Wow, I am glad I read this, it cleared up some confusion I had in the last dialog.
One thing Dave said that confused me:
"both theist and atheist can utilize science as we know it to determine that the Big Bang makes it just as rational and plausible to believe in God as to not do so"
How can the atheist make a case God doesnt exist if the Big Bang transcends science? At that point the atheist has nothing to appeal to.
Not sure what you mean. Could you rephrase that?
Hey guys,
Nick said, "How can the atheist make a case God doesnt exist if the Big Bang transcends science? At that point the atheist has nothing to appeal to."
From my own experience, atheists generally claim that science deals only with what happened after the Big Bang, and I think there is some validity in that. When we talk about the origin itself of the universe, the question becomes strictly philosophical in nature.
In other words, I think Nick is making a case that science can only deal with what is empirically observable, in which case science cannot investigate any transcendent cause of the universe (given such a cause is beyond empiricism).
The problem I see with limiting investigation to empiricism is that it ultimately becomes self-defeating. Consider the following claim: "All truth statements must be empirically observable." Notice that this statement itself is not empirically observable. The atheist (if he is a logical positivist) is in a bind at this point, since he remain consistent with his own first principles. A rejection of metaphysics on the basis of strong empiricism results in the atheist borrowing a page from the metaphysician!
The second to last sentence should read: "The atheist (if he is a logical positivist) is in a bind at this point, since he cannot remain consistent with his own first principles."
I think Doug explained it best. If the atheist says he wont believe unless it can be shown scientifically, yet science cant explain the big bang, then how does the atheist respond?
The fundamental theory of "conservation of energy" says matter cant be created (or destroyed), yet that is exactly what had to occur at the big bang.
My main point with the Big Bang thing was to note that the atheist case at best is no better than the theist case when discussing the Big Bang. So my method would be to say, "okay, so you wanna do 'science alone'? Then what caused the Big Bang?" Then I go on to show that our view is every bit as explanatory and satisfactory (again, at the very least) as anything they can come up with.
Dave said, "So my method would be to say, "okay, so you wanna do 'science alone'? Then what caused the Big Bang?""
Exactly. "Sola Scientia," if you will. 
Dave,
And your "method" brought to my mind an article I had read a while back about Dr. Hugh Ross and a massive paradigm shift among many astrophysicists in the 90s after some discovery or other having to do with observing radiation from a BB type event. Do you remember this?
Nice discussion in re: presuppositionalism, by the way. I look forward to future installments. Thanks for all you do, God bless!
Hi Mike,
I don't recall that particular scientific development, no.
Thanks for your kind words and you are most welcome. God bless!
Hello all.
I am travelling at the moment, but I am greatly encouraged by the breadth of common ground we have been able to find. Of course, I'll probably go blow it all in my conclusion & start another schism.
Oh well.
Peace,
Great, John. Enjoy your travels (be they for work or pleasure).
Commenting by HaloScan
