Sacerdotus: No evidence for God, so God: II. Part

1. The lack of evidence is not proof

“The lack of evidence is not mentioned in discussions about the existence of God and highlights the critical distinction. Neptune was not found in 1846. It was not a direct evidence of his existence. Scientists killed the existence of Neptune Before seeing through. Also, the lack of “proof” for God does not deny the possibility or likelihood of a transcendent option.

Philosophically, this principle applies to metaphysical questions. God, as understood in traditional traditions, is not dependent on the laboratory tests. Hoping non-material empirical evidence, like a microscope perceive love or a telescope to observe justice. These are category errors. Instead, we need to consider whether there are rational reasons beyond empirical science to infer the existence of God.

2. Beyond empirism: Knowing other ways

Empirism, though strong, is not the only way to truth. The original message has noted that science cannot address the last target or meaning questions. Here, we spread this by exploring a few valid knowledge:

• Reason and logic: Philosophical arguments for God, such as cosmological, teleologic and ontological arguments, based on deductive and inductive reasoning than sensory data. For example, the existence and contingencies of the universe requires non-contingent cause, it requires an unsaid cause. These arguments do not give “proof” in the scientific sense, but they offer consistent and rational reasons for belief.

• Moral intuition: Most people, whatever culture or ages, shares the sense of objective morality, as some actions, as they torturing innocents, are universally wrong. God’s moral argument suggests that objective moral values ​​and obligations are explained by a legal moral. Without a transcendent source, morality risks become subjective, for cultural priorities or evolutionary instinctions.

• Personal experience. These experiences, accused of cultures and centuries, cannot be discarded as a failed delusion without evidence. As the philosophers of William Alston is argued, religious experiences have an epistemic value similar to sensory experiences, as long as they are consistent and consistent.

These non-empirical envys offer a more complete image of reality. The exclusion of the favor of a spectacular world material is arbitrarily limited by man’s consultation.

3. Positive case: clues that God points to

Instead of criticizing “evidence” claims, let’s think positive reasons to infer the existence of God. The universe itself offers wonderful attention:

• Well tuning the universe: Physical constants regulating the universe, for example, in addition to the strength or cosmological constant of gravity, calibly calibrates to allow life. Physicist Paul Davies stated that the probabilities of these constants are lined with chance. The argument of fine adaptation suggests that a smart smart design explains better than a random option than a random option or unguverge.

• The origin of the universe: Big Bang Theory, according to the cosmic radiation and reddish radiation of the microwave, is a finite beginning of the universe 13.8 billion years ago. This raises the question: What has affected the universe? It is timeless, immaterial and incredibly strong, consistent with the concept of God, provides a compelling explanation.

• Awareness and human mind: The creation of consciousness remains the mystery of science. Materialistic explanations are struggling with a subjective experience, free will and ability to abstract thinking. The teistical spheres propose that consciousness reflects a design goal with humans created by humans in the “picture of” a conscious and rational god.

These clues do not have the empirical sense of “proof”, but they form a cumulative case of theism. Like the pieces of a puzzle, they suggest the proper intelligence behind reality.

4. Anti-atheism borders

Atheists often respond to the teistical arguments by claiming naturalism, a vision that natural processes can explain. However, naturalism has its challenges:

• The problem of the final explanation: Naturalism assumes that the universe explains himself, but nothing is done to answer why it is. Although the teistical explanations do not empirically verifiable, they respond metaphysically respond: The necessary reasons (God) exist.

• Multiverse hypothesis: For fine adjustment, some atheists propose a multisone: infinite universe with different constants. However, Multiversus remains speculative, without empirical evidence. Ironically, the teist needs the same kind of criticism of faith.

• Self-failure of scientists: The effort that only science can give himself weakens himself. The expression of “Empirical evidence is valid only” is not self-verifiable. Scientific is therefore philosophical attitude, not scientific, and cannot ignore metaphysical claims without engaging in their conditions.

5. Faith and reason in the conversation

The discussion of the existence of God is not a zero-sum game. He does not believe in God must not abandon, nor does the skepticism does not need to reject faith. The Catholic Intellectual Traditions, for example, has long resisted that faith and reasons are supplement. As he wrote like St. John Paul II, “faith and reason are like two winges that rise to the contemplation of the human spirit”.

For those who demand empirical evidence of God, the challenge is to recognize the limits of this demand. As for the letters, the task is to articulate the reasoned case that takes the heart and mind. After all, the questions of the existence of God invites humbility to recognize that our fine intelligence completely infinite.

Conclusion

“No evidence of God, so God does not” supervise a deep question. The boundaries of empirical science abandon the validity of empirical knowledge and the accumulated box of theism drawn from the reason, experience and the universe. You absolute evidence of God, tuning in clues, the origin of the universe, the moral awareness and intuition, in front of the intelligent design. Than closing the conversation, not having definitive evidence invites us to explore deeper, to be boldly reasoned and open to transcendent.

What do you think? Does the lack of empirical evidence of God solve a question, or there are other paths of truth worth exploring? Share your thoughts below!

---