Evidence for God from Science

That is a good read Danny.

made me think of something in Seraph's earlier post.


I think one can try as best as they can to be objective by trying to see things outside of their assumptions and that they aren't committing a fallacy by doing so.

First he misunderstands the fallacy.
One can try to be objective. But it is a fallacy to think the other person is being objective. Therefore the fallacy isn't trying to be objective, it is the thought that your opponent is standing on neutral ground.
In fact, trying to be objective is a presupposition. Is presupposes that objectivity is the higher ground. "We should be objective." That statement is only serving to prove the point it intends to undermine.

I don't know why you think that works out in your favor.

The alternative to trying to be objective doesn't do anything for you either. If you admit right off the bat that you will only consider things that support your worldview and are not even TRYING to be objective, you have no credibility in a debate and you can be (rightfully) dismissed.

Even if you prove that people's beliefs are all rooted in presuppositions and objectivity is impossible, you end up in a stalemate. People will see that your beliefs are rooted in presuppositions as well, and they'll say that trying to persuade them that they need to repent and find Jesus is a fallacy, because you only believe it due to your presuppositions. It backfires for the Christian as well as the Atheist.

My biggest problem with presup apologetics as a whole is that you have essentially no answer to "Why should I believe you or the Bible?". Which is what apologetics is supposed to provide an answer to.

Seraph wrote:My biggest problem with presup apologetics as a whole is that you have essentially no answer to "Why should I believe you or the Bible?". Which is what apologetics is supposed to provide an answer to.

This is my problem with it, at best it can be used to criticize other worldviews, but that in no way proves Christianity. The statement "Everyone else's worldview is wrong due to presuppositional analysis except ours, therefore we are correct" is a fallacy.

Echoside wrote:

Seraph wrote:My biggest problem with presup apologetics as a whole is that you have essentially no answer to "Why should I believe you or the Bible?". Which is what apologetics is supposed to provide an answer to.

This is my problem with it, at best it can be used to criticize other worldviews, but that in no way proves Christianity. The statement "Everyone else's worldview is wrong due to presuppositional analysis except ours, therefore we are correct" is a fallacy

What? Have you read nothing of the thread, where this has been answered numerous times? That is not the argument coming from presuppositionalists. They seek to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is the only correct worldview based on its own merits, not merely based on the inadequacies of all the others.

Seraph, can absolute truth be known or not?

The alternative to trying to be objective doesn't do anything for you either. If you admit right off the bat that you will only consider things that support your worldview and are not even TRYING to be objective, you have no credibility in a debate and you can be (rightfully) dismissed.

Tsk, tsk Seraph. That isn't what I said. My statement about objectivity was not what you state here.

hey, it's easy to tear down straw men.

Even if you prove that people's beliefs are all rooted in presuppositions and objectivity is impossible, you end up in a stalemate.

We don't have to prove that. It's a fact. And no, you don't end up in a stalemate. Presup shows that Christian theism is the only tenable view by which we are even able to know anything.

I sometimes wonder if this argument would have been used with Jesus while He was on the earth. "Jesus, you just need to be objectively neutral."

DannyM wrote: What? Have you read nothing of the thread, where this has been answered numerous times? That is not the argument coming from presuppositionalists. They seek to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is the only correct worldview based on its own merits, not merely based on the inadequacies of all the others.

Maybe you could lay the argument out a bit better then? Because all I'm seeing is a possibility that lines up with reason and logic, not necessarily the truth.

August wrote:Seraph, can absolute truth be known or not?

I think you can believe a truth that is in fact the absolute truth, but even if you do you have no way of knowing for sure that it is the absolute truth. You can only believe whether or not something is likely to be the absolute truth.

Right now we believe that it is the absolute truth that the Earth orbits the sun. We can't know 100% for sure, since all rational reason pointed to a geocentric model at one point and we could be making the same mistake again, but we can say that the heliocentric model is probably true.

Tsk, tsk Seraph. That isn't what I said. My statement about objectivity was not what you state here.

hey, it's easy to tear down straw men.

