Scientific Faith

It seems you forgot to mention what you meant by 'system' and why it is finite.

Sorry I thought it was implied that by system I meant the universe and it is finite because science tells us in order for their math to be correct it must be finite.

No, that's totally baseless and therefore, invalid.

No it's just based in the assumption that a divine being exists which is why it is faulty logic, it's like using the same word to define itself.

Except Big Bang is not a being or a 'force', but a theory which deals with energy, formation of regular matter etc. as opposed to 'static universe' idea.

Did I ever say Big Bang Theory? No, I said Big Bang referring to the incredible force of all matter coming into existence from nothing.

Yet it's too weak and therefore, invalid, to be a proof of anything.

Weak arguements are not invalid. They just don't hold as much proof as strong arguements.

There's no need for a first mover if everything is in motion.

But there is a point in time when said objects were not in motion, therefore a first mover is necessary. If you disregard Big Bang Theory though, I won't press this matter on you.

"and there can't be an infinite series of causes" - says who? That would mean that there's no need for a first cause so there's no need for God.

Because in order to have infinite causes it would mean that an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed so that all of these causes could come into being, as time is not infinite there cannot be infinite causes.

If you burn a sheet of paper it ceases to exist as sheet of paper, yet that doesnt mean it turns into emptiness.

Aha, but the paper did not exist before it was turned into paper.

This argument is not invalid, as some say, it's just not functional. God is supposed to be unlimited so you can limit him to a concept like "the greatest" which basically states that "God is limited to His greatness". Of course you could say that "God is limited to His greatness which is unlimited". Note that I did not used "infinite".

I think that that is basically what that statement is saying. Of course I would counter that because the concept of God is contained in differing states of "greatness" I would say that smallness is the absence of God's greatness, so an unlimited smallness would be the total absence of God.

Humans are maybe a good counterxample since in many situations they seem to act without a purpose.

Notice my correction

that's something yet to be proved. It's basically the axiom of ID so it can't be used to explain the ID. The logic used here is circular so it's not functional.

Agreed circular reasoning is poor logic for proving a point, but still valid, since I can say the ball is red because it's red. The ball will never be blue even if I can't explain why it's not.

And, btw, the scientists don't function under any kind of faith and they certainly do not think of the scientific method as being flawless. They merely use methods that are adequate to prove something.

So your telling me if I told a biologist that there is no hard evidence that life can come about naturally from non-living matter that he'd argree that his theories about the origin of life may be flawed? I doubt it instead he would talk about the "water bubbles" created in laboratories or how the organic soup of the early earth "magically" combined in a thunderstorm to create life. And then he would say that this was "proof" his theories weren't flawed.

And I'll be damned if I believe scientists don't operate under a faith in their methods. They have their entire careers, their livelihoods staked on their ideas, and if they even act like they're turning back on their own theories, then they could lose funding for their research.

A great scientist once said "The only thing that can be proven is that something is wrong" - or words to that effect. I think thats' what Paul's interesting little speech is supposed to be getting it. You can't ultimatley proove anything - all scientific proof is essentially theory that seems to work. If some wonderful discovery were made (things like they are finding in CERN, but don't ask me because I'm terrible at science!), then it could shake the foundations of our current "theory". Everything is theory and there is no solid base for belief in anything. It's like with Metaphysics - there is no solid definition within that branch of philosophy because everything can be interpreted in an equally valid and equally logical way and still come out differently.

Aha, but the paper did not exist before it was turned into paper.

Yes - I see now. Metaphysics was never my strong point in reading philosophy. As to if I exist - that's one fact that I do agree with - "Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think therefore I am) must be true because I can answer that question in the first place. I don't much like Descartes - he was very much of his own time and much of his stuff is outdated but that quote and some of the theories behind it are good. You explain the point very well, Ovidius!