proof? That is a poetic story. You need to do better than that to sit at the table with scientific epistemology.
prothero;110681 wrote:That's fine -- speculate all you want. You'll convince people who are primed to believe anyway. You won't convince people who want something as huge and basic as god to be as demonstrable as the fact that squirrels have bushy tails.
I speculate there is more (to reality, to experience) than what our senses and our science show us.
You think current scientific explanations are adequate and persuasive?
Some, and variably. But the whole thing about science is that it needn't be complete. The idea is that there is probably truth out there; and though we cannot learn it all at least we can learn more
prothero;110681 wrote:Absolutely. I'm a Jew and I happen to accept wisdom from the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada, and the Tao Te Ching.
Well tradition should not be entirely discounted. There may be some wisdom, something of value, in the ancient ways.
But we're not having a conversation about wisdom, which we'd certainly agree upon. We're having a conversation about how to demonstrate that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. I'll take certain things from the ancients, like wisdom, and leave other things, like hunting aurochs and burning witches at the stake. I also will leave a literal interpretation of creation stories, even though I will enjoy a literary reading of them.
prothero;110681 wrote:Right. But this conversation is not about purpose. It's about how the universe came into being. It's about epistemology. A separate debate is about where ideas of purpose come from.
Science makes no assertion about purposes.
prothero;110681 wrote:We are not talking about a "vision of god" or "conception of god". These may be compatible with science insofar as they are compatible with our culture or brain or whatever.
You seem to have strong objection to even the notion that any vision or conception of god might be rational and compatible with science.
But for the umpteenth time, prothero, this thread is not about that. It's about the existence of god. If this is compatible with science, then it will be a big day in science when someone publishes that study.
I've asked people on this forum on numerous occasions to write me a mock grant proposal on how you would design a scientific study to prove the existence of god. And no one has even tried. Feel free to take up the challenge if you'd like.
I have to question the reason for that?
Because I understand a scientific question. I understand hypothesis generation. And I understand hypothesis testing. If your hypothesis is "the universe was created by an intelligent designer", I'd be eager to review the methods by which you will test that question.
Well, it is either true or false that Eve was created from Adam's rib. Science gives the (resounding) verdict that it is false.
Uh, not quite -- it's a meaningless question if there never had been an Adam and an Eve to begin with -- it's not a simple true / false question.
Furthermore, science doesn't say FALSE. Science says nothing, because there is no evidence to support that line of inquiry to begin with.
Can the Adam and Eve question be answered by science? I think so. Don't you?
No, it cannot. You can't prove a negative. You can only speak to lack of evidence.