Does God exist?

[puritan lad]

And your position arbitrarily elevates the creations of humans and humans themselves above the rest of the universe. A computer exists because a human created it. Applying this evenly across the naturalistic universe you could also say "The planets exist because of the stardust that created them" and the statement is essentially the same thing. The random movement of stardust is the creator, and bears -no- difference from the human as it is equally as worthless in value.

This is, once again, the "pretended neutrality" fallacy. One need not apologize for elevating humans above the rest of the created order provided that their worldview can justify doing so. If we start with the Christian worldview, it make sense. If we don't, then we need to be able to justify the ability of the human mind to function in any valuable sense. But we will start with either one or the other. Remember, narrowly circular arguments are not logical fallacies, since all arguments are circular at the metaphysical level. We need a starting point, and naturalism simply fails to provide one. The area of knowledge is only one of many examples.

But I do believe a lot of off base assertions can be made about a naturalisitc universe in an attempt to discredit it, that do not necessarily logically follow.

First, I will need to see what doesn't logically follow. I have proven my first premise by modus tollens, a valid form of logical argumentation (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens). Where is the flaw?

Second, one cannot even rightly appeal to laws of logic in an atheistic universe. Laws are, by nature, unchanging and universal, and a naturalist cannot justify or account for any sort of universal, invariant entity. So even by appealing to laws of logic, we show that we know God, and are least aware of His Providence.

As such, Christianity is the "default" worldview, and it is unbelief that is on trial. Until the naturalist can justify knowledge, logic, uniformity of nature, intelligible experience, human dignity, ethics, free thought, etc., he has no basis for even forming an argument.

[Gman]

In other words....

Question: Please prove the existence of God through purely scientific means. Why? Because it's only through observation or methodological naturalism that we can understand truth.

Answer: Not true... Sorry folks, but we can't discuss philosophy right now because that is all methodological naturalism really is.

[puritan lad]

Correct. Before we can even do science, we have to make certain assumptions about the state of affairs that a naturalist has no right to make.

Because it's only through observation or methodological naturalism that we can understand truth.

And if this statement is true, I would need to see the obsevation and naturalistic method that supports it.

[Gman]

And if this statement is true, I would need to see the obsevation and naturalistic method that supports it.

I don't see how you are going to divorce philosophy from science... Becuase before scientific experiments philosophy determines the rules of science AND after the experiments philosophy determines interpretation of data.

[Canuckster1127]

It depends upon the level that you look at it. It the context of the scientific methods when applied to physical nature, the method itself is sufficient as a foundation to observe and determine physical law or theory (and scientifically "theory" is much more substantive in that use of the word than it typically is outside of pure physical science.) There is sufficent long term evidence and sufficient evidence to give creedence to the method itself in the narrow scope of the observable (in real time) physical realm.

What happens however, is that those who take methodological naturalism to a philosophical level, often make the connection that on a philosophical level the scientific method is self-evident and needs no further framework or underlying assumptions. THings that cannot be observed in real time are extrapolated out to draw conclusions which may be true but which have to make underlying assumptions as to the nature of things and their assumed constancy. Beyond that, many even make further assumptions and apply the method and underlying framework of science (which has to assume only measurable, physical elements) to arrive back circularly (in quite the same manner that they accuse theistic frameworks) to a conclusion that only that which is material, physical and measurable is "real."

[puritan lad]

Even the ability to observe the natural world and conclude that this observation has any connection to reality requires a philosophical presupposition. There are many religions in the East that would not allow for this conclusion. I'm of the opinion that the modern tendency to try to separate the "natural" world from the "supernatural" world has led to a flawed mindset in Christian apologetics. The Bible makes no such distinction. It is simply God's world, and it is He who rules and sustains both the armies of heaven and the inhabitants of earth (Daniel 4:35).

Now the "natural" (carnal) mindset is another matter. It is this which needs to be put on trial.

