Posted: Aug 30, 2013 2:48 pm
by Mick
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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?

Here's what's odd. You said that final causation cannot be tested, and yet apyou also said that evolution has no "
End product" . But if final causation cannot be tested, you cannot say evolution has no 'end product', since that could be affirmed only if it were testable.

Nonsense. Evolution has no end product since it's not a concious process. There is no goal and hence no end product.

Even if that were true, you could only say that if it were indeed falsifiable.