Evidence for God from Science

Ivellious wrote:The point about us knowing nothing without the Bible is absurd...We knew and learned lots before it and lots afterward too...but it's not all because of the Bible. Are you saying everything prior to the Bible was meaningless knowledge? Yes, Christianity led to some cool advancements in art, literature, etc. but the entirety of our knowledge of existence is not meaningless without Christianity.

No, what I am saying is that, without God revealing truth to us, we cannot justify a knowledge of anything at all.

P1: If the human mind can obtain knowledge, the God exists, since God is the precondition of human knowledge.
P2: The human mind can obtain knowledge,
Conclusion: God Exists.

Granted, I am not saying that humans must consciously acknowledge God in order to obtain knowledge. Many unbelievers obtain knowledge about many things despite themselves. They rely on God's creative attributes and his Providence to do so, while denying the very God that they rely on.

If atheism is ever to become a rational worldview, it must first come up with a valid epistemology. Atheism assumes that the human mind is capable of meaningful activity outside of God's creative attributes and his Providence. Until this can be proven, atheists cannot rightly claim to know anything.

In fairness, PL your logic on this is circular as your P1 presupposes the existence of God. That doesn't mean it's wrong or invalid, but by itself it would hardly be convincing for someone who doubts the existence of God in the first place.

Not really. One is either going to start with God or with no God. There is no middle ground, so we need a starting point.

If necessary, P1 can be proven via reductio ad absurdum.

Prove A: God is the precondition of human knowledge.
1. ~A: (Assume the opposite - of necessity, either A or ~A is true) - God is NOT the precondition of human knowledge.
2. (~A--> B): If God is NOT the precondition of human knowledge, then a godless world can account for human knowledge.
3. (~B): a godless world cannot account for human knowledge.
4. (~ ~A): It is not the case that God is NOT the precondition of human knowledge.
5. (A): God is the precondition of human knowledge.
QED

This shows what the bible refers to as the foolishness of unbelief. Of course, the unbeliever as the option of refuting step 3, which then makes him easy pickin's. Until he does so, the former P1 stands true, and thus the logic and the proof stand.

To Ivellious' first point, I would say that Nostradamus was wrong on many occasions. His prophecies did not pan out. While some Biblical prophecies have yet to be fulfilled, not one has been wrong, many have been fulfilled and many continue to be fulfilled as time goes on.

Second point, you never saw George Washington being inaugurated as president, but you believe he was because you read it in history books. The Bible is a history book.

Third point, many of those stories don't even slightly resemble the Biblical stories, but people like to pretend they do to make a point. For example, they say that Mithra preceded Jesus as being born of a virgin, when the myth of Mithra reveals him being born of a rock. So we have to twist it up really well to say, "Well, the rock was a virgin," to make it a virgin birth preceding Jesus.

Prior to the Bible, knowledge of God was passed down orally. Not only did people living prior to the Bible being written know about God, but His plans for the future through the prophets. Extra Biblical knowledge, prior to the writing of the Bible and since, isn't necessarily meaningless, but what good is it to have all knowledge, but be separated from your Creator?

And finally, as far as your conclusion, there is a difference between Christianity and all other religions through history. (Let me preface this by saying I don't know about ALL religions so I may not be entirely right.) The Christian God, and I would call Him the one true God, lives. The other religions worship dead gods. Buddha is dead. He was never resurrected. None of the studies I've seen on any of the gods to which people attribute death and some sort of revival are at all the same as a resurrection for eternity. Take Adonis for example, who they claim was "revived" for one day a year and then fetched into the air. He doesn't defeat death, he returns to death, IF you want to believe any of it. And this account in De Dea Syri was written in the second century AFTER Jesus, so the New Testament account of Jesus birth, death and resurrection preceded it.

puritan lad wrote:Not really. One is either going to start with God or with no God. There is no middle ground, so we need a starting point.

If necessary, P1 can be proven via reductio ad absurdum.

Prove A: God is the precondition of human knowledge.
1. ~A: (Assume the opposite - of necessity, either A or ~A is true) - God is NOT the precondition of human knowledge.
2. (~A--> B): If God is NOT the precondition of human knowledge, then a godless world can account for human knowledge.
3. (~B): a godless world cannot account for human knowledge.
4. (~ ~A): It is not the case that God is NOT the precondition of human knowledge.
5. (A): God is the precondition of human knowledge.
QED

This shows what the bible refers to as the foolishness of unbelief. Of course, the unbeliever as the option of refuting step 3, which then makes him easy pickin's. Until he does so, the former P1 stands true, and thus the logic and the proof stand.

Internal Validity is not the same thing as proven premises upon which the logic structure rests. I accept the construct because I agree with the premise. I think it unlikely that many atheists or agnostics are going to be convinced by the presentation. It's a good illustration of aristotilean logic however which contrasts two opposing and mutually exclusive premises and assumes that one or the other must be true and that one of the other can be positively known on the basis of measurable evidence or obsewrvation. To play devil's advocate, most agnostics who would address this would question that human knowledge has to be accounted for but or that the "world's" inability to account cognitively to know "the reason" means that there either cannot be multiple reasons synergistically contributing or that "the" reason can still exist without it being known ever or until a later time.

There is a marked difference between proof and persuasion. Some will never be persuaded regardless of the proof offered. Others will be persuaded by far less. One of the advantages of being a Calvinist is that I don't have to convince anyone. That's not my job, and that's a good thing. It's the Holy Spirit's job to convert the unbeliever. It's mine to contend for the faith (which is why good apologetics should always be accompanied by the gospel).

