Evidence for God from Science

Jad wrote:

J.L. Jameson wrote:I am wondering if any of you believe that you can prove that God exists using only logic and reason?

The title of your thread here is called Can you prove God exists only using logic? However inside the first post you are not asking if one can prove God's existence using logic on it's own, you are asking if one can prove that God exists using only logic AND reason. There is a big difference here.

As everyone has correctly pointed out already logic cannot prove or disprove anything, on it's own. Add reason to your logic and you get a difference story.

1) All Irish people have pink tails
2) Jameson and Jad are Irish, therefore
3) Jameson and Jad have pink tails

Just quickly the above statement is completely logical but it's not actually true, obviously. It is logical only because the conclusion (3) follows the first two statements logically but in reality there is no such thing as human people with pink tails. That is where reason comes in. Reason gives us actual material truth about reality.

Reason... and perhaps experiences? Yet, if these form the foundations then how do you prove your reasoning and experiences are true without becoming circular?

I see at some time we have to say enough of the extreme rationalist position that we can have iron-clad certainty via a logical argumentative manner. At some point we just accept things because they are most obvious and it seems ridiculous to believe otherwise. We do not accept such things because they have been proven, but simply because they present themselves to us as the most basic and obvious truths which seem to make coherent many other things in life.

To a great extent my acceptance of God being true is more because of this. Logic and reason (apologetics) is just something which helps complete the picture for me, as it should, to reassure me that my belief in God is rational and coherent and therefore worthy of acceptance.

Kurieuo wrote:Reason... and perhaps experiences? Yet, if these form the foundations then how do you prove your reasoning and experiences are true without becoming circular?

By using the laws of non-contradiction I would hope no cause of circular reasoning could possibly occur.

My main point is that using logic on it's own is fruitless. If one could define or explain beliefs like that then there is no difference believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster let alone the God of the Bible. When I speak of reason I think something like experience is counterpart. Without experience there is no way one could reason yes? Logic deals only with abstract possibility where reason gives us actual truth about reality. We have to experience reality, well last I checked anyway.

If what you mean is that no human has full knowledge so while in this world we cannot know anything really then sorry I went down the wrong rabbit hole. I'm basically coming from what we know by experience. From what science has taught us with efficient causes and the philosophical laws of non-contradiction I believe the plausibility of the existence of God is far greater than any kind of non-theism or atheism. Like Norman Geisler wrote 'I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.'

Prove the existence of God.

Okay, no problem.

There is a simple proof that not everything is the product of irrational causes. The outline of it reads as follows:

1) Assume everything is the product of irrational causes.
2) Thus, humans are the product of irrational causes.
3) Everything humans make, therefore, are the products of irrational causes.
4) This results in a contradiction (humans are rational beings, so their thoughts and actions are rational causes).

Building on this proof, we can see that everything must have a rational cause.

1) Assume rational causes are brought about by irrational causes.
2) Irrational causes bring about irrational products.
3) This results in a contradiction (Rational causes are, well, rational. Thus, they cannot result from irrational causes).

In conclusion, we know that there are rational causes (the thoughts and actions of humans). Therefore, there must be a first rational cause because irrational causes cannot bring about rational causes. Furthermore, the first rational cause must be uncaused, for this same reason (and to avoid infinite regression). Rational causes are called "rational" precisely because they are brought about through reason. A pre-existent, eternal, etc. "reasoning" must be behind the first rational cause. We call that which is capable of reason "sentient," and we call that which is sentient a "person," "thinking-being," or other such name. The Reasoning, Sentient Being behind the first cause (or rather, Who is the first cause), is known to us as "God." As we can see from above, God must exist. This completes the proof.

To deny this proof, you must admit that there is no such thing as rational causes. Thus, all the thoughts and actions of humans are irrational. We are therefore non-reasoning creatures who only think we are reasoning...or reason itself is irrational.

However, I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as irrational causes (everything is the result of rational causes, even that which is seemingly irrational). We call certain things "irrational" because to us, at least, these things do not appear to connect or fit in with other things we feel they should fit in with. For instance, we might call evil "irrational," but evil itself arises from free will, which is the cornerstone of rationality (I think evil results when someone makes a rational decision, but based on faulty or incomplete knowledge. Refer to the story about Adam and Eve, or just open a newspaper to see this in action. We must trust in the ultimate Reasoning Being to make up for deficits in our limited reasoning abilities).

