Moving Beyond the Natural Sciences (William R. Stoeger)

Moving Beyond the Natural Sciences - the Cosmological Limit, Philosphy and a 'Creator' (William R. Stoeger).
Lecture from the 2nd mini-series (Is "God" Explanatory) from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project. A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration.

[@patriklindholm7576]

The thought "I can conceive of something (desireable)" ought not and should not automatically have the follow up "I would very much like that to be" as that too often automatically follows one tries to live by what that desire requires as fulfillment, regardless how any which way one would have to perform to reach it. A supernaturality based fantasy ought to stay as such, not be overthought for the purpose of attempts on realizing the same.

[@miked412]

Good presentation and I like this style debate.

[@RonJohn63]

Call me foolish, but I started nodding off after two minutes.

[@redstonewhite9781]

I want to know more about critical realism by Stoeger

[@maxxwellbeing9449]

How it’s possible for intelligent, rational and logical people to believe in the impossibility of God. First you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God, the being actually exists. Then you must prove that this God created everything. The impossibility for the existence of God is staggering

[@farhadfaisal9410]

--- Retroduction or the method of conjecture, observation, confirmation/refutation, inference/new conjecture, ad infinitum, may expand the sphere of scientific knowledge indefinitely.

[@slik00silk84]

Fancy "God of the Gaps" talk. That's all......folks

[@Balstrome1]

I think the first question that never gets answered is to show that gods are possible. Until then everything else that is claimed about them is irrelevant, no matter how tasty the word salad is.

[@electricmanist]

The intelligent power within and without each and every atom throughout the universe, illustrates the very nature of God.

[@gricka31]

The appeal to natural theology after hitting the "cosmological limit" isn't valid. After defining cosmology as the act of understanding the universe, all of existence, both immediately observable and otherwise, in a way, and I assume any way, that gives us a satisfying model, the agent to which he is appealing is, by definition, not something that could ever constitute a logical model, nor ever be *available* to us. Otherwise it would be testable, and fall within our "scientific" remit.

[@johnrichardson7629]

I don't know why the religious even bother. Even if arguments for an uncaused cause or a designer were super solid, it says nothing about what that uncaused cause and/or designer's other traits, may be. So you aren't going to get to Yahweh or Brahma or Alfadur or whoever's existence you are trying to justify.

[@MultiCappie]

Why call yourself "a cosmologist who dabbles in philosophy" and not mention that you're an ordained Jesuit missionary? Do you think that might not be relevant to the discussion?

[@joyceclemons3916]

The value of this discussion: it tests the broadness of the shoulders of those who ascribe to any point on the continuum from"No God" to "Obviously God". The point is inquiry, not conclusion. The discussion in the video itself is hot and dense; not necessarily so on the commentary threads. Self-disclosure...it rather cracks me up that science and mathematics tells us about infinity, but naturalism refutes the potential content of infinity, while accepting the spontaneous appearance of energy, matter, gas, etc. But then again, who ought by necessity care about the finite ideas of a subset of scientists with limited concepts of design (a term used by Hawking) other than those who prefer control to freedom? Religionism is not belief, nor is naturalism true science.

[@joyceclemons3916]

Magnetism and polarity might be good illustrators of both the communion (or better collinear stance and repulsion between science and faith.

[@GrantLeeEdwards]

You, sir, are a retained attorney, & your claim to examine philosophic questions honestly & objectively is the emptiest affectation. Other than that, sure let’s hear from the Jesuit “philosopher.”

[@joyceclemons3916]

I would be bored to tears if God gave the whole disclosure up front. I wouldn't buy books that include a spoiler in the preface (is there even such a book?) Sean Carroll seemed to want that as a prerequisite to belief in God, If it doesn't make common sense to ask for that, how can it make wisdom? Informed imagination (in this discussion) indicates a less dogmatic view. Yes, scientism and naturalism are fraught with dogma, William R. Stoeger at least leaves some room for a broader scholarship.

[@joyceclemons3916]

Scientism and naturalism are just as vulnerable to paradigm paralysis as religionism is..Moreover, these three may be the best examples of paradigm paralysis.