Posted: Aug 30, 2013 1:18 pm
Mick wrote:Animavore wrote:Mick wrote:In the article linked by Shrunk, the author says Krauss stated that science discovered no gods were responsible for the laws of nature. That is false. Final causation and contingency are not even considered by science, let alone its methodological naturalism excludes any such theistic explanations in the first place.
You seem to be saying science hasn't discovered gods because scientists aren't looking for them.
Neither final causation nor contingency can be tested. And, in fact, the former makes no sense in light of evolution since there is no end product. I'm sure it was more plausible when the world was fixed and static but we're, most of us, well beyond that.
So where to look next?
Suppose it is true that final causation and contingency cannot be tested. Presumably, you think falsifiability is necessary. Thus, it follows that science cannot deal with that stuff, but that doesn't imply its non-presence.
That said, the abandonment on final causation was not in light of some rebuttal. You have no scientific basis for affirming that. A familiarity with the history science will tell you that much. This was a switch in models. That said, there were plenty of teleological understandings of evolution, and nothing about evolution entails mechanical philosophy alone.
Yes. Falsibility is necessary if you want your arguments to be worth any more than those people on Ancient Aliens who think they have a case because we can't prove that aliens didn't build the pyramids. Because, and let's be honest here, when all is said and done, for all the arguments theists present, when pushed, they all resort and lead back to absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. This is the corner you stand so against staunchly with your back toward.
Also, nothing in evolution entails anything more than a mechanical explanation. Sure you can add your own wispy, ill-defined metaphysical addendum but they all amount to tinsel on the evolutionary tree.