Well you may not have said it like that but I don't know how else to interpret the "fallacy of neutral ground" (Btw, I've never ever heard anyone else mention such a fallacy and doing a quick google search of the phrase comes up with nothing but presup apologetic websites using the word. Almost as if it's something you guys just made up...). At this point I feel like your ace in the hole is to constantly say that I'm misrepresenting you without clearly saying why or what you are actually arguing.

We don't have to prove that. It's a fact. And no, you don't end up in a stalemate. Presup shows that Christian theism is the only tenable view by which we are even able to know anything.

Well I've yet to see how it successfully does that.

Echoside wrote:Maybe you could lay the argument out a bit better then? Because all I'm seeing is a possibility that lines up with reason and logic, not necessarily the truth.

The presuppositionalist argues that the creative and providential activity of the Triune God is behind all of man's experiences and intellectual efforts. Without these preconditions we would not be able to make sense of, to paraphrase Van Til

reason, explanation, interpretation, learning, certainty, universals, cause, substance, being, purpose, coherence, unity, logic, individuating of facts, unchanging "natures" or laws in a chance universe, uniformity, science, connecting logic and facts or predication to reality. . .

But here’s a short, and by no means comprehensive, summary of how the presuppositionalist goes about things once the nakedness of the other position is exposed

Grover Gunn:

After seeking to drive the non-Christian "below the line of despair" by demonstrating the self-contradictory nature of his world, the Christian then points him to the one solid Rock upon which he can build a valid world and life view. . .

Just as God can swear by no one higher than Himself, there is also no higher authority than God's Word upon which to base our acceptance of God's Word. The importance of this simple principle cannot be overstated. The apologist can argue transcendentally that human logic and science have no adequate foundation apart from the Word of the true and the living God. He cannot make human logic and science his self-authenticating authorities and then use these to prove God. Logic and science derive their authenticity and authority from God, not vice versa. . .

In our witnessing, we do present evidence but only in the defining context of the Word. We have the historical evidences of miracles, especially the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and fulfilled prophecy. We have the testimonies of changed lives. We have a basis for science in the God who created an orderly universe of design and gave man both senses that really are in touch with objective reality and rational minds with a logic that really does measure truth in the created realm. We have a basis for purpose, meaning and morality, for the ultimate reality is the personal God of Scripture and not an impersonal universe or impersonal axioms. We accept God as God and we find flowing out of this a world that is the real world, and everyone in their heart of hearts knows it. . .

Here we find the true common ground between Christian and non-Christian. They both live in the real world created by God and covered with His finger prints. They were both created in God's image. They both know in their heart of hearts that the God of Scripture is the true and the living God and that the Bible is His Book. But, as I said in the beginning, the Christian and the non-Christian do not agree on this common ground. Only the born again Christian has admitted to himself what all men in their innermost being know to be true. The non-Christian remains self-deceived and is blinded by his love for Satan's lie. . .

http://www.grovergunn.net/andrew/apolo00.htm

Mainly an article against evidentialism, for those interested. Beware that Gunn quotes Tertullian without giving the full quote/context of the famous “absurd” statement. Not to worry, good article.

Seraph wrote:

August wrote:Seraph, can absolute truth be known or not?

I think you can believe a truth that is in fact the absolute truth, but even if you do you have no way of knowing for sure that it is the absolute truth. You can only believe whether or not something is likely to be the absolute truth.

Is that statement absolutely true or not? How do you know that it is or isn't?

Does God exist or not?

August wrote:

Seraph wrote:

August wrote:Seraph, can absolute truth be known or not?

I think you can believe a truth that is in fact the absolute truth, but even if you do you have no way of knowing for sure that it is the absolute truth. You can only believe whether or not something is likely to be the absolute truth.

Is that statement absolutely true or not? How do you know that it is or isn't?

Does God exist or not?

If I had a nickle for every time I've that counterpoint.

I do not know if it is absolutely true. It could be the case that someone someone knows something absolutely without any shadow of a doubt. In fact, many would say that the statement "My mind exists" could be said to be an absolute truth that can be known beyond any doubt. Either way, knowledge that can known beyond ANY doubt is exceptionally rare.

And I do not know for certain whether God exists or not. I believe He does, but I cannot say that I know beyond all doubt that He does and I don't think anyone really can in this life. Unless they've actually met God and are 100% certain it wasn't an illusion, I don't think one can be absolutely sure.

