*Magnify*
SPONSORED LINKS
Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/my_feedback/action/view/id/4094886
Review #4094886
Viewing a review of:
 Is there Scientific Proof of God?  [E]
An examination of the demand for scientific proof of God's existence.
by Basilides
Review by Era
Rated: E | (4.5)
Access:  Public | Hide Review (?)
Greetings,

Firstly, I, myself, am an atheist. That said, it's not often I come across a paper written by a theist that is as well written and organized as your own. I enjoyed the way you blocked up the statements and moved from one point to another rather fluidly, however, at some points there are a few inaccuracies.

1. The argument at the beginning of your paper isn't actually one put forth by any educated scientist, due to the very nature of both science and the god conjecture. Furthermore, This paper seems to be going at the problem on an inappropriate level of broadness and generalization.

A. If God exists, then it must be possible to prove His existence by means of the scientific method.

This premise, for example, depends on which god you are talking about, the term "god" is rather ill-defined, it might help to put forth the statement 'Christian God' to better tell which it is you mean. Furthermore, depending on which god you're talking about, we can prove this statement not only false, but prove that it's impossible to detect this being through the scientific method, as is the case here, due to very idea itself being crafted to evade detection (e.g. the invisible flying teapot orbiting earth yet not supplying any gravitational influence due to it being made of nonexistent matter). Essentially, some god concepts are designed to be a null hypothesis.


B. No scientific proof has ever been offered confirming the existence of God.

This, actually, is true, as far as I'm aware. Again however, "God" is ill-defined here, some people have their god concept set as the entire universe itself, and as far we know that definitely exists through it's own existence.


C. Therefore, God does not exist.

Also, even if the above premises were to be held as true, this conclusion still would not follow, just because proof has not been supplied doesn't not negate the objects existence. Maybe proof has yet to even be searched for, or perhaps the idea is a null hypothesis which is unable to be determined as true or false due to it's very definition.

because of these reasons I, as an atheist, wouldn't use this particular argument. One proper skeptical position would go as follows for the christian god:

A. The holy text put forth by the deity of Christianity claims his book is an accurate portrayal of history up to and including it's creation.

B. The holy text has been shown to be inaccurate in some verses.

C. Therefore the god of the Christian faith is either a liar, or is ignorant of some parts of Earth's history.

D. The god of the christian faith is defined to be perfectly good in the morality shown in the bible

E. The bible criminalizes lying

F. The god of the christian faith is defined to be all knowing

G. Either case wherein god is a liar, or ignorant, discredits his defined attributes

H. This creates a paradox, as god must either be both honest and dishonest, or all-knowing yet ignorant, at the same time

I. Therefore, the god of the bible does not exist

In essence, because different god concepts are unique from each other, different arguments must be put forth to either confirm or deny it's existence. Due to this, a god concept may or may not be a question for science or logic. The only reason I think you mean the christian god is due to the CS Lewis reference, so I apologize if I got the god concept you were going for wrong, but you can see what I mean when I say each god concept is different, and thus you must further define which god it is you are trying to prove exists.



2. The system of Cause and Effect

My sticking point here is as follows, your definition of nature is the system of cause and effect within our universe (Universe being defined as all that exists, including things that exist that have yet to be observed). Which is fine, however, i must point out that in all holy scriptures I've ever read, the deities in question tend to operate on the same principles. the universe didn't exist until god acted as the cause for it's existence. The world didn't end until Ragnarok was there to trigger it's demise. In all of these texts the deities in question either cause an effect, or were effected by a cause. And if this system of cause and effect extends to their domain, would that not make them and their home natural instead of supernatural? And if it doesn't what makes it different?



3. The Thinking Cap Argument

The premises of this argument are solid, if they are all true. The problem is the very first premise, how do you know thinking is a supernatural thing?
According to your definition of natural, this thing would have to be an uncaused effect, outside of the system of cause and effect. However, thoughts do have a cause, they are caused by sensory input we receive from some outside source, and because it has a source of cause, it must be natural according to your definition in this paper.


I apologize in advance if my review seems to skip back and forth in a few places, I wrote this review while working over a period of 9 hours. If anything seems ambiguous or confuses you, or needs clarification, Let me know and I'll be glad to sort it out. Other than some bits of faulty logic this paper was well written, and I like the fact that you sourced your sources as opposed to simply asserting them, I can't tell you how many times a debate on this subject get stumped up simply because someone forgets to source their research. This piece was a fun piece to read, and despite some bits being wrong, I do feel more intelligent for having given the time to read it.

Erasmuth Wolfe

*Gold* My review has been submitted for consideration in "Good Deeds Get CASH!.
   *NoteR* You have not yet responded to this review. Ignore
Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/my_feedback/action/view/id/4094886