Foolproof argument?

[Cogitoergosum]

I was having a discussion with theists about the existence or non existence of GOD. Some of them do believe in evolution and some even in the BIG BANG but they say GOD uses these to bring about his creation.
When does GOD not apply?
If we find X as the reason for something, theists will say GOD used X. If then we figure out that Y is the reason for X, theists will say GOD used Y to bring about X. Then we discover that Z is the cause of Y, theists will say GOD used Z to....
When does that end? will we ever find an explanation where theists cannot add GOD as the premise for that explanation?

P.S.: i'm travelling tomorrow to get married, i'll be gone for 3 weeks, see you guys and gals after that

[McCulloch]

Will we ever find an explanation where theists cannot add GOD as the premise for that explanation?

No.

[achilles12604]

will we ever find an explanation where theists cannot add GOD as the premise for that explanation?

No.

[achilles12604]

will we ever find an explanation where theists cannot add GOD as the premise for that explanation?

No.

This is exactly why science can never disprove God. My analogy again

Mankind is a very small person inside of a paper bag.

Science is a flashlight which ultimately will allow the man inside the bag to experience, witness, see and understand everything inside the bag with him as well as the make of the bag, its exact limits, etc. (we have not yet reached this place but we are working on it)

God is sitting on the couch in the next room. So science will never be able to test, prove, disprove, or even shed its little light on God. Since science can never disprove God or anything about him, the answer to your question is simply no.

The only time that science would be able to examine anything about God is if he decided to open the bag for a time. But since science is dependent on repetition and experiment, again your answer is no.

[LightGrenade04]

I was having a discussion with theists about the existence or non existence of GOD. Some of them do believe in evolution and some even in the BIG BANG but they say GOD uses these to bring about his creation.
When does GOD not apply?
If we find X as the reason for something, theists will say GOD used X. If then we figure out that Y is the reason for X, theists will say GOD used Y to bring about X. Then we discover that Z is the cause of Y, theists will say GOD used Z to....
When does that end? will we ever find an explanation where theists cannot add GOD as the premise for that explanation?

That's because modern theists have forgotten what the medieval natural philosophers set out to do when they birthed modern science, which was to discover and observe the secondary causes God used in His law-based creation; instead they insist on inserting God into the edges of reality because they think as most moderns do, like positivists.

For theists, God is that which sustains everything in existence at each fleeting moment. God is a much more fundamental explanation of reality as a whole.

P.S.: i'm travelling tomorrow to get married, i'll be gone for 3 weeks, see you guys and gals after that

Congratulations!

[achilles12604]

I was having a discussion with theists about the existence or non existence of GOD. Some of them do believe in evolution and some even in the BIG BANG but they say GOD uses these to bring about his creation.
When does GOD not apply?
If we find X as the reason for something, theists will say GOD used X. If then we figure out that Y is the reason for X, theists will say GOD used Y to bring about X. Then we discover that Z is the cause of Y, theists will say GOD used Z to....
When does that end? will we ever find an explanation where theists cannot add GOD as the premise for that explanation?

That's because modern theists have forgotten what the medieval natural philosophers set out to do when they birthed modern science, which was to discover and observe the secondary causes God used in His law-based creation; instead they insist on inserting God into the edges of reality because they think as most moderns do, like positivists.

For theists, God is that which sustains everything in existence at each fleeting moment. God is a much more fundamental explanation of reality as a whole.

Could you elaborate on this? I am not sure if I understood what you wrote.

I heard (or read) that modern theists do not seek to understand the science which God used to create or control everything.

If this was what you meant then I disagree to some extent. Some theists do this you are correct, however not all of them. For example I usually try to understand all the science I can about the universe and then examine the theological reason behind it. And I marvel at God's work. But I always examine the science first.

If this wasn't what you meant then I was correct in thinking that I was confused.

And what did you mean by "the edges of reality"? An example would be good.

[LightGrenade04]

Could you elaborate on this? I am not sure if I understood what you wrote.

I heard (or read) that modern theists do not seek to understand the science which God used to create or control everything.

If this was what you meant then I disagree to some extent. Some theists do this you are correct, however not all of them. For example I usually try to understand all the science I can about the universe and then examine the theological reason behind it. And I marvel at God's work. But I always examine the science first.

I apologize for the lack of clarity. What I meant was that modern people - including fundamentalist Christians - continue to think like Logical Positivists despite its academic displacement. Thus, the essence of their entire epistemology is an insistence on empirical verification/falsification.

And what did you mean by "the edges of reality"? An example would be good.

An example would be the modern Creationist/Intelligent Design movement. The positivism of the fundamentalists leads them to insist on using science to prove God's existence rather than recognizing God as the metaphysical foundation for man's ability to do science at all. This is how the medieval natural philosophers saw it. Science is the search for secondary causes, thus the existence of God is a philosophical rather than scientific question. You'd be as likely to hear that from a theologian of the 13th century as a modern non-fundamentalist one. To conclude, what I mean by "the edges of reality" is that which is presently unknown. The Creationists and ID theorists use our lack of knowledge of human origins to create an argument to empirically prove God's existence. In my opinion, that's bad theology and it never works thus creating this "Conflict Thesis" about the relationship between science and religion that has only really arisen in the modern era.

Hope that helped.

[Confused]

will we ever find an explanation where theists cannot add GOD as the premise for that explanation?

No.

This is exactly why science can never disprove God. My analogy again

Mankind is a very small person inside of a paper bag.

Science is a flashlight which ultimately will allow the man inside the bag to experience, witness, see and understand everything inside the bag with him as well as the make of the bag, its exact limits, etc. (we have not yet reached this place but we are working on it)

God is sitting on the couch in the next room. So science will never be able to test, prove, disprove, or even shed its little light on God. Since science can never disprove God or anything about him, the answer to your question is simply no.

The only time that science would be able to examine anything about God is if he decided to open the bag for a time. But since science is dependent on repetition and experiment, again your answer is no.

Science isn't designed to disprove God. However, logic is. Using inductive logic one can create to a high statistical probability of the non existence of God. However, it won't disprove it completely.

However, should God exist, (I am going to get backlash for this I know) I would strongly argue that not a single human on this earth really knows a thing about Him. I would argue in fact that man has created Him to be whatever served their purpose for the time. That scripture is nothing more that myths recorded to give an institution power and eventually, became known as truth.

[Confused]

I was having a discussion with theists about the existence or non existence of GOD. Some of them do believe in evolution and some even in the BIG BANG but they say GOD uses these to bring about his creation.
When does GOD not apply?
If we find X as the reason for something, theists will say GOD used X. If then we figure out that Y is the reason for X, theists will say GOD used Y to bring about X. Then we discover that Z is the cause of Y, theists will say GOD used Z to....
When does that end? will we ever find an explanation where theists cannot add GOD as the premise for that explanation?

P.S.: i'm travelling tomorrow to get married, i'll be gone for 3 weeks, see you guys and gals after that

God doesn't apply to empirical evidence (evolution etc) regardless of how much theists wish to interject Him into it. God only applies to religious faith.

[McCulloch]

will we ever find an explanation where theists cannot add GOD as the premise for that explanation?

No.

My answer was a bit brief.

The thing is that if you believe in a God but are willing to admit everything that can be proven by science then your belief in God becomes meaningless but irrefutable. Everything that you attribute to the God every interaction with the material universe will be subject to the discoveries of science. Yours is the ever shrinking God-of-the-gaps. It will never be refuted as long as there are areas of ignorance.