For instance, in that part of your argument you are essentially saying exactly the same thing I did. God refuses to give scientific proof of his existence (like the signs in the heavens above), instead, he ask us to believe by faith and by nature of reality. Are we not saying exactly the same thing?
If that happens, it will be because God wanted to show himself, not because we came up with some super clever experiment that gave us scientific proof of God, like some ID people claim they can do.
Let us examine the premises of my argument:
- If God wants, he can prove his existence to mankind, do miracles, like the resurrection, etc, but that will be his will, not ours.
- Unless God deliberately shows himself to us, there is just no way that we can set up a experiment that will force him to show, thus it is impossible to set up a scientific experiment to prove God.
What exactly you disagree about that?
ID people don’t seem to agree with you, as they are constantly trying to come up with new “scientific” evidence to convince non believers.
Again, because God wanted to show himself, not because the scientist was clever enough to set up a experiment that proves God…
It was a critique of ID (and other people that presume they can prove God by science) from the very beggining, the very first post starts with:
“The lattest discussions here in the forum have got me thinking a little bit about that. There is actual theological reasons for why we shouldn’t expect to prove God by science, like ID and the like, it roughly goes as follows:”
It can also be a critique for atheists who claim that if God existed we should expect to be able to prove it by science. Which is again, another point in which we seem to agree:
Like Sagan saying that he was an agnostic and might come to believe in God if science eventually showed evidence for that?
How could we possibly discover that a inteligence governs that universe if that very inteligence didn’t want to be discovered (a perfect and flawless inteligence)?
EDIT: And I mean “discover” in the sense of getting scientific proof.
I’m saying that Sagan’s argument was bad, do you disagree with that as well and actually think that that his argument for non belief was good (which would contradict everything you have been saying since the beggining)?
I give up, I don’t think there is any way I can get you out of that “I totally destroyed your arguments because reasons, now repent” mindset.
Correct. Thus the question/thread does not “compute.”
Looks like folks can delete their posts even if that leaves us with only one side of the exchange. I appreciate being able to correct typos I only notice some time later, but this is unfortunate. Still it did improve the graciosity level here.
Thus is there a logical argument for the impossibility of proving the laws of
nature by science?
What do you mean by proving the laws?
That particular poster did not like how things were moderated here and insisted we delete his account or else. He was a real treat. But, yes, you can delete your posts if you want to by clicking the three dots and the garbage can. If people have quoted your post before you delete it, it will still show up in other people’s posts.
2 Likes
As You asked for proving something, what do You mean for proving?
Scientifically provable, reproducible, etc. In that sense, the laws of nature are the most provable thing in the world, since they are the most reproducible, you can spend all day droping a rock in the air, and it will always fall. If you mean proving where they (the fundamental, not emergent ones) come from/why they exist, then yes, there are logical arguments to why that is impossible.
1 Like
The theological answer to your question is in Genesis 1 to 3. God was obvious to Adam and Eve. They had full knowledge of Him and his divine world. Even with this knowledge, Adam and Eve could not follow His Law and this led to their Fall. Starting in Genesis 4 until now, we have to search to Him to find Him, and it is this search for knowledge that leads to understanding and unbreakable faith.
In Matthew 13:18-23 Jesus says even if I told you truth about God, many would reject it. Others might listen, but soon forget. This is what happened to Adam and Eve. They listened, but did not understand, nor hold it in their heart.
In Matthew 7:6, Jesus says something very important: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Some will not understand the teaching, but there are those who are not worthy of the teaching and would use His Truths against humanity, like many church leaders have done since the beginning.
2 Likes
Hi Shawn, there seems to be a confusion in this thread about what my question is. I’m not questioning why God doesn’t make his existence obvious or saying that he should, nor am I saying that the hidenness of God means that we should not believe until he reveals himself to us. What I’m saying is: Given that God doesn’t want to make his existence obvious, and chose not do so to us and the many atheists who doubt him because of that, then why should we expect to be able to force his existence to become obvious through scientific experiments and then hammer it on the head of atheists (like ID people think they can do)? Am I being more clear now?
My answer agrees this statement and gives the biblical reference for it. Many atheist are illogical, asking for proof of God while believing many unproven theories. It is not our job to convince anyone, they must use their free will believe, and that is what meant by “knock and the door will be opened.”
Best Wishes, Shawn
As one of those illogical atheists I’ve got to say I’ve yet to hear of an “unproven theory” I believe to be true which seems as big a stretch as the supposition of divine intent. Yes I believe other people have minds and as rich interior lives as I. Yes I believe my wife loves me (my dogs too for that matter but with a great deal more obvious evidence). Yes I believe that some acts (both of commission and omission) are morally wrong even without assuming an eternal law giver. But I simply do not share the apprehension that the order we find in nature was put there by a rational being.
2 Likes