On natural phenomena

[Diagoras]

Inspired by this quote in the ‘Questions about the earth’ topic, posted in the Science and Religion forum by brunumb:

No phenomena previously attributed to a god has been resolved in favour of a god rather than natural phenomena.

I’m interested in debating this, as I consider the claim as it stands to be truthful. In support of the claim, however, I would like to stress the significance of the word ‘resolved’ as used above. Used as a verb, it is usually defined as ‘to come to a determination; to make up one's mind’, but I think it makes the statement clearer if ‘resolved’ is taken as meaning ‘to establish the truth’ (i.e. confirm, settle, prove).

Therefore, the scope of this debate topic must necessarily exclude unresolved natural phenomena, i.e. ‘things for which there is currently no single, accepted scientific explanation’. An obvious example would be the beginning of the universe: something which science would accept as being currently ‘unresolved’ (although not necessarily unresolvable in the future). On the other hand, the theory of plate tectonics is a ‘single, accepted scientific explanation’ of why we see similar fossil strata on separate coastlines, and find seashells on mountain tops.


So, rewritten slightly, the question for debate is:

“No observed natural phenomena previously attributed to a god has been proven to be explained in favour of a god rather than by natural phenomena.�

[Divine Insight]

So, rewritten slightly, the question for debate is:

“No observed natural phenomena previously attributed to a god has been proven to be explained in favour of a god rather than by natural phenomena.�

I don't see the question.

Are you asking whether there are any observed phenomena that have been explained in favor of a god?

I don't believe there is. Some theists might argue that since we can't determine how the universe could exit this favors a conclusion that a god must have done it. But clearly that's not a resolution or a proof that any god was involved much less exists.

It's basically nothing more than special pleading as a god of the gaps argument.

Just because science cannot explain something does not imply that something even more unexplained, like a magical god, must then be the explanation.

Moreover, an unexplained magical god could never be an explanation for anything. An unexplained entity hardly constitutes an explanation. So an unexplained god can never be a meaningful hypothesis much less an actual explanation.

[Diagoras]

Thanks for checking what I meant. Yes, you could simply ask, as you suggested, whether there are any ‘divine’ explanations.

It’s only my personal preference for how to frame a debate that suggested my post in that particular form. Perhaps I should have expressed it as “Here’s my claim. Do you support or oppose this statement?�

[Divine Insight]

I should have expressed it as “Here’s my claim. Do you support or oppose this statement?�

“No observed natural phenomena previously attributed to a god has been proven to be explained in favour of a god rather than by natural phenomena.�

I agree with your claim completely and I am certain that there does not exist any evidence to the contrary.

I am aware that some theists have attempted to try to argue that the KCA or MOA are evidence to the contrary, but those claims have no validity whatsoever. Those claims have not proven anything about any imagined gods. All they amount to are extremely poor "God-of-the-gaps" arguments. They certainly don't rise to the level of evidence or proof of the existence of any gods.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

I concur. However, I suspect most theist will concur with that statement as well since it doesn't falsify, challenge, or inhibit their ability to believe in unfalsifiable claims. Therefore, the debate topic might not solicit much of a debate.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

I concur. However, I suspect most theist will concur with that statement as well since it doesn't falsify, challenge, or inhibit their ability to believe in unfalsifiable claims. Therefore, the debate topic might not solicit much of a debate.

There are theists who do claim that they have evidence for the existence of their Gods which would fly in the face of the OP statement. Given enough time I'm sure some of them will eventually chime in.

[harvey1]

I agree with your claim completely and I am certain that there does not exist any evidence to the contrary.

I am aware that some theists have attempted to try to argue that the KCA or MOA are evidence to the contrary, but those claims have no validity whatsoever. Those claims have not proven anything about any imagined gods. All they amount to are extremely poor "God-of-the-gaps" arguments. They certainly don't rise to the level of evidence or proof of the existence of any gods.

It depends on what we mean by proof. There are a number of good arguments for God's existence, but these are philosophical arguments.

[Divine Insight]

I agree with your claim completely and I am certain that there does not exist any evidence to the contrary.

I am aware that some theists have attempted to try to argue that the KCA or MOA are evidence to the contrary, but those claims have no validity whatsoever. Those claims have not proven anything about any imagined gods. All they amount to are extremely poor "God-of-the-gaps" arguments. They certainly don't rise to the level of evidence or proof of the existence of any gods.

It depends on what we mean by proof. There are a number of good arguments for God's existence, but these are philosophical arguments.

It also depends on what you mean by "good arguments". I personally haven't seen anything I would consider to be a "good" philosophical argument for the existence of any gods.

Can you suggest one? And I hope your not going to suggest either the KCA or MOA because as far as I'm concerned neither of those qualify as "good" arguments.

Other so-called philosophical arguments that I find totally without merit are the following:

1. Intelligence exists, therefore it must have come from an intelligent creator.

This argument fails miserably because it totally fails to address how the original creator became intelligent. It doesn't make any sense to postulate the existence of an intelligent entity to explain how intelligence came to be when there is no explanation for how that original primal intelligence came to be. So these kinds of arguments for an intelligent creator are not "good" arguments.

2. Life cannot come from non-living things. Therefore an already living God must have created life.

Same thing applies here. If the premise is that life cannot come from non-living things then from whence did that original living creator come?

3. Something exists rather than nothing. Therefore something must have already existed that create all that exists.

Yet another deeply flawed argument.

These are not "good" arguments for the existence of a god.

Can you suggest a "good" philosophical argument for the existence of a god? You appear to be under the belief that such arguments exist.

I have never seen an example of a good philosophical argument for the existence of a god, so if you can share one that would be great.

[harvey1]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

How would your life be better with a convincing argument for God's existence?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

How would your life be better with a convincing argument for God's existence?

Well, of course there would be little need for people to avoid simple issues by asking tangential questions.
That would be a conSIDERABLE relief to non-theists everywhere.