Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Science ≠ Ontology

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Luis Hamburgh on January 25, 2002 23:58:06 UTC

Hi Harv,

>>>"I so much don't want to believe in a Tooth Fairy that it would make extremely uneasy with the world if I knew that I should someday meet that Fairy."

I guess you and I don't think in the same way. Were I to ever meet the Tooth Fairy, and learn that the Tooth Fairy is all-knowing and all-powerful, then I think he/she/it would instinctively understand and appreciate my previous position on his/her/its existence.

I don't think any true God would punish someone for not believing in his/her/its existence, as I see absolutely nothing inherently detrimental in the simple act of doubting god's existence.

>>>"But, you feel the same way about photons, isn't that what your disagreement with Alex was all about (you emphasized to Alex how you cannot see photons), right?"

Wrong. Go back and read our discussions again. I do not doubt there is something to the photon, I just question the assumption that it fits into an analogy of the electron-esque particle/wave model. There is no real deductive proof of the photon as wave or particle.

Of course I believe there is a phenomenon we call the photon, but it is bad science (in my opinion) to assume so much about its manifestation without any direct proof.

>>>"What science supports the ontological existence of anything?"

Exactly. You seem to understand this point, but in your previous post you suggested there is scientific evidence for the existence of God. Science observes, then labels. That's just about as far from ontology as one can get! In your prior complaint you demand that science reverse this process, then go about its business as usual. Label something as "God," then go look for it. Once that thing is found, affirm "god"'s existence. If that's not circular, I don't know what is.

>>>"Ockham was a theist..."

I have not said, 'no theist is capable of contributing to science'; I don't see why you feel you should produce this information in your counter.

>>>"Can you agree that we should discuss the existence of God within the philosophical view and not strictly as a scientific issue?"

Absolutely. As I have indicated above, I see science and ontology as opposites (uh-oh! aren't we in a "God and Science" forum?). In other words, any discussion of "God" is automatically ontological.


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins