Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
What I mean to say that when one is trying to discover if something is or isn't real from a logical standpoint, one cannot presuppose it's existence.
|
If you really think this, than you can't even discover if
you are real from a logical standpoint.
Quote:
Therefore, in order to reason as to whether god exists or not, one cannot assume god exists. If one does not assume god exists, then considering that god is the most complex and unlikely explanation for anything because he/she/it can break the rules of established science, god automatically becomes the least likely explanation.
As least that's how I see it.
|
I see what you're saying, but i don't know how you can claim that a god assumption is the most unlikely and complex explanation for anything. I took a chemistry class once, and let me tell you, the first day was more complex and unlikely than anything i was ever exposed to when i went to church. Little balls of charged mass? Electromagnetism? Orbitals? Shit man, try explaining that stuff to a 7 year old if you ever have one handy and you'll get an wonderful reminder of how absurd it all is. God is the simplest- and in many cases the least interesting- explanation possible. God is. There is no reason and there doesn't need to be, because god is unknowable- or something, i don't know.
Science is the most complex answer to anything- implicit in it is a never ending chain of questions. Things can only get more complex when one takes the scientific route.
I also don't think it necessarily makes sense to judge the unknown in the context of science when science doesn't necessarily have anything specific to say about the unknown other than that it is, well, unknown. Science is only relevant in reference to things that are (relatively) known.