Evidence for God from Science

August wrote: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.

Exactly. Leaving aside Dawkins’ feeble attempt to prove his probability theory, the most the evidentialist can do is prove the probable truth of Christianity. But if Christianity is only probably true, then Christianity is also possibly false. So not only has the evidentialist abandoned God in his pretended neutrality, he has also failed to prove anything.

So have you. You've only essentially proven that you THINK God is a necessary truth.

Seraph wrote: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"

There is no default position. You cannot gerrymander yourself into a default position.

and showing how evidence points to the former and argue against evidence that He doesn't.

And where does this get you?

The presupposionalist seems to be unable to do this.

The presuppositionalist most certainly can do this. Anyone can present the standard evidences for God.

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.

It's endearing that you would keep calling presuppositionalism fallacious while attacking a misrepresentation.

Seraph wrote:So have you. You've only essentially proven that you THINK God is a necessary truth.

Wow, that's some indepth analysis there. Come back with a proper critique of presuppositionalism and I'll answer it.

August wrote:

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.

Feels like a false dilemma to me, I do not hold to either of the two above beliefs. There is no debate or argument I'm trying to win, or worldview I'm trying to sell. Sure, an ATHEIST set in his beliefs may be demonstrating the fallacy of neutrality. But the atheist has already set his position against theism, which of course makes it a fallacy to claim objectiveness when there is an overwhelming amount of bias in the method of thinking.

DannyM wrote:
There is no default position. You cannot gerrymander yourself into a default position.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You assume only 2 possibilities to approaching the problem, and assume everyone is biased and held down by presuppositions. That way, when the only other worldview you allow into possibility is atheism you point out it's obvious inconsistencies and proclaim victory. To someone like me I'm sure you would call me a liar, dishonest, or some other form of ad hominem which automatically disqualifies how I approach the issue of God existing. Obviously I'm just ignorant of my own presuppositions, and am just feigning neutrality making me an atheist.

Seraph wrote: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.

There is no "default" position that says that, it is a methodological assumption. "either He exists or He doesn't" is not a position, it is a proposition, and I've already showed why that is invalid in the case of the existence of God. You cannot make the existence of God propositional, because then you are already making His character and existence subject to other axioms (principle of causality, for example). Unless you believe that the Christian God is something other than what He is, you cannot but start from the point of His existence. Remember, apologetics is a Christian task, and we are therefore required to start from the Christian position. There is nothing to be gained to start from an agnostic or atheistic position.

Also, your statement about ability seems to be an insult or slight directed at other Christians. It not a question of ability, it is a matter of being properly logical, reasoned and in accordance with the character of God. Do you honestly think that we have not considered all methodologies and approaches? Again, there are only two possible starting positions. God exists or He doesn't. You choose to assume He may or may not exist, which, fully explored to its underlying premises, is to assume He doesn't, and try to reason to a point that He does, and as you admitted yourself, you cannot get there. You can only evaluate probability.

As for your charge of "That is completely fallacious., please prove it. Start by showing how you know the meaning of the words you use in that statement, and be sure to account for your premises in any following argument.

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.

Of course I showed why He necessarily exists. Maybe you just missed it? Do you need to see the syllogism?

If God does not necessarily exist, then He is not God. I am surprised you would even propose that. The Christian God, by definition, is not contingent. Given your way of reasoning, I can see why you may say that though, as your methodology has to make Him propositionally dependent, and therefore contingent.

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.

The problem with your statement is that it is inherently self-defeating. You saying "I don't think one necessarily needs presuppositions to believe things" is in itself a presupposition, as are the rest of your statements.

I never mentioned the fallacy of the neutral ground, no need to. There simply is no neutral ground, however you may wish it to be so. The very assumption of reasoning, required as logically prior to accepting a "neutral ground" is already present and must be accounted for. In addition, an agnostic position is logically impossible (since it 1. has no truth value, and 2. is inherently unsustainable), and reduces very quickly to either "exist" or "doesn't exist".

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?

But you are equivocating here. We are not talking about all arguments or knowledge, we are talking about the existence of God. Different answers have different questions, and different ways of getting there. However, the questions of God's existence is foundational, and yes, it is two extremes, He exists or He doesn't.

Also, if you do not believe that you can know 100% if God exists, how can you know if you are saved? We know that absolute truths exist, as I demonstrated previously and you chose to gloss over.

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.

Yes. Is the question of God's existence a scientific question? Again, to state that it is, is to make God subject to the contingency of the scientific method, which in itself is a presupposition on your part, in addition to presupposing that the scientific method is the only way by which we can acquire knowledge or evaluate truth claims. If you wish to do that, you need to prove the validity of the scientific method by its own devices and methodology.

