Thursday, April 9, 2015

Just a Little More on Proving G^d

Back in early March I posted about "proving" G^d does/(does not) exist.  It got a bit long, so I didn't get to far afield.  The key reason my friend raised the quesitons centered aroudn the "falsifiability of hypotheses.

In simpler terms, my friend asked a legitimate question, 'What evidence would cause you to disbelieve in G^d.?" Is the concept of G^d one that could ever be proven wrong?

A staunch Muslim or Christians could reflexively answer, "nothing!"

Sounds like a good answer? Not from my friend's perspective.

Consider this. I proposed that there is way, way, way out in space somewhere a tiny little (think Rhode Island) colony of people who have green skin and watch old US sitcoms 24/7.  How could anyone, including NASA, test my claim?  Not even the Hubble space Telescope could track down my small colony of supposed beings.

So my claim is not testable, not falsifiable, and so my claim can stand your scrutiny. And of course if there is no way to "falsify" your belief existence of G^d, we have fallen into my trap. G^d may not exist, but there is no way to prove your G^d, any more than my colony of "Mayberry" viewers.

So my friend would say, if G^d can't be falsified, then why do you believe in HIM?

The thing my friend has confused is science, which deals with the natural world, and whose rules are set up for the natural observable, repeatable world; and philosophy whihc considers things such a s"what is good?".

Science, by it's own admittance cannot tell us WHAT we should study, only HOW we should study natural phenomena. Science is no good at saying what is "good", it can only say this followed or did not follow the rules of science. 

So, when we apply scientific rules to things outside of science, we should NOT be surprised when those rules fail us. Applying the rules for successful baking to a situaiton requirign good leadership will, and does, turn out badly.

Just sayin...

No comments:

Post a Comment