Jad wrote:

J.L. Jameson wrote: In this sense (of logic AND reason) I believe the existence of God can be proven. In the case of logic on it's own, people with pink tails cannot be proven and neither can God Himself.
-

But isnt proven maybe bit of a strong word? dont think it can be. the only proof is that if He showed Himself to us directly. Then we'd know it's not just His Word or something where there is a tiny possibility it has been made up. Even then it could be an illusion or something.
Or can we use reason and no logic? is there such a possibility?

But i think that if we ask Him to for example give us signs that He exists He'll do it sooner or later - or wont't He? Now the question is how do we know that if we ask for such signs they are really from Him and are not just plain illusion? and is it all right to ask God to do so?

I like it SaintGeorge. It reminds me of the argument for Moral absolutes. Or one ring to rule them all one might say.

madscientist wrote:

Jad wrote:

J.L. Jameson wrote: In this sense (of logic AND reason) I believe the existence of God can be proven. In the case of logic on it's own, people with pink tails cannot be proven and neither can God Himself.
-

But isnt proven maybe bit of a strong word? dont think it can be. the only proof is that if He showed Himself to us directly.

I think He showed Himself to us directly through Jesus Christ. There is sufficient evidence (proof) for the physical existence of Jesus.

madscientist wrote:Then we'd know it's not just His Word or something where there is a tiny possibility it has been made up. Even then it could be an illusion or something.
Or can we use reason and no logic? is there such a possibility?

That's a good question. I think reason needs logic just as much as logic needs reason; especially to prove something. Concerning illusion I think if you go down that path then you could say anything is an illusion, even one's self. The problem with that is that in denying my own existence I catch myself existing in the same sentence.
And if everything really is just an illusion then we are all in it together, and therefore it is our reality.

madscientist wrote:But i think that if we ask Him to for example give us signs that He exists He'll do it sooner or later - or wont't He? Now the question is how do we know that if we ask for such signs they are really from Him and are not just plain illusion? and is it all right to ask God to do so?

Everyone thinks differently and each person comes to find God in their own personal way. When I listen to the testimonies of great apologists like Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler for example, they claim to have found God through logic and reason. The supposed leap of faith then I believe is no leap at all. But not everyone thinks like Geisler or Zacharias. I think you are correct in that if we ask God to give us signs that He exists He'll do so. Knowing whether or not it is God showing you or just a plain illusion is I think something that can be determined using logic and reason. I think this applies for both the atheist and also the doubting Thomas that is in us all.
We must seek God by what the Bible says about Him, not by what we thing God is ourselves. Below is a great blog post I copied off an atheist website that I thought was just plain wonderful...

"What I find ignorant and perhaps at times quite arrogant are humanistic comments/reasoning for the existence or non-existence of God. These comments can come from those who claim religion and those who claim an atheistic approach. When I hear of the amounts of time for both camps trying to prove their position based upon their own reasoning, it astounds me. What astounds me is that persons from both sides do not with earnestness seek God for who God is by the very definition of God but rather run shipwreck by basically arguing to God who God is not because of our own biased perceptions. To help clarify - When mortals lower the power and awesomeness of God to what they think God should have and be - they by default will never find God unless God intervenes. It is quite sad that lives full of proclaiming God or denying God is spent on the erroneous outset for lowering who God is when by definition God in God's fullest of power is beyond our mortal understanding. Amazing, we try to say that God does not exist when God by definition is beyond what we think God is or should be. No wonder why man does not find God. Those who claim feelings for religion and do not understand that God is a God of great order and great knowledge, worlds of greatest ignorance come through these doors.

To say I will not seek God in the manner that God decrees because I don't think God is - what pompousness and arrogance. This in essence is to say that God does not exist in the grossest of biasness because I have not found God according to how I think God is. Have you fallen on your face day after day and cried out with all your being for God to show God to you and that you would, according to God's decree, serve God with all your being? We can argue all that we want with the amount of our own knowledge but by default - it doesn't measure a drop in the proverbial bucket in comparison to the amount of water in the ocean. It's a very unstable platform to stand upon to declare, I don't see God unless you are falling on your knees daily to find who God is. A humble heart, I imagine will find God but one with pride whether filled with religiosity or atheism will not. If God exists, and I think that God does, I would rather be night and day crying out to God - who are you and how may I be acceptable in your sight?

