Is logical reason the primary objection of the atheist to the existence of God? By this I mean, “Is the lack of objective evidence for God’s existence the foundation on which atheists rely for their conclusion that God does not exist?” Also, one would have to ask, “Does there exist objective evidence that disproves God’s existence on which atheists rely for their conclusion that God does not exist?”
Having been an atheist from the time I was a teenager until the age of thirty-one, I personally look back and think that my objections to God’s existence may have been more than a pure intellectual exercise. There was an emotional component to my objections that often blocked the unbiased pursuit of truth. Possibly, it was the need to be in control or to seek status as a “modern intellectual.”
Dinesh D’Souza, in an article titled “Halting the Hitchens Express,” posted on ToTheSource.com, points out that there are other reasons besides faulty logic to try to erase God from our thinking:
“From Darwin‘s own day, many people were drawn to his ideas not merely because they were well supported but also because they could be interpreted to undermine the traditional understanding of God. As biologist Julian Huxley, the grandson of Darwin‘s friend and ally Thomas Henry Huxley, put it, ‘The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous.’
“And from Julian’s brother Aldous Huxley, also a noted atheist, we have this revealing admission: ‘I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was…liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.’
“As the statements of the two Huxleys suggest, the reason many atheists are drawn to deny God, and especially the Christian God, is to avoid having to answer in the next life for their lack of moral restraint in this one. The Huxleys know that Christianity places human action under the shadow of divine scrutiny and accountability. Christianity is a religion of love and forgiveness, but this love and forgiveness are temporal and, in a sense, conditional. Christian forgiveness stops at the gates of hell, and hell is an essential part of the Christian scheme. The point here is not that atheists do more evil than others, but rather that atheism provides a hiding place for those who do not want to acknowledge and repent of their sins.”
D’Souza’s entire article may be read at ToTheSource.com. His conclusions draw us back to the explanation of man’s need to suppress the knowledge of God given by Paul in Romans:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” (Romans 1:18-25, ESV)
In an attempt to escape the reality of our accountability to an all-powerful Creator, we ineffectually hide behind the fig leaves of atheism. We are like small children who believe that because their eyes are shut and they cannot see – neither can they be seen. Therefore, even though “what can be known about God is plain to” us, we do not acknowledge Him because to do so requires our admission of responsibility to Him. So, we deny Him or we redesign and morph God into a more acceptable form and character who provides us with more flexibility concerning our moral behaviors. The later strategy is still a type of practical atheism only it is dressed with “religious” form.
Someone once said that, “The atheist can’t find God for the same reason that a thief can’t find a police officer.” The most frightfully relevant comment on this topic for our generation may come from the words of Nicolai Berdyaev: “We find the most terrible form of atheism, not in the militant and passionate struggle against the idea of God Himself, but in the practical atheism of everyday living, in indifference and torpor. We often encounter these forms of atheism among those who are formally Christians.”
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Samuel at Gilgal 
Do you have anything aside from “atheists are really Christians in denial”? You know, something that adresses those of us who are actually rational.
LikeLike
“The point here is not that atheists do more evil than others, but rather that atheism provides a hiding place for those who do not want to acknowledge and repent of their sins.”
Seems to me its more likely there is many religious folk that hide within religion hoping it will allow for repeated forgiveness for bad things they continue to do .
Most non believers just dont see and REAL evidence for god/s
!, God/s never reveal themselves
2, there is so many gods which one would you believe in ? some must be wrong .why chance being punished for following the wrong one
3, belief in god/s does not nesasarily = better people .Many non believers do not wish to become of bigotry
4,To a non believer blindfaith is of lack of scientific evidence , hearsay based from days of old when man also had faith that the world was flat .
Should we continue to believe the flat earth theory too ?
5,Faith does not = nice people
With thousands of religious faiths and beliefs its more likely many if not most faithful will be wrong .
Where as non believers are most likely to only be wrong about one thing .That is that there is a god/s
LikeLike
“Does there exist objective evidence that disproves God’s existence on which atheists rely for their conclusion that God does not exist?”
The above statement could just as easily been written:
“Does there exist objective evidence that proves God’s existence on which theists rely for their conclusion that God does exist?”
Why do we as atheists have to prove that god doesn’t exist and theists don’t have to prove that he does?
Theists believe their way is the only way and have only
suspect biblical scriptures and mythical stories to back up their beliefs. They also have faith to rely on, but, we know that faith in somethings does not always work out.
