My argument is that we do have some facts (not necessarily all) about the composition of stars, and I am sure that there are some elements that we can 100% say stars are not made out of.
To avoid reiterating my argument a fourth time then, I'll pose a question. How is it that we can have perfect knowledge of a particular aspect of a given subject/topic/situation (stars, god, ect) when there is some knowledge we do not have which will affect our perfect knowledge of that aspect? As far as I see, we can either say we're not 100% sure, and that it's only
very likely, or we can admit that we don't have perfect knowledge about the situation.
To put it without all the analogy and star examples, my counter argument is that you cannot claim something is true when it is only very likely. You would first need to know which case out of all possible cases is the reality, which means you would need complete knowledge about the cases and the reality you're trying to reconcile. There are some assumptions which substitute for complete or near-complete knowedge of the situation, like when you say ice is frictionless or only the Butler or Colonel Mustard could have killed the guy. But when we're talking about something on the scale of the laws of the universe, or of God, it often doesn't make sense to apply many assumptions because they could be drastically wrong, or there's no real basis for us to apply them. When we assume something like ice is frictionless, it's because we deal with materials every day and have lots of experience with them, but what's our basis for assuming something like the interior of a star acts a certain way, when we have no experience with the interior of stars?
I beg to differ; there is plenty of evidence pointing to God.
Before we even get to the stage of presenting evidence, there remains a lot to be seen about the nature of God himself. We can't, for example, prove that an Oompa Loompa exists if we don't know what an Oompa Loompa is. If God is consistent with the rest of the observable universe, he will have certain attributes, physical or otherwise, that we can examine to establish a framework or list or reference as to whether or not those attributes are compatible with this universe. If God is not consistent with this universe, then he may or may not exist, and nothing we can do, say, or find will ever lead us to him (except perhaps, faith, but that's a different topic under a different meaning). Establishing that God
does or does not exist is also much more difficult than establishing that he
may or may not exist. For the case "may or may not" exist, all that we need to do prove that his attributes don't contradict with the universe. (lol I make it sound so simple). To establish that he "does or does not" exist, we would need to find some evidence in the universe which intrinsically implies his existence or non-existence. The search leads to a number of interesting questions, like:
The fact that ANYTHING exists. Technically this isn't evidence, but the universe and the beginning of time has to have come from SOMEWHERE.
Why? Why couldn't the universe have simply always been here. And what experience or knowledge do you have to lead you to the conclusion that it must have come from somewhere?
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 24 2010, 3:26 am by Vrael.
None.