I think the Bible is right - “humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord” and this by the dictates of God and not you or me or what we think God should be. If it is left to man - all is right in our own eyes but true wisdom says better - seek God as God is to be sought. If you have not done this until the day of your death - what an arrogant lump of minerals and flasks of water to vaporize away whether you claim religion or claim to be atheist.

Thank you for allowing me to share." - Thomas Elliott

http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/01/25/1 ... ment-31436

It's a very unstable platform to stand upon to declare, I don't see God unless you are falling on your knees daily to find who God is. A humble heart, I imagine will find God but one with pride whether filled with religiosity or atheism will not. If God exists, and I think that God does, I would rather be night and day crying out to God - who are you and how may I be acceptable in your sight?

Amen. The essence and kerygma of Christianity.

I believe logic by itself constitutes evidence for God's existence, (not proof) it can "derive" such concepts of fine tuning, or intelligent designs CSI and IC. Logic can only give us a hint for the proof of God's existence, "reason" would tell us whether that logic used was "enough" for us to either throw away or absorb it (as a "proof" for God's existence), therefore our reason that is based on that logic would not only be evidence, not even proof, it would be "evident" at point. In either case, you can't prove God's existence through reason or logic, those terms are probably directly proportional to another, where logic inevitably has increasing effect on reason. However, thats not always true, we have atheists here and others such as Dawkin's where the logic has no weight on actual reason, so you wonder where he is coming from, where, as a unreasonable atheist he believes logic has proved the non-existence of God. That would just about sum up the case for this thread in my opinion, you cannot prove God's existence or non-existence based on logic or reason because one may deny the logic altogether, or one may skew the logic enough to so that he/she can satisfy themselves. The atheist will inevitably skew the logic or deny it. So where logic alone may constitute proof for God's existence to the theist or agnostic, perhaps even to an extent where complex mathematical equations are used, you will still not prove anything because what may constitute or confirm proof for the existence of God to one person, may not constitute proof of Gods existence to another.

godslanguage wrote:I believe logic by itself constitutes evidence for God's existence, (not proof) it can "derive" such concepts of fine tuning, or intelligent designs CSI and IC. Logic can only give us a hint for the proof of God's existence, "reason" would tell us whether that logic used was "enough" for us to either throw away or absorb it (as a "proof" for God's existence), therefore our reason that is based on that logic would not only be evidence, not even proof, it would be "evident" at point. In either case, you can't prove God's existence through reason or logic, those terms are probably directly proportional to another, where logic inevitably has increasing effect on reason. However, thats not always true, we have atheists here and others such as Dawkin's where the logic has no weight on actual reason, so you wonder where he is coming from, where, as a unreasonable atheist he believes logic has proved the non-existence of God. That would just about sum up the case for this thread in my opinion, you cannot prove God's existence or non-existence based on logic or reason because one may deny the logic altogether, or one may skew the logic enough to so that he/she can satisfy themselves. The atheist will inevitably skew the logic or deny it. So where logic alone may constitute proof for God's existence to the theist or agnostic, perhaps even to an extent where complex mathematical equations are used, you will still not prove anything because what may constitute or confirm proof for the existence of God to one person, may not constitute proof of Gods existence to another.

Then logic on it's own constitutes evidence that I have a pink tail as well. It's not enough to justify anything which I think is what you are saying. You're claiming you cannot prove God's existence through reason OR logic whereas I am claiming you can with reason AND logic. I think that is the only difference you and I have, our wording. I think we are in agreement somewhat yes? However one can have logic (only abstract possibilities) without reason if one wanted too but one cannot have reason (actual truth about reality) without some kind of logic.

Richard Dawkins is a biologist. He is not a philosopher by any stretch of the imagination. Any philosophy he uses however, like in The God Delusion for instance is for lack of a better word, immature. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga described Dawkin's philosophy in The God Delusion as at best jejune. "You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class." http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

I think this is where most atheists get it wrong. They don't follow the first principles of reason because it doesn't suite their presuppositions. And with their own idea of what God should be like they don't see theism working with reasoning or rationality either. A belief in the God of the Bible however uses all of them.