Prayers are little more than wishful thinking or just plain coincidence. If god actually exists he could show us all sorts of good things he could do, BUT.…….
LikeLike
Just because you don’t see any convincing evidence for the existence of God, that does not mean there is no God. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God’s existence, or at least supports his existence. Therefore, it is possible that God exists. If it is possible, then faith has its place. If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.)
You cannot say absolutely there is no evidence at all for God. Since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism. Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable? If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state that there is no evidence for God. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?
Does Christianity fit within that criteria? If not, why not? Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable? Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example: Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory? Even if that did happen, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic?
Do you want God to make square circles, or some other self-contradictory phenomena or make a rock so big He cannot pick it up? If God exists, the laws of logic would be a product of his nature since He is absolute, transcendent, and truth (logical absolutes are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent which reflect a logical, absolute, and transcendent mind). He did not create the laws of logic. We simply recognize them because God exists. Therefore, God cannot violate those laws because he would violate his own nature — which he cannot do. Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?
Objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can? Or do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur? If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God’s existence. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position. Do you define the miraculous out of existence? If so, on what basis do you do this? If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof. If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption. (see CARM.org)
LikeLike
Reading your post reminded me of this:
As for not knowing all evidence… yes, I’m not omnipotent. That you for reminding me of how crippled I am.
As it is an agnostic is
That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. [“Christianity and Agnosticism,” 1889]
So can I justify my postition? I don’t have to- the default view does not have to defend its positon!
It is also important to note that agnosticism deals with KNOWLEDGE. Atheism and theism deal with FAITH.
What kind of evidence would be acceptable? Read… D&D would do nicely. Or a better written fantasy actually. But, you know, having clerics actually gaining the power to heal people and work magic would be a big clue.
Or God could simply appear to everyone and answer questions. We wouldn’t think it was a hallucination if everyone on Earth say it and got the same message.
Basically something worthy of the word “miracle”. If he can make the universe, I see no reason why it would be difficult for God to do something this simple- heck, if he had a sense of humor he could replace the Sun with a giant Disco Ball or the Moon with the Death Star… scratch the second one- Shep would steal it.
Or he could do the things he claims to do in the bible. Part the seas, turn water into wine, nuke cities, etc.
As for logically impossibility… logic isn’t just rules you can violate if you are powerful enough. Logic is rules that you simply cannot violate. It doesn’t matter how powerful you are- you cannot make something both be a certain object and not be it at the same time (a and not a).
I don’t hold that against God- I hold that the definition itself is logically impossible.
Let us look at it from the viewpoint of God- after all, if he existed it would be the best, no?
For God, there are no miracles, no supernatural, no God. There is only reality and the effects he has on it. Everything that happens, happens because of the rules and laws of nature or due to his action. There is nothing that is unexplained to him and no more powerful being. Hence, God is an atheist, a materialist, an empericalist, a rationalist, etc.
As for CARM.org, yes I have seen it. Fortunately I was using class three filters for my computer. The doctors say there should be no permanent ill effects, but the intelligence will hurt as I recover.
Lets look at that argument… or not because these people have done it for me.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=125310
It is called “Impossible things happen, but people refuse to acknowledge”. Basically, how would a scientist react to something that seems to violate the laws of physics (miracles).
LikeLike
I just realized the video could be taken wrong- I’m not implying you are evil, but the line “lay down your arms unbelievers and bow down before the forces of Choas undivided” fits you pretty well.
LikeLike
An atheist has to hold to one of these two theories concerning the beginning of the world:
1) The earth popped into existence 14 billion years ago. It was simply uncaused; it just happened.
2) There was no beginning to the universe. The Big bang is rubbish and mere conjecture. Einstein was wrong about his theory, and most specifically when he spoke of the singularity that brought time, space, and matter into existence.
The first premise simply goes against the law of causality that states that if something has a beginning, then it has a cause. One would have to deny this scientific law in order to believe it!
The second would leave one rejecting the most influential and famous physicists that ever existed. One must understand that Einstein’s idea didn’t leave room for other “physical” things to exist prior to the Big Bang. All matter came into existence at that point. There was no space or matter before the event of the Big Bang. So if something did exist before the Big Bang, it must have had an existence that was different from ours; meaning that there were no people, stars, and even our gases before the Big Bang. There are two options: something spiritual existed, or nothing at all. The second option brings us back to the first.
LikeLike
Earth is 4.6 billion years old. The UNIVERSE is 14 billion.
Casality is NOT a scientific law!
