[Vision2020] No Predictive Power In Belief in God?

[Tom Hansen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQh8wFLWOcc

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

> Paul and others-
> 
> I was not suggesting "God" would tell anyone anything, nor that God is 
some
> sort of "being" that we could comprehend.
> 
> How do you defend "predictive," scientifically, if you cannot prove that
> induction gives reliable natural law?  All of your examples of predictive
> (useful) power are questionable without proof of the principle of
> induction.  Some assume an eternal unchanging "God" to explain the
> continuity of natural law, God thus being the foundation that explains 
the
> reliable predictive power of science, and the principle of induction.
> 
> Can the continuity of natural law be proved?  David Hume argued, and I 
hope
> I am not mangling his analysis, that scientific induction and causality 
is a
> very questionable method of demonstrating natural law.  Induction cannot 
be
> proved, but only assumed.  Others would argue, as I stated, that God
> provides the foundation of the continuity of natural law, for the
> reliability of induction.  No God, no reason to assume that natural law, 
as
> we think we understand it, will not change tomorrow.
> 
> Applying Occam's Razor, God can be avoided as an foundation for natural
> law.  After all, God would be an unproven assumption that could be 
avoided
> by just assuming induction is a valid principle, not "backed up" by 
God.  We
> just assume that the universe functions a given way, and has continuity 
of
> natural law at differing times and places, despite the fact we can 
imagine a
> number of universes with shifting natural laws at different times and
> places.  And there is empirical evidence of continuity of natural law,
> though this does not prove the principle of induction.
> 
> But the point is, that we must assume principles, that science itself 
cannot
> prove, to trust that our discoveries of natural law have reliable 
predictive
> power for the future.  God can be one of those assumptions.  It is
> difficult to show that induction is an a priori analytic logical truth.  
Nor
> can we without absurdity assume induction to prove itself.
> 
> No doubt my description of these issues is seriously lacking.  But the
> problem of induction is a legitimate and difficult question to pose, that
> advocates of a purely "materialistic" non-religious (whatever that 
means...)
> scientific view of life and the universe sometimes gloss over.
> 
> This problem has vexed some of the greatest thinkers in human history:
> 
> Kant and Hume on Causality:
> 
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/
> -----------------------
> As far as the Big Bang requiring a cause before it happened, this may be 
a
> meaningless question, as you suggested, given "time" as we understand it 
did
> not exist.  We have more to learn on these questions, perhaps?  Super 
String
> Theory...
> 
> I am reminded of what some think is the most fundamental philosophical
> question, "Why is there something and not nothing?"  Answer?  Because the
> chicken did cross the road!
> 
> http://philosophy.eserver.org/chicken.txt
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> 
> 
> On 6/28/08, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I mean that a belief in a deity is not predictive in a scientific 
sense.
> >  "Knowing" there is a God doesn't tell you if a given stock will go 
up, if
> > our sun will expand into a Red Giant in the next 100 years, whether 
there
> > was ever life on Mars, or even if Obama will win this election.
> > One of the measures of how good a scientific theory is is how useful 
it is.
> >
> > Maybe the wording "in any way" was a bit too harsh.  I suppose it's
> > possible that God would tell someone how the Universe is put together 
and
> > what the applicable laws are.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > Ted Moffett wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Rumelhart wrote:
> >>
> >> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054696.html
> >>
> >> A deity, on the other hand, requires a whole bunch of different 
beliefs
> >> for which there is no evidence, nor is it predictive in any way.
> >> -----------------------
> >> Is this an overstatement of the case?  Maybe you are speaking from a 
very
> >> strict only scientific viewpoint, as an explanation for the Big Bang, 
in
> >> which case I agree, with some hesitation, given that your statement 
might be
> >> interpreted as closing the door on new empirical evidence that might 
support
> >> the existence of a "deity," and offer scientifically predictive power.
> >>  Furthermore, the first cause and/or design arguments for the 
existence of
> >> God, as a source or foundation of our universe, some will argue, have 
a sort
> >> of predictive power, offering a basis for the continuity of the laws 
of
> >> nature (Hume's analysis of causality and induction negates "laws" of 
nature;
> >> and if his analysis is valid, science has serious theoretical 
problems,
> >> which cannot be solved by science, such as explaining why the laws of 
nature
> >> should remain constant over time), though I do not think these 
arguments and
> >> creationism are scientific theories.
> >>  As an agnostic, I don't think the evidence for a creator "God" is
> >> compelling or conclusive, nor do I find other metaphysical views of 
God
> >> convincing, despite the problems that belief in God can solve.  But 
there is
> >> the possibility of new evidence.  I if I truly thought there was no 
evidence
> >> that could ever be discovered, for a God that pre-dated and caused 
the Big
> >> Bang, and that the idea of God had no predictive power "in any way" 
(am I
> >> making too much of this phrase in your statement?), I would be an 
atheist.
> >>  Ted Moffett
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 


"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college 
students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."

- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/