"Science did it" is meaningless since science is only 'a way of (toolkit-library of correctable algorithms for) naturalistic problem-solving' and not itself an "agent".

Thanks for defining what science is. And it’s not meaningless at all as science tries to supplant god in explanatory power of what created the universe which is what the article I’ve linked is proposing so I don’t know how I’ve misread it.

Science does not "try to supplant God" because science itself is not an agent. You seem incorrigible on this point, Simpleg. Btw, knowledge does not "supplant" ignorance, just as logos does not "supplant" mythos. Proof: there are, and always have been, scientists who are also theists (or mystics). After all, it was a Catholic priest and physicist-astronomer who had counseled his Pope not to misconstrue the Big Bang as evidence, or proof, of the biblical "Let there be light".

The more persistent proxy or synonym for "magic" or "fantasy" or "the impossible" is that three-letter word for ego: "God" – because "God did it" doesn't explain anything just as "God said it" does not justify anything either. Science is a discipline for collaboratively striving to explain by best approximations which are more efficacious, publicly testable and reliably corroborable than (fact-free, faith-based) non-explanations such as "God". The results of natural sciences work regardless of what we believe or do not believe, and teaches its students and practicioners to say, and explore, I Do Not Know :fire: instead of infantilizing themselves as adults by sucking on cosmic lollipops.

Science does not "try to supplant God" because science itself is not an agent. — 180 Proof

I would argue that science is in fact an agent or a method for discovering about the natural world and invention but by calling it an agent rather than a method we would be arguing about the definition of science which seems the direction you want to take this discussion towards. “Science did it” was me being literal but you get the gist. You could replace science for gravity in this instance which is a scientific term instead. So now we’ve changed propositions from the magical God to the magical Gravity as gravitons elude science as much as god does to an atheist.

To me the question is simpler than that and even Aristotle considered in his proposal of a first cause which is what this discussion of God ultimately boils down to.

I've no idea what you're talkimg about (possibly because you don't either).

This article elaborates it better, read at your convenience the implications of detecting gravitons and how they relate to the Big Bang. You might learn something.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.13834

And this for context of how science tries to get rid of God in favour of a theory of everything:

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-are-gravitons-and-do-they-really-exist

:sweat:

Hello jorndoe,

A nonsequitur is [...] — Bob Ross
... negation of "follow". (¬(p ⇒ q))

I am failing to understand what you are contending with here: it seems you just re-stated what I told you. My point was that those arguments were not deductions, and a non-sequitur is not a deductive argument.

Whether supposed to or not, it can't, hence mentioned gap (+ admission). (Aquinas, notes)

If a conclusion is outside of the scope of the intended consequences of an argument, then it is not a gap.

You find "supernatural magic" a fine explanation...? :confused:

No I don’t.

I find "supernatural magic" and "G did it" to be non-explanations (previously ... Nov 9, 2022 ... Jun 4, 2022). They could (literally) be raised to explain anything, and therefore explain nothing. — jorndoe

To be precise, science explains nothing either. Science describes the physical world: Hydrogen + Oxygen = water. But what is hydrogen? Well, a proton and an electron. What is an electron? No explanation. Nobody knows what an electron is. Science tells us what electrons do but does not explain what they are. All of science is in this situation so nothing is explained.

Religion: God did it. Fair enough.
Science: It is happening. Fair enough.

But what is an electron?

To be precise, science explains nothing ... — EnPassant

Well, to be even more precise, scientific theories cannot explain everything and whatever they explain they can only do so approximately.

We are talking about the big questions in this thread. Science does not answer them. When science does answer lesser questions it is normally an explanation based on observations and descriptions of some other unexplained thing. Ultimately science just says 'This is the way stuff is happening'. All well and good but it does not explain what stuff is. It just describes what it is doing.

Clarify what you mean by "explain" in this context in order to better grasp your claim that "science explains nothing".

We are talking about the big questions. Philosophical questions. What is existence? What is eternity? Is it conscious? Why is the universe mathematical? Why are molecules assembling themselves into living creatures. Science does not explain these things. It gives secondary explanations concerning the mechanics of what is happening and these explanations are normally based on observation. So scientists describe what they see happening. Science is, for the most part, descriptive.

Of course science only solves empirical problems and does not answer philosophical questions.