And your “alternative” is hypocritical. Since nothing can exist without a cause, something had to exist before hand that was uncaused…
Let me spell it out explicatly.
1) Everything has a cause.
2) There was a beginning.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.
The problem is this applies to God as well- if he doesn’t need a cause, why does the universe?
Also, nice use of “spiritual”. I went to the dictionary and got this.
1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal 2 a: of or relating to sacred matters b: ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal 3: concerned with religious values4: related or joined in spirit 5 a: of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b: of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic
So apparently when you see it is “spiritual” you mean it is magic and can simply ignore the rules.
Would you like to declare now that the rules of logic don’t apply to God and admit that your belief is therefore completely irrational? Or do you want to wait until later?
As for answering the question as to how the universe began… I neither know or care- I want to know how it ends.
However, there are models where the universe is finite, but does NOT have a beginning- take it up with Hawkings if you don’t like it.
LikeLike
The latest data coming out of NASA assures us that at its origin point nearly 14 billion years ago “the universe expanded rapidly—growing from the size of a marble to billions of light years across—within the first trillionth of a second after its cataclysmic birth.” The most obvious question is, How do the people at NASA know this? In terms of science, they don’t. It’s a cosmic guess, a form of scientific metaphysics. Talk about a Big Bang makes some atheistic scientists uncomfortable. John Maddox, editor of Nature magazine for 20 years, wrote an editorial with the title “Down with the Big Bang” in which he described the theory as “philosophically unacceptable.” Maddox feared that the Big Bang theory, to use Michael Behe’s take on his views, had “extra scientific implications.” For Maddox, the Big Bang conjures up images of metaphysics that gives credence to creationist theories. Stephen Hawking, author of A Brief History of Time wrote, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”
For consistent atheists, invisible “things” do not exist, and yet they believe the universe was at one time almost invisible—“the size of a marble.” What about the stuff of the universe itself? “Normal matter, the stuff of people and planets, is only about 4% of the combined matter and energy in the universe.” What makes up the other 96% of the universe? “Dark matter, invisible and exotic physical particles, and dark energy, a gravity-defying force behind the continuing expansion of the universe, makes up the rest.” Ninety-six percent of the universe is invisible and defies gravity. Given materialist assumptions, how can this be?
In addition to not being able to deal with the metaphysical elements of origins, atheists have a problem accounting for the non-material aspects of ethics. In a nutshell, atheists believe in reason alone, in those things that can be arrived at through intellect and the scientific method. Concrete evidence for God, they argue, simply doesn’t exist. They don’t cotton to leaps of faith or anything that involves a supernatural being reaching into human lives. They believe you can live a happy, respectable life based on human ethics that were derived not from God handing down a tablet but from a code of rules that emerged naturally through an evolutionary process in which humans learned how to live together successfully.
What a loaded definition! There is no “happy” in an evolving universe of evolving values. Why should life be respected in a materialist-only cosmos? The “atheists believe in reason alone.” Where is the “concrete evidence for” the existence of reason? Please, is there a single atheist out there who can show me the physical reality of reason, the laws of logic, love, compassion, and respect? They do not exist in physical form. They are invisible concepts that derive their meaning from the Christian worldview. (see http://www.americanvision.org/garyblog/?p=9)
LikeLike
“For consistent atheists, invisible “things” do not exist, and yet they believe the universe was at one time almost invisible—“the size of a marble.””
Since when do we not believe in ‘invisible things’? I don’t remember getting that memo.
Atheists don’t believe things for which there is no good evidence. Very often, those things also happen to be invisible : god, imaginary friends, ghosts, Harry Potter when he has his cloak on, etc.
“Ninety-six percent of the universe is invisible and defies gravity. Given materialist assumptions, how can this be?”
Define ‘invisible’. Invisible to the naked eye? No problem. My question: is there evidence to back it up?
Defying gravity? What does ‘defying gravity’ mean? Stronger than? Is there evidence to back it up? If there is, awesome. If not, then no.
“What a loaded definition! There is no “happy” in an evolving universe of evolving values.”
Are you denying the existence of human emotions?
“They are invisible concepts that derive their meaning from the Christian worldview.”
Sure. And next you’ll tell us that Christians came up with “do not kill” all on their own too.
LikeLike
As I noted above, an atheist cannot logically make the claim that there is no proof that God exists. In order to state that there is no proof for God’s existence, you would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God’s existence. But, since you cannot know everything, you cannot logically state there is no proof for God’s existence.