[Gman]

Even the ability to observe the natural world and conclude that this observation has any connection to reality requires a philosophical presupposition.

Yes that is how I understand it too.. From the get go. While we can advocate that science itself is neutral to bias, which may be the case in terminology, that still won't stop humans from introducing their own presuppositions into it. Especially when we start talking about origins.

I don't think it's possible to divorce it..

[Canuckster1127]

Even the ability to observe the natural world and conclude that this observation has any connection to reality requires a philosophical presupposition. There are many religions in the East that would not allow for this conclusion. I'm of the opinion that the modern tendency to try to separate the "natural" world from the "supernatural" world has led to a flawed mindset in Christian apologetics. The Bible makes no such distinction. It is simply God's world, and it is He who rules and sustains both the armies of heaven and the inhabitants of earth (Daniel 4:35).

Now the "natural" (carnal) mindset is another matter. It is this which needs to be put on trial.

I understand what you are saying. However, it doesn't change the observation that there is a differentiation between natural and supernatural in terms of science as a tool to observe and measure. In that context it does indeed serve as a means to differentiate science as a method of observation verses the extention of the scientific method out beyond the scope of the natural to a philosophy which then denies the supernatural because it circles back upon itself.

As you've noted, circularity doesn't necessarily negate something just because it is circular. Epistemology underlies all systems in the end. The question is which in the end represents reality accurately.

Noting that there are Eastern systems of though that would question that is certainly true, but that doesn't make them any more relevant or valid in that observation.

[jlay]

Your example with Mt. Rushmore is flawed because I would never make the claim that erosion did it, even in a naturalistic universe.

But you are. You see the design carved into the rock and therefore you wouldn't make the claim that erosion did it. You know there was a mind involved. You don't need to see scientific proof. Yet you are saying the earth, which requires more finely tuned attributes that we can list, was 'created' by stardust. First it is the fallacy of reification. You are ascribing intelligent qualities where they do not belong. Stardust does not 'create' anything, nor has it ever been observed to. Mt. Rushmore is just rock, yet you see the design in the human features. Yet, you see an actual human face, and you conclude, stardust. Sorry, but it seems to me that you are making a claim that is much more problematic than the one you say you would never make.

[Gman]

I believe we are judging the existence of God from the atheistic persupstion.. Regardless, your presumptions will always follow your observation. Even in forensics.

Science is neither atheism or creationism. It's just science... However, that won't stop people from inserting their philosophy into their view and then call it the "dominant" science.. We forget that atheism and creationism are BOTH faith based belief systems. Both require miracles and both require micro-evolution for their bases which can be traced. Therefore we have a standstill on scientific merits.

[puritan lad]

Science is not truth. Science is a tool. It is a useful tool, and can tell us alot about God's Creation. However, science only makes sense in a Christian worldview. In an atheistic world, science is next to useless, being only able to provide us with two things:

1.) Subjective Definitions (with no explanatory power).

2.) Matters of observation (with no reason to believe that what we observe has any connection to reality).

In atheism, there can be no way to justify the uniformity of nature, thus no way to establish universal and unchanging laws. Science, in such a worldview, cannot even explain the simplest things, like a ball falling to earth. ("Gravity" is not an explanation. It's the very thing that needs explaining.)

It's a little more complicated than the knowledge argument, but it can be proven that God is the precondition of science as well.

[oreja80]

Now you have another hole, step three. Why can't knowledge be justified in a godless universe?

No holes here. This is Rock Solid. However, since you have already told us that...

Hi, I've been reading this topic in particular and I've read some particularly about this proving bit, which has attracted my attention. I am sorry to say I'm a bit lost, and if it is not too much trouble now that the discussion has progressed further, could I ask for clarification?

The TAG states "If there is no god, knowledge is not possible." Questioning of this has resulted in a further argument that states "Knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe." How is that so? I think I've read the whole thread, and I can't seem to find a place where this is explained, probably out of my own thickness