Kelly Tripplehorn on his youtube video stated that no atheist scientist can assume that the events of the past should govern the future. It's apparently called 'the problem of induction'. He states however that because God told him that he made the universe uniformly in his 'word' the Bible he can make this assumption and therefore all Scientists should be Christians. I can identify several can you expose more weaknesses in his argument?
2007-07-17 00:12:53 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RPUCTQY3-3c
Nonsense indeed.
2007-07-17 00:17:37 · update #1
science leads to God - not away from God
2007-07-17 00:15:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 8⤋
Oh so many.
The problem of induction still holds even if you start out believing that there is an order to the universe. The problem is that, even if *we* see and order, it may not be the one that the universe actually obeys. The root of the problem is a question of how we know we got it right, not a matter of whether there is an order or not.
Next, it is simple enough to work on a hypothesis that there is an order and see if we can get explanations of the phenomena we see. The fact that we have, over the last 400 years, been able to get such explanations is, in itself, a test of our hypothesis. No assumption of the existence of a deity is needed.
Next, the existence or non-existence of a deity is not sufficient to resolve the problem. In fact, in Islamic philosophy, Allah literally re-creates the universe between every instant of time. According to this view, he has perfect ability to do *anything* he wishes, including breaking any apparent order that has previously been established. This stance has lead to the sciences not developing as much in Islamic societies (once it was adopted) because the idea that there is a necessary order is not there.
Next, how in the world do you get from a being that imposes order to a specifically Christian deity? There are many, many ideas about how God or Gods work, and the Christian view is far from being the only one that allows an ordered universe.
In fact, under Christianity, the existence of miracles exactly contradicts the concept of an established order that science can search for. In a world with true miracles, 'induction' flatly fails.
So the assumption of a Christian God is neither necessary nor sufficient for the resolution of the problem of induction.
2007-07-17 08:05:37 · answer #2 · answered by mathematician 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is bad science to say the Universe came about by itself because it is a basic scientific fact that you can't get something from nothing.
If the Universe began when a lump of tightly compressed matter suddenly exploded, that raises two questions. Where did the matter come? What caused the explosion?
Atheists ask, 'who created God?' assuming that God had beginning. They realise that everything must have had a beginning. Yet, they think that the Universe happend as a cosmic accident.
For every action, there's a reaction. So what was the Big Bang a reaction to?
I would disagree that scientists should be automatically be Christians, however I feel that they should not ignore the evidence and believe that an intelligent being created the Universe.
2007-07-17 07:45:46 · answer #3 · answered by Iron Serpent 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
God has never told Mr Tripplehorn anything. The bible was written by men, for the sole purpose of control over other men. To use the bible as any kind of historic or scientific journal is absurd and lacks any credibility. Mr Tripplehorn reliance on such as document indicates he is not much of a scientist.
2007-07-17 07:22:05 · answer #4 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Mr. Tripplehorn seems to think that vague assertions make good arguments. I can only suppose that he learned this in bible study.
If he has evidence that suggests -- for example -- that the universe is scheduled to stop expanding, or that species will cease to evolve, or that the smallpox virus has not actually been removed from the general population, then he should present same. Writing an article for scientific review would be a good place to start. YouTube has its limits.
2007-07-17 07:19:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
His argument is too circular to make much sense. The Bible says it's so, and it is. There's no place for that logic to go. It is derived from the believe that the Bible is "true" but the only thing to prove that the Bible is true is the Bible itself and any self-respecting scientist knows that you can't use something to prove it's own validity! The logic runs around in a circle, no beginning, no end. Always inconclusive, always at odds with everything else. A very weak argument, indeed.
2007-07-17 07:19:51 · answer #6 · answered by Avie 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Put a link to this video.
Edit:
"if one does not a assume the laws don't work uniformly, then modern science as we know it is impossible"
If we do not assume Christianity is the word of God then Christianity is impossible...
Why can't Christians make good arguments?
2007-07-17 07:16:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone has axioms, and assuming that the nature of reality doesn't change much is essential to most scientific pursuits. That doesn't stop scientists from speculating though, where necessary - e.g. Inflation theory (which says that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light shortly after the big bang, contravening current laws of physics).
2007-07-17 07:15:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The true scientific atheist claims that everything in this world can be explained by rough science. In this term science means known and unknown pieces of information.
The fact that we do not understand everything in the universe does not certainly mean, that there is a god somewhere who does. The classic example is lightning. It was magic and the wrath of Zeus in the ancient times, it is called science nowadays.
2007-07-20 13:00:56 · answer #9 · answered by leomcholwer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An assumption based on revelation that can not be independently verified by anyone else. Not scientific. Not even close to being believable. People have throughout history claimed a variety of contradictory revelations. Which are to be believed over others? I doubt them all. Throughout human history humans have been willing to lie to gain an advantage. Some may be mentally ill. Others may be misinterpreting what they are experiencing. No reason to give this much consideration. Evidence is required to make a believable, testable claim.
2007-07-17 07:18:34 · answer #10 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
He's hearing voices in his head. His logic amounts to "when I dropped the ball, it fell to the ground; therefore if I drop the ball again it will probably fall to the ground again." Based on this argument, using the phrase "should be" is ridiculous. Kelly T. sounds like another moron with leaky logic to support his position.
2007-07-17 07:23:26 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