georgeob1 wrote: This is not far from Kant's supposed refutation.
Consciously so.
Quote: However, in this case I believe it is you who have indulged in sophistry, - "...invalid, as it proceeds from the undemonstrated, therefore illicit, premise that there be an ultimate cause or purpose both extrinsic and intrinsic in nature ...". Is this really so?
Yes, it is so; a premise not demonstrated is an illicit premise, an assumption, a conjecture. For there to be design, there must be a designer or designers; neither is it established there be designer or designers nor is established there be design.
Quote:There is a significant difference between 'cause' and 'purpose' and your assertion that the presupposition is "illicit" in relation to the origin of the universe (and ourselves) amounts to the bland acceptance of the Big Bang or quantum multiverses as satisfactory limiting points for science -- something that physicists and cosmologists don't generally accept.
My assertion does not amount to "acceptance" of the Big Bang
et al, it simply and straightforwardly declares the available evidence indicates a very, very high probability for that event, while acknowledging the limits of science as regards determining the causality and precursors of that event. At present, no better hypothesis exists, the math as we know it coupled with the observations as we perceive them, lead nowhere but to the Big Bang. There is dispute and discussion among some scientists concerning details and particulars, but that "something" happened some 13.7BYA, something from whence proceeded all we observe and experience, is not a matter of much dispute among legitimate, accredited, working, published physicists and cosmologists, practical or theoretical.
Quote:Indeed they recognize clearly that the singularities involved are a clear indication of a valid, as yet unanswered, question and an indicator of a profound limitation in our theoretical understanding of nature. Moreover there seems to be no getting past these issues.
Stipulated - and irrellevant; "Ultimate Origin" is not at present an avenue of inquiry for which science packs the gear. Science admits this freely, and simply doesn't go there. Assuming there is a "There" there, that "There" is the sole province of philosophy and theology, not of hard science, given the tools and resources currently available to hard science.
I will agree that assigning the requirement that there be a discernable (or comprehensible to human intelligence) purpose in the creation, does indeed involve the fallacy you note. However this itself does not constitute a proof that no such purpose exists, but merely prevents us from requiring one in advance, based on logic alone.[/quote]
Nowhere have I said no such proof exists, I point out only there is no evidence for or against the proposition, nothing at hand from which to formulate a proof in logical, forensically valid manner, one way or the other. Whichever way one attempts to argue the proposition, pro or con, one must proceed from an assumption, a conjecture, an undemonstrated premise.
Quote:The late Pope believed that this essential question is answered by mankind's spiritual loneliness and isolation in a world that is otherwise incomprehensible. He openly acknowledged this as an act of faith, but one that yielded practical benefits in sorting out the contradictions of life.
Perhaps the essential point here is that the "leap of faith" involves no bigger a jump than its alternatives.
Pontiffs by function are theologists, and it only is reasonable and consistent that a theologian would present a theologic argument. Its their job. An "Act of Faith", in the religious sense, may be executed only pursuant to and following, or at least contemporaneously with, a "Leap of Faith". I see no objective, forensically valid means by which to differentiate religious faith from superstition.
I simply do not know, and I won't take a guess. I prefer answers, and can accept that some questions are unanswered, and that some may be unanswerable.