While you are campaigning strongly against presuppositional apologetics, you have a whole bunch of your own presuppositions, as continuously pointed out, which you do not account for. You just assume and carry on, while holding presups to a different standard.

As Christians, we are set apart by God. Assuming neutrality to gain favor with the world is at the expense of refusing to be set apart by God, and is to remove the antithesis between believer and unbeliever. It is to remove the very grounds of the Gospel.

Echoside wrote:

August wrote:

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.

Feels like a false dilemma to me, I do not hold to either of the two above beliefs. There is no debate or argument I'm trying to win, or worldview I'm trying to sell. Sure, an ATHEIST set in his beliefs may be demonstrating the fallacy of neutrality. But the atheist has already set his position against theism, which of course makes it a fallacy to claim objectiveness when there is an overwhelming amount of bias in the method of thinking.

DannyM wrote:
There is no default position. You cannot gerrymander yourself into a default position.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You assume only 2 possibilities to approaching the problem, and assume everyone is biased and held down by presuppositions. That way, when the only other worldview you allow into possibility is atheism you point out it's obvious inconsistencies and proclaim victory. To someone like me I'm sure you would call me a liar, dishonest, or some other form of ad hominem which automatically disqualifies how I approach the issue of God existing. Obviously I'm just ignorant of my own presuppositions, and am just feigning neutrality making me an atheist.

So what position do you hold, if not one of those two?

August wrote:

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?

But you are equivocating here. We are not talking about all arguments or knowledge, we are talking about the existence of God. Different answers have different questions, and different ways of getting there. However, the questions of God's existence is foundational, and yes, it is two extremes, He exists or He doesn't.

Also, if you do not believe that you can know 100% if God exists, how can you know if you are saved? We know that absolute truths exist, as I demonstrated previously and you chose to gloss over.

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.

Yes. Is the question of God's existence a scientific question? Again, to state that it is, is to make God subject to the contingency of the scientific method, which in itself is a presupposition on your part, in addition to presupposing that the scientific method is the only way by which we can acquire knowledge or evaluate truth claims. If you wish to do that, you need to prove the validity of the scientific method by its own devices and methodology.

While you are campaigning strongly against presuppositional apologetics, you have a whole bunch of your own presuppositions, as continuously pointed out, which you do not account for. You just assume and carry on, while holding presups to a different standard.

As Christians, we are set apart by God. Assuming neutrality to gain favor with the world is at the expense of refusing to be set apart by God, and is to remove the antithesis between believer and unbeliever. It is to remove the very grounds of the Gospel.

I started to answer then figured let me read ahead, maybe the point was already addressed. Sure enough, better than I could hope of addressing it myself, thanks August, great post(s).

Echoside wrote:

DannyM wrote:
There is no default position. You cannot gerrymander yourself into a default position.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You assume only 2 possibilities to approaching the problem, and assume everyone is biased and held down by presuppositions. That way, when the only other worldview you allow into possibility is atheism you point out it's obvious inconsistencies and proclaim victory. To someone like me I'm sure you would call me a liar, dishonest, or some other form of ad hominem which automatically disqualifies how I approach the issue of God existing. Obviously I'm just ignorant of my own presuppositions, and am just feigning neutrality making me an atheist.

So you are claiming to be assumption free?

August wrote:

Seraph wrote: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.

There is no "default" position that says that, it is a methodological assumption. "either He exists or He doesn't" is not a position, it is a proposition, and I've already showed why that is invalid in the case of the existence of God. You cannot make the existence of God propositional, because then you are already making His character and existence subject to other axioms (principle of causality, for example). Unless you believe that the Christian God is something other than what He is, you cannot but start from the point of His existence. Remember, apologetics is a Christian task, and we are therefore required to start from the Christian position. There is nothing to be gained to start from an agnostic or atheistic position.

Also, your statement about ability seems to be an insult or slight directed at other Christians. It not a question of ability, it is a matter of being properly logical, reasoned and in accordance with the character of God. Do you honestly think that we have not considered all methodologies and approaches? Again, there are only two possible starting positions. God exists or He doesn't. You choose to assume He may or may not exist, which, fully explored to its underlying premises, is to assume He doesn't, and try to reason to a point that He does, and as you admitted yourself, you cannot get there. You can only evaluate probability.

As for your charge of "That is completely fallacious., please prove it. Start by showing how you know the meaning of the words you use in that statement, and be sure to account for your premises in any following argument.

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.

Of course I showed why He necessarily exists. Maybe you just missed it? Do you need to see the syllogism?

