Evidence for God from Science

Bill: "Science say's evolution must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the science book says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the science book?"
Bill: "Because the science book was written by scientists.

I have amended mine, now it is more circular.

Kurieuo wrote:

narnia4 wrote:This argument wouldn't stand by itself as a formal argument. You could try to prove the statements there, however, and reword it so that it isn't fallacious. Off the top of my head-

If the Bible was written by God, then God exists.
The Bible was written by God
Therefore, God exists.

There the argument is solid, obviously you would need to prove the second premise. You could reword it so that you have less burden as far as how much you have to prove.

This is formulated better, and the second really is a big task to try to prove to others. All it takes is for a non-Christian to make a judgement that it has some errors to disregard it entirely. And given our judgements are influenced by our existing beliefs and experiences, one is in a hard spot if they are going to try convince a non-Christian that God is real because the Bible was written by God. Furthermore, there probably isn't any one argument that will convince an Atheist that God is real.

But knowing reasons and having defenses will make one more secure in their beliefs which will also be more palatable to others who may not initially agree or are without an opinion.

I wouldn't try to use that particular argument either.

It does make me think of the importance of getting to the root of the issue, different presuppositions and worldviews from the very beginning. Arguing about the probability of this happening or that happening isn't going to matter if someone is already convinced that miracles, resurrections, and inspired texts are impossible because there's no God. As others have been pointing out, the atheist has his own version of the OP's argument.

For the Bible to be divinely inspired, there must be a God.
There is no God.
Therefore the Bible is not divinely inspired.

Of course there's a lot to prove there, but I very seldom see skeptics attempting to prove there is no God. So both sides have to critically examine their own worldviews, and to me that's where Christianity really beats out the competition as far as probability for its claims, consistency, and explaining what we know about the world.

Somewhat on topic.. a better argument might be William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument, namely that

1. Everything that begins to exist had a cause.
2. The universe /multiverse began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe / multiverse had a cause.

correct Stu and since the Christian God is the ultimate source for the beginning of all information then he must exist because information exists.

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word is God.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Bill: "Science say's evolution must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the science book says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the science book?"
Bill: "Because the science book was written by scientists.

I have amended mine, now it is more circular.

Daniel that hit the nail right on the head. Speaking as a former theistic evolutionist I used to believe every word that came out of their mouths. It wasn't until I started researching their claims that I started to question them and ask myself why are these scientists being so deceptive. I never knew they had a bias of methodologic naturalism that was behind their bias. I hate being lies to, and within 6 of this I started to except intelligent design and perry marshals information theory.

But I did have a great time using my old pro evolution books as toilet paper lol

I meant to say within 6 moths I changed to intelligent design.