The reverse physico-theological argument in a world without evolution
In the SD
I wanted to ask, is our position on God through vision built on the basis of-
- Eliminating and negating competing options (e.g. the evolutionary process cannot serve as a sufficient justification). Then what remains is the stance on the unknown.
- Or the emphasis in the evidence is that since we must assume that we have implicit faith in a correlative factor, then we must say that it “knows” the entity. Or conversely, that the correlative factor has instilled in us the understanding of its existence (a “religious” God).
For example, one can think of an imaginary world in which the components of evolution – mutations and natural selection – do not occur, but rather we would discover a law that creates a person “directly” – as a kind of process of creating an embryo, only here the process would create people from the bowels of the earth. And it would take a very short amount of time to make observations and conclude that such a process exists in the world – 9 months. Or one can also think of an ancient land in which there were always beings who gave birth to each other without stopping (let’s leave aside whether this is a concrete infinity).
Would you still believe that a transcendental coordinating factor is needed for the world system, would you see in these cases as a sufficient factor? Is the emphasis in the evidence from your perspective the negation of competitors and therefore, specifically here, we must conclude that the coordinating factor is not in the world but outside it, or is the position on the factor that I can be informed with (an external, “personal” factor and it is unlikely that I would be informed with the process of creating the child from the earth and that it cares about my understanding)?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Certainly, but this is the usual physico-theological evidence. The opposite evidence works like a pincer; if you don't say that there is a component, then you will have a lack of justification for the system.
But the question is whether in a world with such a “direct” law, do you believe that only the first ray will remain in it, or even the second?
Do you mean the revelatory (theological) argument?
I don't see why any of this would be different in the world you described.
Indeed, I mean the theological revealing argument,
It would be different because when the ”ideal”natural law directly creates a coordinated person, let's say, as we can verify through observations, then seemingly we will no longer need an additional source of justification for being coordinated from the skeptical question that arises regarding the evolutionary process (you don't know what stage you are in terms of natural selection, perhaps in the stage of the extinct, or it is uncertain as you relate to it, for example, it takes care of developing survival but not necessarily the truth, it should not develop emotions and so on).
But if the emphasis in the argument is built on potential knowledge and with the acquaintance with the source of coordination, then it does not seem that such a direct process is sufficient as an entity that has the possibility of ensuring that we become acquainted with it (God) and indeed, empirically, many people believe in its existence or experience it.
Therefore, my question is whether it is a law of element 1.
Or a law of possibility 2. As presented in the question.
I don't understand. Do you mean that a person would be created whose conformity of thinking would never need justification? I can't imagine something like that. It's like asking if a person were born who was certain that there is a God, would that be sufficient evidence for him? An undefined question.
My argument is that if we could see that a person could develop from the ground and that from his point of view he is “coordinated”. And it is very reasonable to assume that we also evolved this way.
And my question is because our discovery is scientific, made using a synthetic a priori method. (A natural law that we conclude is coordinated).
Or do we need something that is more analytical, or even analytical-a posteriori. (Implicit belief in God).
In any case, do we reject evolution in the form of elementation because it is not appropriate. Or does it not belong as a source of justification. (We need a being that can instill in us knowledge of its existence).
I don't understand anything.
The question is because the laws of nature or observation are based on a posteriori claims.
When we ask what the source of justification for knowledge is, it seems strange to use these claims because the requirement for a source of justification is “prior” and a condition for knowledge, and therefore it seems that the justification must be a priori? And in any case, we must assume that there is an entity that instills these understandings of the world in us.
Or does such a form of justification finally seem advantageous to you?
(Even to those who perceive that the premises of scientific inference are based on a priori claims, but still do not believe so regarding a specific scientific theory).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