Seraph wrote:

August wrote:

Seraph wrote:

August wrote:Seraph, can absolute truth be known or not?

I think you can believe a truth that is in fact the absolute truth, but even if you do you have no way of knowing for sure that it is the absolute truth. You can only believe whether or not something is likely to be the absolute truth.

Is that statement absolutely true or not? How do you know that it is or isn't?

Does God exist or not?

If I had a nickle for every time I've that counterpoint.

I do not know if it is absolutely true. It could be the case that someone someone knows something absolutely without any shadow of a doubt. In fact, many would say that the statement "My mind exists" could be said to be an absolute truth that can be known beyond any doubt. Either way, knowledge that can known beyond ANY doubt is exceptionally rare.

And I do not know for certain whether God exists or not. I believe He does, but I cannot say that I know beyond all doubt that He does and I don't think anyone really can in this life. Unless they've actually met God and are 100% certain it wasn't an illusion, I don't think one can be absolutely sure.

Then you have no basis at all to believe anything is true and no basis for rationality. Might as well suspend all discussions, they are meaningless blither.

Then you have no basis at all to believe anything is true and no basis for rationality. Might as well suspend all discussions, they are meaningless blither.

Seriously? That's just a world of extremes. Either you have to know something 100% or not believe it at all? That's silly and I highly doubt that's how you or anyone else structures their worldview. What can you say you know beyond ANY doubt, no matter how small? How arrogant does one have to be to think that their worldview and the reasoning they used to get there are 100% absolutely true and flawless?

Scientists acknowledge the truth of what I'm saying. In most research fields, a theory is considered sound if it has a 95% probablility of truth. It is completely impossible for anything to reach 100% probability because observation and reasoning are limited.

Seraph wrote:

August wrote:

Seraph wrote:

August wrote:Seraph, can absolute truth be known or not?

I think you can believe a truth that is in fact the absolute truth, but even if you do you have no way of knowing for sure that it is the absolute truth. You can only believe whether or not something is likely to be the absolute truth.

Is that statement absolutely true or not? How do you know that it is or isn't?

Does God exist or not?

If I had a nickle for every time I've that counterpoint.

I do not know if it is absolutely true. It could be the case that someone someone knows something absolutely without any shadow of a doubt. In fact, many would say that the statement "My mind exists" could be said to be an absolute truth that can be known beyond any doubt. Either way, knowledge that can known beyond ANY doubt is exceptionally rare.

And I do not know for certain whether God exists or not. I believe He does, but I cannot say that I know beyond all doubt that He does and I don't think anyone really can in this life. Unless they've actually met God and are 100% certain it wasn't an illusion, I don't think one can be absolutely sure.

So ultimately the non-believer has no reason to agree with you, or even listen to you. This line of argumentation just results in an infinite regression, and ultimate skepticism that nothing can be true or not true.

However, we do know that some things are absolutely true. For example, we know that logic is absolutely true...not the laws of logic, but the underlying aspects of reality described by the laws.

If there are underlying aspects of reality that are absolutely true, then those are accepted as brute fact, or presuppositions. In that same manner, you have two choices when entering any debate or argument, you either accept that God exists, or you don't, and you argue from whichever perspective. However, arguing from the position that God does not exist, and then trying to prove from there that He does, only leads to what you portray, infinite regression and skepticism, and no argument of certainty.

Your approach is exactly what Richard Dawkins does. He never says that God does not exist, but says that there is a high probability that He doesn't. Your counterargument is that there is a high probability that He does. That does not 1. account for all the arguments, 2. account for all the evidence, and 3. establish anything as fact. In fact, the questions that need to be answered when we discuss this are mostly logically prior to probability arguments that result from the scientific method, which in itself can never be proven valid by its own rules.

The existence of God is a logically primitive proposition, not a logically derivative proposition. The existence of God is not a deductive or inductive consequence of the premises of an argument, but the very logical and metaphysical basis of argument, and the possibility of the premises itself. The existence of God is necessary, not contingent, and therefore cannot be falsified nor proven using inductive reasoning. You cannot start from a place where you assume that certain axioms are more certain than the existence of God, and reason in a straight line from there to the existence of God. That positions God's existence as a logical derivative, and not logical primitive.

