Moving Beyond the Natural Sciences (William R. Stoeger)
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 06. 2013
- Moving Beyond the Natural Sciences - the Cosmological Limit, Philosphy and a 'Creator' (William R. Stoeger).
Lecture from the 2nd mini-series (Is "God" Explanatory) from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project. A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration.
The thought "I can conceive of something (desireable)" ought not and should not automatically have the follow up "I would very much like that to be" as that too often automatically follows one tries to live by what that desire requires as fulfillment, regardless how any which way one would have to perform to reach it. A supernaturality based fantasy ought to stay as such, not be overthought for the purpose of attempts on realizing the same.
Call me foolish, but I started nodding off after two minutes.
Don't worry, I did the same
I put it on to fall asleep to, I ended up just being frustratingly bored and awake.
Good presentation and I like this style debate.
I still do not believe in religion and the God question is one I cannot answer.
But, I like hearing more about the topic from a rational and logical thinker.
Fancy "God of the Gaps" talk. That's all......folks
I think the first question that never gets answered is to show that gods are possible. Until then everything else that is claimed about them is irrelevant, no matter how tasty the word salad is.
I want to know more about critical realism by Stoeger
Why call yourself "a cosmologist who dabbles in philosophy" and not mention that you're an ordained Jesuit missionary? Do you think that might not be relevant to the discussion?
Is he honest about his view? Yes.
A somewhat bias perspective then
--- Retroduction or the method of conjecture, observation, confirmation/refutation, inference/new conjecture, ad infinitum, may expand the sphere of scientific knowledge indefinitely.
--- Rational thought (scientific or philosophical) about an ''ultimate origin'' does not necessarily come to a halt on arriving at a purported ''ultimate origin''. Why? For, there is no way of rationally avoiding the query about what is behind the origin of that what is last thought to be the ''ultimate ''. So, if it may come to a halt at an ''ultimate origin'', say, in a theological God, it halts there not rationally but arbitrarily.
The appeal to natural theology after hitting the "cosmological limit" isn't valid. After defining cosmology as the act of understanding the universe, all of existence, both immediately observable and otherwise, in a way, and I assume any way, that gives us a satisfying model, the agent to which he is appealing is, by definition, not something that could ever constitute a logical model, nor ever be *available* to us. Otherwise it would be testable, and fall within our "scientific" remit.
Well said sir and I agree. Theology is nothing more than assumptions and assertions
How it’s possible for intelligent, rational and logical people to believe in the “possibility” of God? First you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God, the being actually exists. Then you must prove that this God created everything. The impossibility for the existence of God is staggering.
Now this is one of the great mysteries of life!
@@FriedChickenMaster Yes, yes It really is. Baffling.
Indoctrination, wishful thinking, fear, gullibility and delusion are powerful things.
I think you have a typo “How is it possible for […] people to believe in the impossibility of god”. I suspect that should read “possibility of god”.
@@oldpossum57 Well, I thought about that, but, no, it’s not a typo… I meant “the impossibility of God.” God, as far as I’m concerned is an impossibility, so I find it difficult to understand how intelligent people can blindly believe in the impossible.
( There’s actually a book called, “The Impossibility of God” )
Believing in the impossible is irrational. In order to believe in God, you must through critical thinking to the wind and rely on faith, not evidence to justify the existence of God, unfortunately, faith in one’s belief is evidence of nothing. Be well.
I don't know why the religious even bother. Even if arguments for an uncaused cause or a designer were super solid, it says nothing about what that uncaused cause and/or designer's other traits, may be. So you aren't going to get to Yahweh or Brahma or Alfadur or whoever's existence you are trying to justify.
Also, the uncaused cause can never be more than an axiom necessitated by another axiom that says that every event has a cause, which leads to an infinite regress. Not wanting that, you add in that there is a first cause and THEN say that everything ELSE has a cause. Making something up by axiom isn't even kinda sorta an argument, let alone a proof. A entails A. But you could have just as well learned to live with the infinite regress or try to make it less weird by positing cyclic causality or who knows what else.
You cut to the chase! Thank you!
Wm. Lane Craig advances one of these “cosmological arguments” for the existence of god(s). The premises are quite unsound and incoherent. In support of one of the premises he continues to cite the BGV theorem (just a theorem as you note), but does so some years after the authors of the theorem explained publicly that he misunderstands and misrepresents it!
Then Craig goes on to try to sneak past us unargued claims that his Cause must be Personal and Intelligent. These qualities he wants you to think are self-evident, which is nonsense. Clearly, he wants to get to Jesus.
I often wonder: if they could prove a Deist Deity, why presume it is anthropomorphic? There are lots more bacteria by number and mass. Why couldn’t the Deity have created the universe for the bacteria?
The intelligent power within and without each and every atom throughout the universe, illustrates the very nature of God.
Do you still believe that everything that exists came (and comes) from nothing ?--- bearing in mind the complexity of matter, not to mention the sustaining intelligent governing power within, (and without of) each and every atom ?
The value of this discussion: it tests the broadness of the shoulders of those who ascribe to any point on the continuum from"No God" to "Obviously God". The point is inquiry, not conclusion. The discussion in the video itself is hot and dense; not necessarily so on the commentary threads. Self-disclosure...it rather cracks me up that science and mathematics tells us about infinity, but naturalism refutes the potential content of infinity, while accepting the spontaneous appearance of energy, matter, gas, etc. But then again, who ought by necessity care about the finite ideas of a subset of scientists with limited concepts of design (a term used by Hawking) other than those who prefer control to freedom? Religionism is not belief, nor is naturalism true science.
Unfinished compulsory school?
Who said matter, gas and energy appeared spontaneously? Oh right, theists do.
Magnetism and polarity might be good illustrators of both the communion (or better collinear stance and repulsion between science and faith.
Electromagnetic fields belong to the quantum mechanics realm.
That _sounds_ deep and wise, but manifestly is incoherent gibberish. We _know_ why magnetism happens.
Scientism and naturalism are just as vulnerable to paradigm paralysis as religionism is..Moreover, these three may be the best examples of paradigm paralysis.
You, sir, are a retained attorney, & your claim to examine philosophic questions honestly & objectively is the emptiest affectation. Other than that, sure let’s hear from the Jesuit “philosopher.”
I would be bored to tears if God gave the whole disclosure up front. I wouldn't buy books that include a spoiler in the preface (is there even such a book?) Sean Carroll seemed to want that as a prerequisite to belief in God, If it doesn't make common sense to ask for that, how can it make wisdom? Informed imagination (in this discussion) indicates a less dogmatic view. Yes, scientism and naturalism are fraught with dogma, William R. Stoeger at least leaves some room for a broader scholarship.
You seem to thin that science has answered all questions We have only just begun. I think it is demonstrated that superstition and magic are less productive than the scientific method. Apologists can try to define gods into being. They can also define 9 orders of angels into being. Neither hypothesis has any empirical content.