DIO ESISTE? William Lane Craig (ITA/ENG). PARTE 2
Channel: Francis Metal
Date: 2021-08-22

This is why I made a distinction between how he argues about the existence of God and how he argues his evangelical Christian faith.



Regarding the further distinction I have made, within the problem of the existence of God, he proposes some arguments for the existence of God based on scientific knowledge, which by definition can be falsified.



Even if he does not formulate these arguments as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, which consists in saying "we do not know, therefore it was God", he is still a stopgap God, because new scientific knowledge could lead us to trash these arguments and move the gap to be plugged from another part.



I'll give you an example. When the ancient Greeks thought that Zeus caused the rain, a scientist could come and say that clouds cause rain, but then the believer in Zeus could very well say that Zeus pushes the clouds that cause rain, but then the scientist retorts by saying that Zeus blows the wind.



Here, Craig does not argue exactly like that, but he argues that the best explanation for what we currently know is God, but science, with progress, could very well do without it.



For example, he bases the Kalam cosmological argument on the standard model of the Big Bang, the problem is that it is a discussed model, new scientific knowledge could invalidate the standard model.



We don't know what science will discover in 100 years. Already today there are various models to try to explain the big bang in a different way, even if we do not have certainties.



Or the argument based on fine tuning is similarly problematic, I don't know if fine tuning really exists, but it is the current science that can lead us to believe that such a thing exists, maybe the science of the future will give us a better one. explanation.



Frank Turek would say these are statements of faith, but they are not, because we know that science is progressing and making new discoveries, so we can expect anything. It makes little sense to cheer for current models not to be falsified.



Other arguments, however, are not based on current scientific knowledge, but should be valid regardless.



One of those that blew my mind was the argument about why scientism is wrong.



It does not prove the existence of God, but it explains why it is wrong to believe that anything that can be explained is scientific.



That is, scientism is a philosophical and unscientific position, philosophy is not science, science cannot explain scientism, otherwise there would be a circularity.



Among other things, materialist ontology, the theory of what the scientific method would be, epistemology, the philosophy of science, for example the studies on falsificationism, the dividing line, etc ... are not science but are presuppositions philosophical to science.



In short, scientism is a self-contradictory theory.

#god #craig #religion #science #faith