The first principles of reason being...

The Law of Non Contradiction (A cannot be Non-A, Being cannot be non Being)
The Law of Identity (A is A, A thing must be identical to itself)
The Law of Excluded Middle (Either A or Non A, Theres nothing between Being and Non Being)
The Law of Causality (Non A cant cause A, Nothing cannot cause Something)
The Law of Analogy (A is similar to the A it produces, A thing must bear resemblance to the thing it produces)

Whoops, forgot to add more conditionals, I also think we cannot prove Gods existence through "Reason" AND "Logic". Proof usually stems from the direct or indirect observable and even then it still doesn't mean its undeniable proof. We can substantially prove something based on a logical criteria but that doesn't make it absolute proof, our independent reason would either acknowledge that logical criteria as a proof for Gods existence or it would not, it really depends, thats all I'm really saying here.

Evidence is a different story altogether, evidence is just based on a build up of facts humans form to understand a particular something. I think evidence is formed through logical considerations. I agree that the only thing that can "point" to a substantial proof of Gods existence is: the evident (ie: we exist, the universe exists, we feel a need for God etc..) and the evidence (ie: prayers being answered, biological design (ID: CSI and IC), cosmological design (laws of physics) etc...). We can take the "evident" as input for being enough for Gods existence undeniably, but there are some that need scientific observable evidence that points to Gods existence, neither is proof its more hypothetical then anything.

Well i read the replies; very interesting indeed. OK my conclusion can come up to something such as:
God cant b proven NOR disproven using logic and/or reason. yes we have evidence of that and that but proof is too strong i'd say. can we prove anything? in maths for example which is only based on axioms and uses LOGIC. if that and that - ASSUMING are true then as a result, this and this are also. But with God that doesnt seem to be the case.

And as the arguments for/against - rather than finding the evidence, it is biased. if someone is a believer then he will ignore all other facts and only focus on those for. if against then no acceptance of God allowed whatsoever and so the babble accomplishes nothing. it is not a wise debate but rather showing on whose side we stand. Just as the creationism/evolution. Noone wants to take the side that some of it could have happened indeed. I read about more evidence for it and that even if not random and non-controlled, species didnt come out of nothing, appearing in a fraction of a second. Just as the universe, solar system and all had their time, so did life and humans as well.
God creating something doesnt mean it came just like that, appeared - even the earth was once formed and cooled before processes involvong atmosphere and life could continue.

If we want to bring someone for/against God - it is about convincing rather than bringing proofs. And whether the person is willing to believe.

godslanguage wrote:We can substantially prove something based on a logical criteria but that doesn't make it absolute proof, our independent reason would either acknowledge that logical criteria as a proof for Gods existence or it would not, it really depends, thats all I'm really saying here.

I totally agree that logical criteria on it's own cannot prove the existence of God, even with independent reason. But when I speak of reason I don't limit it to personal, independent reason. That would always accumulate to only what is true for me. I'm talking about actual reality and what we observe. The evident (we exist, the universe exists) and the study of that (the build up of facts that humans form) I believe can prove God's existence. I believe the things you mentioned like biological design and cosmological design is actual scientifically observable evidence that points to Gods existence.

If neither is proof but mere hypotheticals then are we not denying absolute truths?


-

Well - do we exist?

Absurd question is it not?

Will we die?

Absurd question is it not?

Does good and evil exist?

Absurd question is it not?

Are we perfect?

Absurd question is it not?

Is there a God?

A question to ponder — is it not?
-
-
-

madscientist wrote:Well i read the replies; very interesting indeed. OK my conclusion can come up to something such as:
God cant b proven NOR disproven using logic and/or reason. yes we have evidence of that and that but proof is too strong i'd say. can we prove anything?

I think for you madscientist we have to define what proof means because I think that is were you and I differ. For me proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. I believe then that scientific fact on things like biological design and cosmological design is evidence sufficient to establish the existence of God as true.

madscientist wrote:In maths for example which is only based on axioms and uses LOGIC. if that and that - ASSUMING are true then as a result, this and this are also. But with God that doesnt seem to be the case.