You could state that of all the alleged proofs you have seen thus far, you don’t believe any of them. You might say you believe there are no proofs for God’s existence, but all this means is that there is still the possibility that there is proof that you have not encountered yet.
This still brings us back to the question of whether an atheist is able to accept proof for God – given that his presuppositions oppose the existence of God? The presuppositional base of several comments thus far is that there is no God. In order for these commentators to accept a proof for God’s existence; they would have to change their presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in your belief structure. Therefore, atheists are presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God’s existence and are less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs indicated above.
Now, let’s look at the problem this way. Someone above mentioned that all events have causes. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe was infinitely old. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not.
Since an infinite number of regressions of causes is impossible, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist. An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe. Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws. This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause.
We may refer to this uncaused cause as supernatural. By supernatural is meant completely ‘other’ than the universe and is not the product of it. This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence.
The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful. God’s existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning. This means that God is uncaused. Therefore, I believe the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” (Romans 1:18-21)
LikeLike
“In order to state that there is no proof for God’s existence, you would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God’s existence.”
Forgive me for being imprecise.
There is CURRENTLY no good evidence for the existence of any god.
If any comes along, I’ll be glad to believe. But until there is evidence, I remain an atheist. And that’s true of anything.
For example: black holes. There is presently enough evidence to say that black holes exist. Before that evidence existed, however, it was not correct to believe in black holes. It doesn’t matter that black holes did in fact exist…while there was no evidence, it was intellectually incorrect to believe in them.
The same is true of yours or any other god.
LikeLike
“There is CURRENTLY no good evidence for the existence of any god.”
Does this then mean that you are an agnostic rather than an atheist? The atheist says there absolutely is no God. The Agnostic says, “I see nothing to make me believe in God but I do not know absolutely there is not a God.” Do you see the difference? So, are you an atheist or an agnostic?
LikeLike
Your particular definition of ‘atheist’ says there is absolutely no god. I don’t fit your particular definition.
Atheism and agnosticism are responses to different questions.
Question: Does god exist?
Answer: I don’t know.
Result: Agnostic
Question: Do you believe god exists?
Answer: No.
Result: Atheist.
Do you see the difference?
I’m proudly both an atheist and an agnostic.
LikeLike
Hawking has a version of the Big Bang with no beginning an no divine intervention.
As for how they know- it is a theory. It is based on observable evidence and consistant with what we know about the universe.
How can most of the universe be differant than what we see? Very simple- we see so little. We live at the bottom of a gravity well, orbiting a star, with a narrow temperature variation, inside a galaxy. Most of the universe does not fit said criteria.
Than you pull the transendant argument. Plato, 2500 years ago, killed the morality part- see the Euthyphro dilemma. As for logic, you are aware it is emperically derived? It had to be invented!
And “drived from Christianity” ignores… everyone before 33 AD AND all other religions.
LikeLike
Assuming you believe that we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. Many maintain that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been.
What has science discovered about this question? The galaxies in the Milky Way are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.
What would happen if you could make time run backwards? Yesterday the galaxies were closer together. The day before that, they were still closer. If time continues to run backwards then ultimately all the galaxies would reach a “point.” This “point” is the beginning. Scientists call this a singularity. In 1999, it was discovered that the galaxies are accelerating in their expansion.
Our sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. In spite of its tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. All the stars convert hydrogen into helium and thus reduce the total amount of hydrogen in the universe. If everywhere in the universe hydrogen is being used up and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left? If the universe has always existed, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago. The sun, however, still has 98% of its original hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!
Consider the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Growing old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. Any assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong.
If we know the universe has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question–was the creation caused or was it not caused? If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.
In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. Therefore, matter and the universe had a beginning and we know that the beginning had to be caused. But, what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. We are not the product of blind forces. We are not accidents.
Scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called “the anthropic principle.” The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. The universe is the result of intelligence.
LikeLike
Thank you Sam- you restated the first cause argument. It is a logical argument- all the evidence does is show “the universe is finite” is a reasonable postulate.
The problem is, of course, that you have to maintain that everything must have a cuase. Except God. Which is excempt because you need a first cause. Why can’t the universe be exempt? You don’t say.
Given Occum’s Razor the correct answer is universe.
