Can science play any part at all in any explanation of the origins of the universe?
1 Like
Can you clarify, what exactly did I write that leads you the view I “don’t get” how science “works” what did I say exactly?
Since you claimed beliefs can only come from existing beliefs, where did your first belief come from?
1 Like
Your entire mode of questioning.
'nuff said. Now answer my question.
UK Atheist
Absolutely, I am with Lennox here, science reveals things that lead naturally to postulating will and intent as an agency in the universe. It is because science is explanatory at all that we can perceive a rationally intelligible universe.
To what can we attribute this rational intelligibility? To what can we attribute the laws of nature? how can a mechanistic system like the universe even come to exist without there being some other mechanistic cause?
Rather than seeking a scientific explanation “X happens because of Y” and “Y happens because of W” which leads to infinite regress, we can consider a non-scientific explanation.
When we do that we no longer need “laws” to explain things, we can see that it is “will” an “intent” a conscious act not attributed to some prior cause but the result of will.
Yes the universe is remarkable and we understand it to some extent (that is we can make predictions that are borne out) because it is deterministic. But why the universe with its inherent laws and predictability should exist at all is not something the universe itself can account for.
We cannot use the universe to explain the presence of the universe THEREFORE we posit God, rational thinkers have recognized this for millena.
I reasoned, I didn’t just assert that view. It is a conclusion that arises from the definition of a rational belief.
All rational beliefs are rooted in premises, all premises are rational beliefs. Therefore any rational belief - of necessity - must be based on other beliefs.
I made no claims about what these initial beliefs are or what led to them, I do not know. But if you had absolutely no rational beliefs you’d never be able to define any premises and without premises you’ll only have irrational beliefs.
You don’t seem to have answered my question at all, just waffled on with straw men.
1 Like
Science reveals something to us, rational intelligibility. On that basis science plays a part in getting us toward an explanation. That does not mean that the explanation we get is a scientific explanation though.
Reread my reply then, take a closer look at it, here, I’ll make it easy for you:
I think you need to make a beeping noise if you’re going back up this quickly.
Stop asserting your claims are rational, or that they are explanations, they demonstrably are neither.
I did it was just straw men that didn’t answer the question. Can you please answer the question
So where did your first belief come from?
As I said and told you twice, this is what I said in my reply to you:
I assume you understand “I do not know”.
1 Like
Except you did make just such a claim, here:
Do you want a time out to consider which position you’re taking here?
I’m finding it very hard to respect your posts here.
Without at least one initial belief (however that becomes established) we cannot from additional, contingent rational beliefs.
To form a contingent rational belief is to reason “Given X and Y therefore Z” that is we can “believe” Z because we have a justifying argument and we are confident in it and we are confident in the prior beliefs X and Y.
The belief Z is contingent on the already established beliefs X and Y and X and Y are either themselves contingent or self evident beliefs.
How self evident beliefs arise in our minds I don’t know.
Irony? How much respect should anyone have for someone who lies blatantly, as here is that very claim you made about initial beliefs:
Where does your first or initial belief come from? If you don’t know then your claim was bs wasn’t it?
The statement “Unless we have foundations we can’t begin building the walls” is either true or false. That truth or falsity is not contingent on who laid the foundations, when they laid them, what equipment they used.
A builder can begin building the walls once the foundations are laid, his ability to build the walls does not depend in who or what laid the foundations.
Must I really go on? are you really struggling with this?
Not me, you are the one who has lied, rather than admit your claim was bs.
If as you claimed we cannot develop new beliefs unless we have initial beliefs, where does that initial belief come from?
I have no idea, it’s an interesting question.
So you made a claim that palpably isn’t true then.
Not only that, but when I asserted that beliefs are formed when our brains start to store memories, and offered a citation you dismissed it with handwaving and juvenile insult.