Responding to the "devil's advocate" scenario, I would ask the agnostic how he knows that knowledge doesn't have to be accounted for. I had a long blog debate with a relativist a while back who claimed that true knowledge is not possible. Not only is that a self defeating statement, but no one can live that way. We all claim to know something, and we all have methods of obtaining such knowledge. But can those methods, valid or not, be the basis for knowledge. Ultimately, the Christian epistemology of revelation (both natural and special) is the only valid view. All secular views are self defeating. All worldviews have a theory of knowledge and an ultimate authority. But anything outside of the Christian worldview can be shown to be foolish.

As far as circular reasoning goes, all worldviews are circular on the metaphyiscal level. "I think, therefore I am" is clearly circular, but few would object. One of the problems with evidential apologetics is that the Christian is always playing defense. The unbeliever is never called to defend his worldview, especially if it is naturalism. Many well meaning apologists assume the truths of naturalism in advance, and than try to argue for Christianity from that basis. But we should not grant naturalists such free capital. There are just too many things that naturalism cannot account for such as knowledge, intelligible experience, universal unchanging laws, logic, uniformity, moral absolutes, human dignity, etc. The Christian and non-Christian worldview are antithetical to each other, and only the Christian worldview can account for our ability to know anything at all. For example, when the naturalist appeals to science in his arguments against Christianity, he must acknowledge God's creative attributes and His Providence in order to even make the argument. Science cannot account for itself. It must rely on a priori things such as the validity of sense experience, laws of logic, uniformity of nature, etc. These are things that only the Christian worldview can consistently justify. In other words, unbelievers must rely on God's natural revelation in order to argue against his existence. It is the height of irrationality.

wrain62 wrote:all other ancient story texts are false?

Excuse me?

There are just too many things that naturalism cannot account for such as knowledge,

Forget knowledge, What are the right questions. Is there something Above or Beyond Nature or Both or none at all? I think a lot of people Who understand Human nature Will not trust their own judgement 100%, 99.999% is the limit, there is always room for failure and improvement in human judgement. Even the most perfectly engineered machine wears out and experiences failings a master mechanic is what we need, Perhaps a good doctor.

Thanks PL. I appreciate the thoughtful answer and I agree with more of what you're saying than not.

I think you're using the Christian Worldview reference however, more narrowly than what is actually out there. I hear what you're saying is coming from a Western Christian perspective that has morphed (from my understanding and perspective) through influencers such as Augustine, Aquinas and the Reformers and find a lot of roots within classical greek philosophers. That ties into some of the presuppositions that you're speaking of as well.

I know we'll likely disagree on that, but I think it needs to be stated that not all of Christianity operates on the basis of what you're describing here.

BoniPastoris wrote:all other ancient story texts are false?


Excuse me?

They are mutually exclusive man. Mayybe you are referring to nuances of truth each one has but according to my belief they are unreliable as a source of ultimate truth.

BoniPastoris,

If you, by your own admission, cannot trust your own judgments in the simplest things, how then can you trust your judgments that you make while trying to find God? Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that we need Divine Revelation, not merely a doctor? Can we expect to know God objectively without His revelation?

I prefer the term "divine repair", but yes friend what you say would be entirely reasonable.

Valeri wrote:To Ivellious' first point, I would say that Nostradamus was wrong on many occasions. His prophecies did not pan out. While some Biblical prophecies have yet to be fulfilled, not one has been wrong, many have been fulfilled and many continue to be fulfilled as time goes on.

Second point, you never saw George Washington being inaugurated as president, but you believe he was because you read it in history books. The Bible is a history book.

Third point, many of those stories don't even slightly resemble the Biblical stories, but people like to pretend they do to make a point. For example, they say that Mithra preceded Jesus as being born of a virgin, when the myth of Mithra reveals him being born of a rock. So we have to twist it up really well to say, "Well, the rock was a virgin," to make it a virgin birth preceding Jesus.

Prior to the Bible, knowledge of God was passed down orally. Not only did people living prior to the Bible being written know about God, but His plans for the future through the prophets. Extra Biblical knowledge, prior to the writing of the Bible and since, isn't necessarily meaningless, but what good is it to have all knowledge, but be separated from your Creator?

And finally, as far as your conclusion, there is a difference between Christianity and all other religions through history. (Let me preface this by saying I don't know about ALL religions so I may not be entirely right.) The Christian God, and I would call Him the one true God, lives. The other religions worship dead gods. Buddha is dead. He was never resurrected. None of the studies I've seen on any of the gods to which people attribute death and some sort of revival are at all the same as a resurrection for eternity. Take Adonis for example, who they claim was "revived" for one day a year and then fetched into the air. He doesn't defeat death, he returns to death, IF you want to believe any of it. And this account in De Dea Syri was written in the second century AFTER Jesus, so the New Testament account of Jesus birth, death and resurrection preceded it.

Thank you Valeri

Gman wrote:. . . . It's story of redemption, Christ (or G-d) dieing for His bride in order to re-unite the 12 tribes of Israel back to His house of Israel.

In a nutshell..

So ' g-d is dead! '

Interesting, what next?

Composer wrote: So ' g-d is dead! '

Interesting, what next?

He resurrects Himself back from the dead in order to claim His bride back...

And she loves Him too... She is tired of playing the harlot. You see, she finally realized that all she really needed was Him...

Blessed be His name...