LikeLike
Astronomical observations indicate that the universe has not always existed but came into being apparently out of nothing. These observations match the teachings of the Bible that also indicate that God created the universe out of nothing (see Ps. 33:6; Heb. 11:3; Rev. 4:11). In addition, the fossil record which many evolutionists site as the strongest evidence for their theory is, in fact, one of its greatest weaknesses. While many extinct species can be seen in the fossil record, even evolutionists admit that there is little evidence of intermediately life forms. The fossil record has not supported the theory of evolution by providing evidence of gradual changes from one species to another. On the contrary, new species appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record. Far from disproving the existence of God, scientific discoveries have made belief in the existence of God more plausible.
The more science learns about the complexity and sophistication of creation the harder it is to believe that it all happened by chance. For example, science has discovered that one strand of DNA can carry the same amount of information as a volume of an encyclopedia. No one coming upon an encyclopedia volume in a forest would assume that random forces and elements had produced it by chance. Such a conclusion would be rejected as totally implausible. Yet, the atheists offer the same kind of implausible conclusion when they are confronted with the amount of information contained in one DNA molecule. Belief in the existence of God requires faith, but recent scientific discoveries have revealed that theism does not require as much faith as atheism.
LikeLike
(quoted from http://onscreen-scientist.com/)
“I would like to encourage any atheist that’s read this far to consider this one thing: whether or not God exists to give a purpose to the universe and our lives is the most important philosophical and personal question we have to answer correctly in our brief time of life. Were you raised an atheist or did you come, as I did, to atheism before reaching intellectual maturity? If so, then you may want to re-examine that step you took. Throughout history and into our own times there have been many “truly smart people,” who have recognized God’s existence, and their conclusions should not be dismissed out of hand. I’m speaking of scientifically literate people to whom the idea that God is a substitute for science applies not at all.
“The question of God’s existence deserves deep investigation and thought and not casual dismissal for lack of scientific “evidence,” when the very nature of such hypothetical conclusive evidence is never even postulated. Can you imagine what the scientific evidence for God would look like? If not then perhaps you are looking in the wrong direction and not seriously looking at all. If there is some single phenomenon in the world (the suffering of innocents, for example) that prevents your even considering God’s existence, try to put it aside for the time being.
“If the evidence you demand is something in the nature of a direct communication from God, then you are speaking of revelation, not sharable evidence. Keep in mind also that hostility to belief in God often becomes hostility to God. Are you truly open to revelation? The best way to become open to it must be through prayer, but few are the atheists who would start from that point. Only a miracle will satisfy you? Just remember that if God exists, you are not in a position relative to the Creator to set the terms of your enlightenment.
“Also, keep in mind that if God exists, then so does the spiritual realm; for God is not material. Thus a categorial dismissal of the spiritual right from the outset is already a renunciation of the inquiry. If we are spiritual creatures as well as material, then internal evidence may need to be considered also, even though it is not objective in the sense that you could guarantee the same experience to another under the same conditions.
“Evidence can be material or circumstantial. The law recognizes that circumstantial evidence can lead to certainty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Perhaps there is circumstantial evidence to be considered in the question of God’s existence? There is. A book that made a strong (decisive, really, coming when it did) impression on me was by John Polkinghorne (a theoretical physicist turned Anglican priest) entitled Belief in God in an Age of Science. It is of course written from a Christian standpoint, but the main arguments are for a Creator God without reference to scripture but only to the observable facts of the universe. Polkinghorne is a prime example of a “truly smart” theist. Of course, for an atheist to accept God’s existence requires him or her to drink long from the cup of humility, which comes with recognizing that oh so many “dumb” people have been correct on the most important question of existence all along.
“Will strong circumstantial evidence satisfy you? There’s no way to answer that question in advance. From my own experience I can say that becoming convinced intellectually can lead to an opening of the heart from which certainty comes. And, in my experience, the nature of that certainty is very different from and stronger than the anxious and despairing lack of hope I felt as an atheist. The recognition of God as the Creator is not the end of the journey, far from it. With that awesome recognition comes the exciting responsibility of figuring out what that means for one’s own life.
“My own evolution from atheist to theist took many years, and I was not consciously open on the question until near the end of that time. There’s no turning back the clock, but I feel very blessed that I didn’t die before I changed. I recommend to anyone at all open to the quest for God to try to become yet more open. If you are looking for Truth you are already on the right path.” (On the Breaking of Bad Habits Acquired in One’s Youth: Smoking and Atheism) or (http://onscreen-scientist.com/?p=28)
LikeLike
#17 “The problem is, of course, that you have to maintain that everything must have a cuase. Except God. Which is excempt because you need a first cause. Why can’t the universe be exempt? You don’t say.”
