> Christianity and Darwinism are generally opposed
That's not fair to Christianity. For example, the largest Christian group, the Catholic church, is in no way opposed to Darwinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
If you're religious, and you think science squeezes out God, you're just putting limitations on your all-powerful God by suggesting he's constrained by the world He created.
If you're a scientist, you're missing the starting point that God's the guy who (allegedly) programmed this world and so he's free to fudge whatever he likes, and apparently so far he likes to simulate a measurable ruleset — he's like a False on a proof tree, you can stick whatever you like under it.
I would be very interested to hear how a man like England would have defined or explained God.
It's definitely a good question, but I don't think it's as important of a question, because whether we think it's necessary for God to exist doesn't have any bearing on whether God exists. If God exists, it is so regardless of what we think.
Humans are finite, one might say "very finite" on the universal scale, so I don't think it makes sense to expect humans to be able to even answer such a question authoritatively. We get so many things wrong, and looking at human history, humans have been getting things wrong for a long time. Now we have science and computers and space programs, but on the universal scale, I think we haven't begun to scratch the surface--and if that is so, how could we even begin to answer the question of whether it's necessary for God to exist?
And there's always the question of what caused the universe to exist: whether one believes it was a Big Bang or anything else, what caused that event? How can we say whether it is necessary for God to exist to have caused it? What if "God" is simply whatever caused the universe to come into existence? One may not believe that the universe was created by God, but that leaves the question of the universe's origin unanswered; and having no answer for that question, it seems unreasonable to rule out the existence of God.
> I do not feel I have any reason to believe in God, especially as God is -- by any usual definition -- super natural.
Why do you rule out the possibility of a supernatural entity? How do you define supernatural, considering that what seems supernatural to humans has changed throughout history?
> I used to be pretty heavily religious as a kid, but just fell out of it over time.
May I ask, what did you used to believe then, about God, religion, etc?
> Why do you rule out the possibility
> of a supernatural entity?
> How do you define supernatural
> considering that what seems supernatural
> to humans has changed throughout history?
> what did you used to believe then
Now Russell may have advocated belief in only things which may be scientifically proven, but that argument itself bears a burden of proof. What if there exist things which cannot be proven scientifically? Science is a process invented and carried out by humans, who are finite and fallible--therefore science is as well. By one definition of "god," believing only in science effectively makes science one's god.
> Unconstrained by laws of nature
I agree with that definition.
> God -- as understood in the vast majority of cases -- is omnipotent. This requires no constraint by the laws of nature. That humans now understand how things work that they previously thought were supernatural doesn't help at all with any discussion of something that's by definition supernatural.
I mostly agree with you. My thought is this: phenomena exist which humans used to think were inexplicable, but later were discovered to have logical, reasonable explanations. Today a person might consider the concept of God and think, "That's supernatural and inexplicable, therefore it must not exist." But what if the logical, reasonable explanation is that it is supernatural: that it exists outside of our universe and is therefore unbound by its laws?
In other words, we're back to the fundamental question: why do you rule out the possibility of a supernatural entity? If your answer is because of the lack of scientific proof, then why do you only believe in that which may be scientifically proven? According to whom is science the sole determination of what exists?
Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
> Russell's Teapot [doesn't] rule
> out the possibility of a
> supernatural entity
I don't rule out the possibility of a supernatural entity. But I don't have any proof for one or even anything that suggests to me that one is likely, and therefore the simplest explanation is that there are no Gods.
> What if there exist things which
> cannot be proven scientifically?
> Science is a process invented and
> carried out by humans, who are
> finite and fallible--therefore science
> is as well.
> But what if the logical, reasonable
> explanation is that it is supernatural:
> that it exists outside of our universe
> and is therefore unbound by its laws?
> why do you rule out the possibility of
> a supernatural entity
Final question I suppose: since there is no answer for the question of the origin of the universe, why do you not consider that possible evidence for a supernatural entity?
In the US those are, for better or worse, the loudest voices.