Dear Hanrahan,

We certainly operate on many levels in faith in regard to the laws of nature. All of our experimental evidence for a process does not prove that the process will be repeated ad infinitum. It is not like inductive reasoning in mathematics where we can prove that if a relationship is valid for n=1, an arbitrary n and n+1 then it is valid for all cases. However, the statement by Margenau: "Theories of knowledge using constructs, definitions and rules of correspondence lead us to all the laws of nature ,but it does not account for their origin .They surely could not have developed by chance or accident." is merely a statement of belief not based on any evidence whatsoever. It may have been made because it is consistent with Margenau's religious beliefs. It may be a case of faulty analogy. Nature's laws merely describe relationships in Nature. They are not laws such as we have in government which are made by humans by law givers. Nature's laws are not analogous to laws produced by legislation. The same word has different meanings. I do not regard Margenau's words as evidence - merely another statement of belief. Australian legislation involves a body of individuals who made the laws. Nature's laws do not imply a lawgiver. That is an inference made by Margenau and others. Even if there were a lawgiver it is an unwarranted assumption to assume that lawgiver was the entity mentioned in the scripture of any existing religion.

Dear Squeers,

I mostly agree with your last post. We can as individuals try to be as creative as we can and either ignore or resist the pressures to conform or give in to it where it doesn't matter. Obama seems more idealistic than most presidents have been. Actually his predecessor seemed quite idealistic in his primitive religiosity. I find Obama's idealism much more in tune with mine than Bush's. I have read both Obama's books and think he is a marvellous man and hope the ideas he expressed in his books will be translated into legislation and policy.

Dear David,
>>It is not like inductive reasoning in mathematics where we can prove that if a relationship is valid for n=1, an arbitrary n and n+1 then it is valid for all cases. <<
You meant to refer to mathematical induction which says that if a proposition P(n) is true for n=1, and P(n) implies P(n+1) then necessarily P(n) is true for all (natural) n (“valid for arbitrary n” and “valid for all cases” is here the same thing).

On the other hand, inductive reasoning (in science) - if a situation holds in all observed cases, then it will hold in all cases - is one of the pre-suppositions (beliefs) of scientific research, as you rightly point out, and science could not function without it. In mathematics that would mean that if P(n) is true for, say, all n<1000 then it is true for all n. That is not an valid proof (reasoning) in mathematics.

This makes mathematics that much simpler: it deals with the clear concept of (formal) proofs rather than with the more ambiguous concept of “evidence” that depends on the cultural, social or historical (also psychological) context.

Dear George,

Thank you for your clarification. I was sloppy.

David

QUOTE: DavidF
Dear grateful,

There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any supernatural. It is up to the one who makes an assertion to provide the evidence. I do not have to produce any evidence that the goddess Venus, the Jewish, Islamic, Christian God or the Spaghetti Monster does not exist. It is up to those who assert that Venus, the Jewish, Islamic, Christian God or the Spaghetti Monster exists to prove that it is not an invention.
UNQUOTE
Yes, as i previously said, i agree that it is reasonable to expect those who make the assertion for the existence of God to prove it.
You say “There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any supernatural.”

Have you read the Qur’an?

Here is the first 5 verses of the 2nd surah, “Al Baqara”
“1.Alif Lam Meem
2. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure without doubt, to those who fear God;
3. Who believe in the Unseen; are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them
4. And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have assurance of the Hereafter
5. They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper”

For a Muslim these are the words of God (or more accurately they are a rendering of the original Arabic, the language in which the Qur’aan was supposedly revealed). How would a Muslim support this case?

Cont. 1/2

2/2 Cont...

At the very least a Muslim would have to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that

1. The Qur’aan we have today is what was claimed as revelation over 1400 years ago

2. That the Muhammad was honest and reliable, for it was he who claimed it was revelation from God

3. That there is nothing in what the Qur’aan says that is a clear falsehood (e.g the world was created 5000 years ago, the sun revolves around the earth)

On the other hand for you they are the words of man, so you have the job of presenting evidence which would cast serious doubt on these claims.

For example, you may want to argue that there is reason that this COULD NOT be the words of God. Or you would want to provide authorative evidence that Muhammad was unreliable or dishonest.

Or you may even want to argue that it has been corrupted. There is a verse in the Qur’aan which clearly predicts (and is interpreted by all scholars as saying) that the Qur’aan will not be corrupted:

"Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it." Q15:9

Anyone who has played the kids game Chinese Whispers, will know how easily information gets distorted when passed on by word-of-mouth.

So you would just need to find a serious scholar in Islamic studies who would argue that the Qur’aan has been corrupted or at least argue that no authority is prepared to support this claim.

Unless you are prepared to make some effort along these line, as sort of "defense lawyer", then your own assertion that "God is an invention" can only be treated as a piece of fundamentalist rhetoric.

Runner, you hoist yourself on your own petard. If you yourself had any sense of intelligence, as opposed to your audacious approach to articles which question your self-worth, you might consider the idea that humans are intelligent. It's in our nature to search for our existence, even if that means creating a God to fulfill our moralistic assumptions.

I much rather believe that, then waste my life believing something with no proof, yet alone arguing in favour of it when at the end of the day you have NOTHING to show . .