I have stated and restated why the universe cannot be exempt and why this requires a self-existent God in comments #7, #11, and #16. You have simply skipped over the arguments to your own assumptions.
LikeLike
So God gets to ignore the rules, but the universe doesn’t?
7)simply goes against the law of causality
11)Since an infinite number of regressions of causes is impossible, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist. An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe. Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws. This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause.
We may refer to this uncaused cause as supernatural. By supernatural is meant completely ‘other’ than the universe and is not the product of it. This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence.
16)In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. Therefore, matter and the universe had a beginning and we know that the beginning had to be caused. But, what was the cause?
These are the three sections you are refering to monsire?
Now, the first three argument an atheist has to deal with are the moral argument, the design argument and the first cause argument. So I am familiar with these. Let me demonstrate.
7 You declare that casulty is a universal law. That is false. In quantum mechanics there are events that are uncaused. For example, radioactive decay. Quantum mechanics covers situations with objects smaller than atoms and singularities- which the starting universe was.
11 Longer, but still managable. You make the crucial mistake of assuming the universe CANNOT be uncaused. Why? Did you look at the link on quantum entanglement? Things that are their own cause?
In addition, there is another problem- you declare the rules of logic are not universal. They don’t apply to God. IF they don’t apply to God, why should they apply to the universe? After all, even if all the objects in a set have on property, that is no reason to believe the set itself has that property.
You have no reason to believe the universe cannot be uncaused except things inside the universe can’t be uncaused. And as I have pointed out, that isn’t true.
16 Both of those laws belong to physics. And if the universe doesn’t have a beginning, but is finite (the model I back- I don’t understand it, but I back it) than they don’t apply.
LikeLike
The laws of logic are contingent on God. They are a reflection of the way God thinks. Thus, they cannot exist without Him any more than your reflection in a mirror can exist without you. Since God is a thinking being and since He has always existed, laws of logic have always reflected His thinking.
Laws of logic cannot exist in a materialistic, atheistic universe because laws of logic are not material. The laws of logic are a universal standard for reasoning, but how can an atheist have a (non-arbitrary) universal standard for anything? Atheists do believe in laws of logic, but they cannot justify the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws within their worldview. An unjustified belief is arbitrary, which is one form of irrationality.
The Christian believes in universal, immaterial, invariant entities because God is himself omnipresent, immaterial, and invariant. Moreover God has thoughts, and these thoughts are reflected in the way God upholds the universe. As one example, we see how the law of non-contradiction reflects God’s internal consistency: all truth is in God (Colossians 2:3), and God cannot deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13); therefore, all truth cannot be contradictory. The Christian worldview makes sense of the law of non-contradiction.
Second, the atheist cannot make sense of the laws of logic because there is no rational justification for universal, immaterial, invariant entities in an atheistic universe. In particular, those atheists who hold to a materialistic philosophy cannot make sense of laws of logic because laws of logic are not material.
Laws of logic reflect God’s thinking; God has always existed (and has always had thoughts); therefore, laws of logic have always existed. They are eternal, but nonetheless contingent upon God. (I.e., if God did not exist, there would be no thoughts to reflect.) It is impossible for God to think illogically because in the Christian worldview, logic is a description of the way God thinks. The believer has a universal standard of reasoning that makes sense within his own worldview. The atheist does not.
By reason and logic, we know the universe is finite. We also know it was “Caused” in the past. The depletion of energy (2nd law of Thermodynamics), the Radiation Echo, The Law of Relativity and the universe’s expansion all point to a finite universe.
In addition, the complexity of life requires, a First Cause, God to exist. Cell intricacy, infrastructure, DNA and cellular communications all defy laws of probability, logically demonstrating the need of an intelligent designer. Evolution, the alternative to intelligent design, is dependent on “accidental gene mutation”[1], which can logically be eliminated based on improbability. Logically, we can conclude the probability of God (The First Cause); outweighs His non-existence.
We may be able to see evidence of God’s existence and some of his attributes by using reason, but unless God chooses to reveal Himself, we will always be limited to our senses. If God created the Heavens with an expanse measuring more then 15 billion light years, and the smallest living thing, a cell, still beyond our understanding, it is only logical to assume our knowledge of God is limited to the extent of His revelation. If He made the eyes to see, and the ears to hear, it would be logical to conclude that unless He chooses us to know Him we could not.
If God revealed Himself, can we use logic find Him? Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Again, it would be logical to think the facts of reality correspond to God’s existence. Our understanding of God’s identity is dependent on God’s revelation of Himself.
LikeLike