This is similar to my example with the pink tails I mentioned earlier. The "that and that" you talk about is only the premise like my statement that 'All Irish people have pink tails'. It doesn't have to be true, it can be either stated or assumed in the world of logic. It is only the reasoning of that logic that can determine whether the premise is true or not. This is done through arguments and proofs, forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts. For example if you were to build a porch at the front of your house you would have to measure it up in order to cut the wood to the correct size. If you start with those measurements and then using mathematics worked out exactly how much wood you needed and what size to cut it all you would seemingly get a correct result. But this all depends on whether or not you got the measurements correct in the first place. The maths is logically sound as it always is but if the measurements (premise) are wrong you will get a wrong result.

madscientist wrote:And as the arguments for/against - rather than finding the evidence, it is biased. if someone is a believer then he will ignore all other facts and only focus on those for. if against then no acceptance of God allowed whatsoever and so the babble accomplishes nothing. it is not a wise debate but rather showing on whose side we stand.

Not necessarily. Of the few good atheists or agnostics I know they are more in the pursuit of truth than their own agenda. Of course man's biases are always going to try to intervene but I think the honest man can in good moments set aside his bias and take a look at the facts as they are. This is what I call true science. Even my own bias of the existence of God needs to be constantly tested. If it is true as I believe it is then I should have no problem testing it. Paul in the New Testament says to 'test all things' and to me that includes the existence of God, His word, and everything under that. The Bible also speaks about finding God in His own creation. To me that means everything testable inside space and time. So I think we can prove the existence of God using logic and reason. If it truly is His creation then why couldn't we?

madscientist wrote:If we want to bring someone for/against God - it is about convincing rather than bringing proofs. And whether the person is willing to believe.

Convincing someone of something is a form of persuasion. I don't believe anyone can persuade someone to Christ. I think that is something only Christ himself can do. Jesus said 'Go into all the world and preach and publish openly the good news'. He doesn't say 'Go into all the world and convince or persuade the good news. Bringing proofs as I understand the definition is what I think we need to do. And we can do that through the sciences (study of creation), through scripture and through our own testimonies. Or all three put together.



-

To you, a few people or everybody? Proof to you may not convince me, in other words what do you consider proof?

I beleive it is fairly easy to prove, to a majority of people, that 2000 years ago a man named Jesus walked the earth.

Was he born to a virgin, performed miracles, is He the Son of God?

Only God can prove whether He exists or not, otherwise salvation would not be dependant on faith.

But faith is not blind. It is based on trusting a source that has proven reliable about a substantial amount of things. Faith is seeing the direction the evidence is pointing, and making a concrete decision to go there. The existence of God cannot be reduced to mere theory.

Even my own bias of the existence of God needs to be constantly tested. If it is true as I believe it is then I should have no problem testing it. Paul in the New Testament says to 'test all things' and to me that includes the existence of God, His word, and everything under that.

Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test'" (Matthew 4:7).

We need to take all of Scripture into account. Paul clearly is not talking about testing the existence of God. He is talking about discerning spirits/charismata, to see if they are true or false, from God or from Satan. While I agree that we can prove, definitively, objectively, God's existence, some people will reject Him on an emotional or irrational basis. If God really does exist, and He does, how is believing in him any more biased than acknowledging that the chair beneath me exists?

By attempting to be "impartial" and "unbiased," modern man has assassinated any hope of writing something actually meaningful, stirring, and life-changing. We Christians are much too afraid of our own opinions to actually express them, much less claim certainty that they are absolutely true. When our time to be martyrs comes, will we triumphantly shout "Viva Christo Rey!" (Christ the King Lives!) as we take a bullet to the heart, or will we look sheepishly at our executioners and say, "Well, it is only a hypothesis after all. If you can convince me it's wrong, then I suppose I'll give it up. After all, those guns do look kind of big..."?

Listen, modern philosophy is not philosophy. It's insanity. Be very careful when dialoging with it. Irrational, excessive, and relentless skepticism has increased to the point of being the most dangerous and contagious psychological disorder mankind has ever been afflicted by. Washing your hands before meals is good. Washing your hands 300 times in the course of an hour is not. In fact, it's a form of insanity called OCD, and needs to be treated. It's downright harmful.

Stop acting like existentialist pussy-willows, and be the soldiers of Christ I know you are! Inject some testosterone into your discourse. Be bold. It's what we're supposed to do.