Evidence for God from Science

Eureka wrote:FL - I don't know how sincere this guy is; and I imagine his blog would serve as a great rebellion against his father as you suggested. But please be careful. If you were struggling with overwhelming doubts, I imagine it wouldn't help you much to hear Christians say that your stories make them want to puke. I'm sorry if my "Christian" -cum-lost story makes you ill, but it is genuine. And you can't know if the same feelings might happen to you.

Sorry, I have no empathy for the stories of people who describe themselves as ''former Christians'' as the Bible makes it clear that such people do not exist. I don't doubt the angst you and others in your position may feel but I don't see that as relevant to the existence of God, or to this discussion.

Jac asked you some interesting questions. I am looking forward to your answers.

FL

Jac3510 wrote:Dom, Noah is correct. You've generalized (1) into a universal claim, for which you have no basis. It is certainly true that IF one holds to your restated premise, then it is obviously true of the particular case of God. But the claim is a particular--not of a universal.

Beyond that, even your reconstruction does not deny the antecedent.

• 1. IF G, then E
  2. There is no E
  3. Therefore, no G

Is denying the consequent--E is the consequent here, whereas G is the antecedent. But denying the consequent is just a modus tollens and perfectly acceptable. To deny the antecedent would require to change (2) to "~G" and the conclusion would be "~E."

Ah, you're right. Modus Tollens. However, as a Modus Tollens, it would be acceptable, but it does beg the question.

I do however believe that the content of premise 1 is completely necessarily connected in order to be valid, but we have no justification for it. You cannot prove necessary connections without propositions. In the case, it would be trivial.

Premise 1 claims that the existence of something depends entirely on something that has no propositional value. That being a "sincere" inquiry for evidence. We have plenty of reason to conclude the premise has presuppositions that need to be defended first. To me, it looks like logical positivism/naturalism.

However, those presuppositions invalidate his premise. All objects in the physical world are constant conjunction, not necessarily connected.

Omg, typing on my phone is so hard right now. Am I repeating myself? Sorry in advance.

Jac3510 wrote:Actually I would challenge the first premise. What on earth would make you think it is true? Define "sincerely seeks" (and the individual terms there as well -- what is the difference in seeking and sincerely seeking; and what do you understand seeking to be?). Define "evident"--and evident to whom? By what standard would His existence be evident? Are you appealing to a lowest common denominator? If so, can you justify such a claim? If not, then where do you place the standard, and why? And what about those for whom the evidence is not evident according to the standard you are suggesting--would they not serve as a defeater for the argument?

All in all, (1) is far too shaky. I don't even know what you mean by it, much less that I should, would, or do accept it.

Well put, I was thinking down those lines as well. The opening premise is indeed shaky...

Noah1201 wrote:This is not original to me. It's also a variant of the Divine Hiddenness argument.

1. If the Biblical God exists, then his existence would be evident to anyone who sincerely seeks God.
2. Biblical God's existence is not evident to everyone who sincerely seeks God.
3. Therefore, Biblical God doesn't exist.

Now, I'm not saying this is a be-all and end-all refutation of Christian theism. But I think that, despite its simplicity, it is a potent argument.

Hi Noah,

Notwithstanding that God's existence is clear to all (Romans 1:18-20), God may choose not reveal Himself to all. An important theological distiction.

That said, premise 1 is true, if and only if a person's heart and mind is correctly aligned.

A great book I recommend on this matter is William Wainwright's Reason and the Heart. It is one of my top books, and really opened my eyes and revolutionised my outlook on debating people.

We seek after what our heart desires and to a large extent see what we want to see. Does any one of us truly seek after God? Especially if we are all originally under the power of sin...

Consider Paul's words in Romans 3:10-12:

• “There is no one righteous, not even one;
  there is no one who understands;
  there is no one who seeks God.
  All have turned away,
  they have together become worthless;
  there is no one who does good,
  not even one.”

Noah1201 wrote:This is not original to me. It's also a variant of the Divine Hiddenness argument.

1. If the Biblical God exists, then his existence would be evident to anyone who sincerely seeks God.
2. Biblical God's existence is not evident to everyone who sincerely seeks God.
3. Therefore, Biblical God doesn't exist.

.

I can't speak for anyone else than myself but I believed that I seeked God with sincerity.
What I was truly doing was looking for ( depending on what was going on in my life at the time):
Look for the type of God I could reject since I didn't want to know God
Looking for the type of God that I WANTED to exist.
Neither way was looking for God with "sincerity" but looking with ulterior motives.

You say “you do not believe in God?” And your argument against doing so is that you find it highly unlikely that human knowledge of God and Jesus (as understood through scripture) was reliable….

I am not a theologian, so I will not go into doctrinal interpretation of your position. However, simply from the Christian Solider perspective, i.e. somebody who rather than considering armchair strategy is in the constant warfare (Eph 6:12), I agree with you –

1. I do not believe in God, in a sense that what I call faith is rather God’s work in and through me, I have neither energy or intelligence to establish or sustain it, this is “of God” and it is not just an intellectual assent – like I breathe the air even when I am asleep and I am not in a position to even consider (not to speak of being able to believe in) that it exists

2. Human knowledge of God (i.e. also about Jesus who is God – your statement reads some other interpretation to this) is – if not augmented and verified by God – simply a garbage. God does not want you to believe in any “human” knowledge or interpretation.

In conclusion – I recommend taking another look at things, You are asking all the proper and honest answers, and it is not to patronise but to thank you – it was useful for me to think about your position, I learned a lot.