Science Argument For God | Logical Faith Part 14 #god #apologetics #science #atheism #christianity

Full Video: Science Argument For God | Logical Faith Part 14

Science Argument1: (1) Materialism says there are no immaterial realities (reason, laws of logic and math, law of causality, etc.); (2) However, science relies on immaterial realities throughout the entire scientific process; (3) Therefore, materialism is false; (4) Theism is the best explanation for our ability to do science.

References: Turek, Frank. Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case. NavPress, 2015.

Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the copyright act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

Please contact me if you have any valid copyright issue with my video and would like for it to be taken down.

[robindude]

"...materialism says that there are no immaterial realities such as reason, laws of logic, math, law of causality, etc..."
More that those things don't have an existence of their own. Those words are _descriptors_ of things that are actual. We can _use_ those descriptors in useful ways, but we make a mistake when we start to think of them as 'existing' in the same way that molecules exist. They don't. Molecules exist regardless of whether there's any mind around to examine them or care about them. Everything you _mentioned_ doesn't happen without minds, and _any_ mind can implement them (even human minds).
Thus the fact that we make use of them is irrelevant, and your argument for materialism being false is unsound.

"...theism is our best explanation for our ability to do science..."
Nope. Evolution is. We evolved to figure out how the world around us works, by learning about it, because having _accurate_ mental models of reality is _almost always_ going to to give better survival chances than _inaccurate_ mental models of reality, plus the accurate ones are more stable.

"...truth exists and can be know..."
'Truth' is a descriptor. Something is 'true' if it is 'accurate of reality'. Thus it exists by the definition of the descriptor. Whatever is accurate of reality must be accurate of reality. But truth isn't 'out there', it doesn't have an existence independent of all minds. If there are no minds, there isn't one to conceive of such a descriptor, and thus even discussing 'what that would be like' is meaninglesss as we _have_ minds. We can't conceptualize total universal mindlessness. We can _barely_ conceptualize the lack of _our own_ minds.

"...the laws of nature are orderly and consistent..."
Because that's how _we_ defined them. If it _isn't_ orderly and consistent, _we don't call it a law!_ What _we_ call 'laws' _are_ the orderly and consistent bits. Entirely a descriptor.

"...effects have causes..."
The fun bit of this is that every cause we know of is, itself, an effect, so this is also like saying all causes have causes. We don't like that, because we don't handle infinity very well. However one possibility is that this isn't exactly true, either, but rather a matter of the way the universe is as being a four-dimensional static block.

"...our senses give us accurate information about the world..."
Sometimes, in environments we encounter often, and in ways the relate to our survival. They fail _hugely_ once one starts taking us out of usual situations and violating the expectations that our senses rely on to do the guess-work that fills in most of our sense experience. That's how illusions work. And it's why science relies on trying to show we're _wrong, _ rather than to show we're _right, _ while also offering predictive models.

"...we have free will to make choices and to follow the evidence..."
Prove it. Prove that if we rewound the universe so that every quark and subatomic particle, every fluctuation of the electromagnetic field and quantum realities were all _exactly_ identical, that you _could have_ chosen to do something else, say things differently. You can't. We have _no idea_ if free will is a possible thing, but it _really_ looks like it's not since it is _very clear_ that our minds are generated by the purely physical matter of our brains.

"...we make rational inferences from the data to establish true premises and draw valid conclusions..."
Sometimes. Largely no. Even scientists mess this up frequently. Trying to do this is _very_ hard because our brains are not well wired to do it, and this sort of thinking is _very slow_ and thus not useful in most survival scenarios.

"...objective moral values exist..."
No, they don't, and can't. Values, _all_ values (of the 'what is this worth' sort), are subjective. That's their nature. Doesn't matter if it's moral, financial, or other values. You can't have an objective value any more than you can have objective taste.

So, basically, I find your argument _extremely_ underwhelming. And I'm not even a strict materialist! I _am_ an atheist, but I don't hold that philosophical materialism is true because I have no way to know that.

[lhvinny]

The god hypothesis is not required in order to do any science. Philosophy is, but Philosophy is not a god.

[absquereligione]

Theism has never been proven.
It can't be used as a basis for anything.

Things that don't exist can't be the explanation for things that do exist.

The only way to prove me wrong is by demonstrating that your god exists.