Other arguments for God's existence fail because they do not necessarily portray the true character of God, that He cannot but exist. The argument for God's existence cannot function on logical contingency.

As for charges that this is circular reasoning, any argument is susceptible to this. Your own position can very easily be shown to be circular from an epistemological point of view. All arguments start with presuppositions that are logically primitive, and therefore inherently circular. This does not mean that it is fallaciously circular though, and that is why we investigate presuppositions, including other religions, for internal logical consistency.

In the end, only the Christian God survives such scrutiny, and is His existence true from the impossibility of the contrary.

Seraph wrote:

Then you have no basis at all to believe anything is true and no basis for rationality. Might as well suspend all discussions, they are meaningless blither.

Seriously? That's just a world of extremes. Either you have to know something 100% or not believe it at all? That's silly and I highly doubt that's how you or anyone else structures their worldview. What can you say you know beyond ANY doubt, no matter how small? How arrogant does one have to be to think that their worldview and the reasoning they used to get there are 100% absolutely true and flawless?

Scientists acknowledge the truth of what I'm saying. In most research fields, a theory is considered sound if it has a 95% probablility of truth. It is completely impossible for anything to reach 100% probability because observation and reasoning are limited.

Seraph, the point is that if there is no God, then there is no good nor evil. My truths and rationale
are just as meaningless as yours. Without God, there is ultimately no meaning to our existence.
Without God, we are born, we live a meaningless short life, and then die. Without God's existence, death would be the end of everything for ourselves.

I gave my thoughts on that in my previous post to Byblos, since he said the same thing. I'll respond to the sections that weren't in his post.

However, arguing from the position that God does not exist

You are not arguing from a position that God does not exist, you're starting with the default which is "either He exists or He doesn't" and showing how evidence points to the former and argue against evidence that He doesn't. The presupposionalist seems to be unable to do this. You don't start right off the bat with "God exists by default, and here's why evidence He doesn't fails" like I've seen presups do. That is completely fallacious.

The existence of God is a logically primitive proposition, not a logically derivative proposition. The existence of God is not a deductive or inductive consequence of the premises of an argument, but the very logical and metaphysical basis of argument, and the possibility of the premises itself. The existence of God is necessary, not contingent, and therefore cannot be falsified nor proven using inductive reasoning. You cannot start from a place where you assume that certain axioms are more certain than the existence of God, and reason in a straight line from there to the existence of God. That positions God's existence as a logical derivative, and not logical primitive.

Again this appears to me to be a more worded version of "God exists necessarily and it doesn't have to be proven so don't even try". It doesn't say WHY God exists necessarily, you just declare it to be so. I would say that God exists, but does not NECESSARILY exist. I talked about this in the thread about the multiverse. It IS circular, and "well all arguements are circular if you really dig deep enough" is not a good explanation.

As for charges that this is circular reasoning, any argument is susceptible to this. Your own position can very easily be shown to be circular from an epistemological point of view. All arguments start with presuppositions that are logically primitive, and therefore inherently circular. This does not mean that it is fallaciously circular though, and that is why we investigate presuppositions, including other religions, for internal logical consistency.

They start with the presupposition that logic can be used to bring ourselves closer to absolute truth (though we can never fully understand the absolute truth), but that is necessary to make sense of anything. Past that point though, I don't think one necessarily needs presuppositions to believe things. In fact I think one should have a worldview that involves as few presuppositions as possible, because I think that they are blindsiders. And I know I'm going to see that I'm guilty of the supposed fallacy of neutral ground, but 1. I don't think that is a thing and 2. the presuppositionalist view would not benefit from people being guilty of this.

Seraph, the point is that if there is no God, then there is no good nor evil. My truths and rationale
are just as meaningless as yours. Without God, there is ultimately no meaning to our existence.
Without God, we are born, we live a meaningless short life, and then die. Without God's existence, death would be the end of everything for ourselves.

I know, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. I strongly hope that God does exist but this alone doesn't mean that He does. It isn't impossible that the absolute truth is horrifying.