Philosophy, as Wittgenstein points out, only describes how we use concepts (by which to interpretively frame 'experience') whereas unfalsified theories in science are used to explain – model the conditional causal relations of – transformations from one physical state-of-affairs to another. AFAIK, (fundamental) sciences are hypothetico-deductive (i.e. experimental) and not merely inductive (i.e. experiential) as per Popper vs Hume, et al. It's philosophy, in fact, that "explains nothing" about the world (i.e. existence & reality) but instead non-trivially interprets whatever we think we know about the world, etc.

"The big questions" are, at best, conceptual lenses (prisms) through which we orient our lives, loves & livelihoods. IMO, you make a category mistake, EnPassant, when you criticise science for not doing philosophy and/or employ philosophy to undertake scientific tasks.

you make a category mistake, EnPassant, when you criticise science for not doing philosophy and/or employ philosophy to undertake scientific tasks. — 180 Proof

I'm not criticizing science. I'm simply saying it is not an improvement on 'God did it'.

:lol:

Well, how has science answered the big questions such as the ones I pointed out? Science is not philosophy so there's no point in pretending it is. It is not an improvement on philosophy. Besides, philosophy/religion is far more sophisticated than 'God did it'.

Well, how has science answered the big questions such as the ones I pointed out? — EnPassant

:roll: I guess you do not understand the point I'm making ...

Of course science only solves empirical problems and does not answer philosophical questions [ ... ] you make a category mistake, EnPassant, when you criticise science for not doing philosophy ... — 180 Proof

I guess you do not understand this my point... — 180 Proof

I do. I was responding to this-

I find "supernatural magic" and "G did it" to be non-explanations — jorndoe

I'm simply saying that science is no improvement on philosophy/religion when it comes to the big questions. I'm not criticizing science or saying it should be anything other than what it is.

I'm simply saying that science is no improvement on philosophy/religion when it comes to the big questions — EnPassant

And I'm saying your statement is nonsense because science is not used to address "the big questions" so it can't be even "no improvement" on them. That 's like saying: "Well finally that bachelor has stopped beating his wife." :roll:

And I'm saying your statement is nonsense because science is not used to address "the big questions" so it can't be even "no improvement" on them. That 's like saying: "Well finally that bachelor has stopped beating wife — 180 Proof

Well that's just semantics. In common parlance 'science' has a broader meaning and the word is used loosely.

Here's a headline: "Security Council meeting called to discuss Moscow's recent devastating attacks on the key port of Odesa immediately following its refusal to ..."

Now, we are not going to split hairs over what 'Moscow' means in this context.

1. consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.

It is moot whether these natural explanations are such. Each case would have to be discussed individually.
Often 'supernatural explanations' are very secondary to essential religious teaching.

2. inconsistency of world religions

Religion is a language that is meant to express spiritual truths.
As such it is subject to all kinds of distortions and mistranslations (not just literal).
But essential religious teaching is concerned with The Way or The Tao. There is a right way of being
and a wrong way.

3. weakness of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics

Debatable.

4. increasing diminishment of god

Unclear what this means. Human knowledge does not diminish God.

5. fact that religion runs in families

That can be true of atheism. Also, consider a spirit that desires to be born into a religious family (birds of the feather...)...

6. physical causes of everything we think of as the soul

Physical systems are associate with mind. Correlation is not necessarily causation.

7. complete failure of any sort of supernatural phenomenon to stand up to rigorous testing

Many would disagree. Besides, why would God submit to this?

8. slipperiness of religious and spiritual beliefs

Vague.

9. failure of religion to improve or clarify over time

True to an extent but that tells you more about human failure than anything else.
Even religion can become neglected, distorted.

10. complete lack of solid evidence for god's existence

Debatable. In fact that is the debate.

In my The World Religion book set there are 6 books and 1 book covering each

Buddhism
Catholic
Hindu
Islam
Judaism
Protestant

They all seem to have different God for their own religion. So there are too many Gods, and I don't know which God is the real God.

If you believed in Buddhism, you could become a God yourself, if you get the full nirvana and enlightenment after so many years of studies, meditations and prayers. I am not quite sure if you are upgraded to a Buddhist God, you could expect to get any divine privileges such as immortality, omnipotency , omnipresence, omniscience, or resurrection after death etc. If not, what's the point?

In the case of Hindu, there are many different Gods for different areas of work they do just like the Greek Gods in the Homeric times.

The rest has their own God and the holy scriptures, traditions and beliefs. So which God do you have to believe? Or do you have to believe them all, if one is religious?

Other options are, of course, don't believe them all (atheist), or keep open minded as an agnostic.