Julian Bradley wrote:
> In response to Midge, leaving aside:
>
> A) the creationist issues
> B) the complex issue of prayer
>
> There seem 4 questions and two assertions.
>
> Q 1) Does a proposed entity cause effects on the observable universe?
>
> How would we know?
>
We are making the proposal, it is in our control. It is one of the
choices of authors of religions, they can go for one which strikes
people down (tests might nowadays include: sudden death more common in
atheists/heretics/denialists than in the faithful?) IE a participative
god, or one who just exists, and leaves people to get on with their
lives. Clever embellishments of the latter include action, but not here
and now IE an afterlife, in which maximal pain can be inflicted on the
shade for an unlimited period if the rather subtle hints are not taken
now, and historical changed behaviour - interaction along the smiting
axis, provision of dictated instructions etc in the past, but now -
apart from a hands-on prevention of entropy in the information of those
instructions - no observable interaction on Earth.
> Q 2) Is there some other explanation for the observed effects?
>
> How will we know until we can explain everything.
>
Now that one is plain wrong. It is not necessary to explain all things
in order to explain one.
>
>
> Q 4) Finally if there are observable events that cannot be explained
> yet, does this justify a continuing belief in God(s).
The god of the cracks. Quoted by Dawkins in the book in question.
> Comment on Assertion 2) The rule of simplicity could be said to
> suggest that it all looks prettier and seems easier if we ascribe
> difficult science to the simple concept of a God.
Only if you handwave the concept of gods as "simple". And why is one
god simpler than several or an unlimited number?
|