If God does not necessarily exist, then He is not God. I am surprised you would even propose that. The Christian God, by definition, is not contingent. Given your way of reasoning, I can see why you may say that though, as your methodology has to make Him propositionally dependent, and therefore contingent.

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.

The problem with your statement is that it is inherently self-defeating. You saying "I don't think one necessarily needs presuppositions to believe things" is in itself a presupposition, as are the rest of your statements.

I never mentioned the fallacy of the neutral ground, no need to. There simply is no neutral ground, however you may wish it to be so. The very assumption of reasoning, required as logically prior to accepting a "neutral ground" is already present and must be accounted for. In addition, an agnostic position is logically impossible (since it 1. has no truth value, and 2. is inherently unsustainable), and reduces very quickly to either "exist" or "doesn't exist".

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?

But you are equivocating here. We are not talking about all arguments or knowledge, we are talking about the existence of God. Different answers have different questions, and different ways of getting there. However, the questions of God's existence is foundational, and yes, it is two extremes, He exists or He doesn't.

Also, if you do not believe that you can know 100% if God exists, how can you know if you are saved? We know that absolute truths exist, as I demonstrated previously and you chose to gloss over.

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.

Yes. Is the question of God's existence a scientific question? Again, to state that it is, is to make God subject to the contingency of the scientific method, which in itself is a presupposition on your part, in addition to presupposing that the scientific method is the only way by which we can acquire knowledge or evaluate truth claims. If you wish to do that, you need to prove the validity of the scientific method by its own devices and methodology.

While you are campaigning strongly against presuppositional apologetics, you have a whole bunch of your own presuppositions, as continuously pointed out, which you do not account for. You just assume and carry on, while holding presups to a different standard.

As Christians, we are set apart by God. Assuming neutrality to gain favor with the world is at the expense of refusing to be set apart by God, and is to remove the antithesis between believer and unbeliever. It is to remove the very grounds of the Gospel.

Quality!!
-
-

Seraph, What August talks about here:

Also, if you do not believe that you can know 100% if God exists, how can you know if you are saved? We know that absolute truths exist, as I demonstrated previously and you chose to gloss over.

Hits at exactly what I was thinking when reading your arguments. If you're not sure if God exists, then how can you be sure of your salvation? If you're not sure of your salvation, then you can't argue using apologetics, can you?

August wrote: So what position do you hold, if not one of those two?

Atheism is a disbelief in God. I do not have a positive belief AGAINST God existing, it's not unreasonable to me that God might exist.

That being said I also do not have a belief that God does exist, so obviously there is another position. In fact, I might not even go so far as to call it a position. If you ask me how my worldview accounts for logic, I don't know. If I never find out, so be it.

Echoside wrote:That being said I also do not have a belief that God does exist, so obviously there is another position. In fact, I might not even go so far as to call it a position. If you ask me how my worldview accounts for logic, I don't know. If I never find out, so be it.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the most honest answers I have ever seen. It is of course the inescapable conclusion of any position lacking God as a necessary being but you don't find too many people intellectually honest enough to admit it. And we're lucky enough on this site to have 2. We must be doing something right.

Echoside wrote:

August wrote: So what position do you hold, if not one of those two?

Atheism is a disbelief in God. I do not have a positive belief AGAINST God existing, it's not unreasonable to me that God might exist.

That being said I also do not have a belief that God does exist, so obviously there is another position. In fact, I might not even go so far as to call it a position. If you ask me how my worldview accounts for logic, I don't know. If I never find out, so be it.

Thank you for your honesty, Echo.

You still fall into one of the categories mentioned, though.

1. Accept God exits

2. Don't accept God exists

I think you are almost ready to embrace #1

Great dialogue. August did a great job.

Atheism is a disbelief in God. I do not have a positive belief AGAINST God existing, it's not unreasonable to me that God might exist.

That being said I also do not have a belief that God does exist, so obviously there is another position. In fact, I might not even go so far as to call it a position.

Let me get this straight. A disbelief in God is not equal to "I do not have a belief that God exist."
Echo, if you'd care to elaborate, I am failing to understand your position. Does anyone see the contradiction here? I understand you aren't dogmatic in your position. But the fact that there are different levels of unbelief doesn't mean you are neutral. You may be reasonable, and you may be open. But I fail to see how those things confirms neutrality. Lack of belief and ardent denial are different, but are still on the same side of the line in the sand.
Saying, "so be it" doesn't account for the fact that you are a participant in this forum. The two don't seem to harmonize. I find it hard to believe that someone is indifferent on such things yet would participate in this discussion forum.