Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build?
Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.
You know how you said in your previous post that you will try to do better with the reasoning? Well, this post gives you a good opportunity to do so.
The machine argument isn't a good argument, and it's worth considering that by using the machine argument you are actually using a kind of inductive reasoning similar to what's employed in the scientific method. You are acting similar to a scientist here in that you are taking a set of observations (i.e. you have observed that machines are made my makers, and since you imply the Universe is also like a machine, you conclude that it, too, has a maker). But, you are acting different from a scientist in that your conclusion is unfalsifiable. There is no possible test or experiment you could conduct that would be able to test your conclusion. So, even though you criticize science due to its inability to comprehensively explain the universe due to the limitations of inductive reasoning, it is you that are committing the egregious error by concluding with an absolute statement that results from inductive reasoning.
This is one example of what I meant earlier when I said that every time you debate you end up defeating your own argument. In this case, you defeat your own argument by condemning the inadequacies of inductive reasoning and then using inductive reasoning yourself to form your conclusion.
The fact that you have a sort of fancy way of saying that you don't believe the evidence makes me feel a bit better.
You see, if someone came up to me and literally proved that the God I have been believing in for years was a complete and total lie, I would feel bad. And I sympathize with all those poor folks who are seeing how they can prove it to themselves that probably, almost for a fact, God exists, when, here for these last many years, they have trained themselves to feel comfortable in life by ignoring God. It pains me that they have pain, same kind of pain I would have if my God were proven false.
So, you are making me feel better by providing them a way so that their pain is relieved some... if they read your post, that is.
Thank you for posting.
It's not that I "don't believe the evidence," but rather it's that there cannot possibly be evidence that proves the existence of God. It is a true statement to say there is no evidence that proves God, but again, this doesn't matter because evidence was never the requirement. Neither the atheist nor the theist should argue against/for the existence of god by citing evidence because neither.
Evidence simply means "that which is apparent," and the scientific method is a sound way to make sense of that sense of that evidence. You can't deny that the scientific method is a good method, but what you need to understand is that the scientific method simply has limitations, and it's only concerned about things that are observable. This isn't bad at all, and in fact in this regard the scientific method is a
perfect method. There is absolutely nothing about it that can be improved. It's scope simply isn't intended to explore something as comprehensive as God, and so it can't, nor does it try.
My advice is to appreciate science for what it is and all the amazing technologies it brings us, as well as a better understanding of specific events and processes as they unfold in the Universe. Religion contributes nothing in the way of technological development and an understanding of specific physical, chemical, and biological processes whereas science is perfectly suited for the task.
According to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position (momentum) of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum (position) is. This is (a simplistic and preliminary formulation of) the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle for position and momentum. The uncertainty principle played an important role in many discussions on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, in particular in discussions on the consistency of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation, the interpretation endorsed by the founding fathers Heisenberg and Bohr.
Science and, thus, the scientific method "[isn't] only concerned about things that are observable."
Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, "Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest." Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him.
To the contrary, it would seem science primarily seeks to realize its knowledge of nothing.
