Evidence for God from Science

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.

I'm not making God anything other than what He is by definition. I think the likelyhood of an incontingent God can be touched upon by the scientific method. If the Bible is true about the nature of God, there are some observable things we would expect to see in our universe, like that it has a beginning and has signs of intent. But I don't think that there's anything about the character of God that says that He necessarily exists in all possible worlds or that He can be assumed to exist by default. As for if we start from the Christian position, I think we can only agree to disagree.

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?

I don't see why I should believe that you've considered all approaches any more than the evidentialist has. And I'm not trying to make insults directed at anyone, I'm only trying to address the arguements.

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.

I already did many times in my previous posts in this thread as well as the other thread about presuppositional apologetics.

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.

Here's the problem. You're assuming right from the start that there exists a being who is incontingent. There can be non existent things that are non contingent by definition. So it doesn't follow that things necessarily exist because it's in the definition.

For instance, I can imagine in an interdimensional sphere made of solid gold. This sphere has always existed, is uncaused, is incontingent, and exists outside of our universe. It is infinitely simple and has no parts subject to contingency, it's goldness and it's sphericalness are inseperatable parts of it's nature. Does this sphere of gold necessarily exist? I would say it doesn't yet it's incontingent by definition and is not subject to the scientific method. Yet it does not necessarily exist.

We know that absolute truths exist, as I demonstrated previously and you chose to gloss over.

We'll I've been reading your posts in their entirety and I haven't seen where you have done this and where I haven't addressed it.

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.

What's the alternative? Do you have a better method? I've been a Christian for 11 years and I've never recieved a revelation or knowledge directly from God or anything of the sort. I don't think we Christians have better ways of evaluating truth than non-Christians.

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.

I do not think I've done this.

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.

Well you're building a strawman by saying that I'm assuming neutrality to gain favor with the world. In reality it's because I think it is a more sound logic than what you're proposing. We as apologists don't have to pretend that we are 100% sure of our beliefs. You can believe something 95% and still make efforts to show evidence for it's truthhood. In fact I think non-believers will be more willing to listen because we are being intellectually honest with them and ourselves.

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?

I'm not 100% sure that I will go to be with God when I die, and I'm not going to pretend that I am. I also think that no one is 100% sure, even some will say they are. There's no way you can know 100% untill you're actually there. But I believe it is true compared to the alternative. I say I most certainly can still take part in apologetics. I'm argueing for what I believe to be true, not what I know with 100% certainty to be true. If I'm about 95% sure it's true, I think I can still tell people why I think it's true. Again there's no need to live in a world where all beliefs need to be known beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Cam you be 100% sure that you aren't a brain in a jar in some other reality being fed experiences through a machine? No, but yo aren't going to believe that you are and you're going to believe the alternative.

jlay wrote:

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.

J, I’d say there is a contradiction if Echo‘s post wants to say he retains a neutrality. He most certainly is not neutral. No-one is, and like August says, we shouldn’t even have to point this out.

Well you're building a straw man by saying that I'm assuming neutrality to gain favor with the world. In reality it's because I think it is a more sound logic than what you're proposing. We as apologists don't have to pretend that we are 100% sure of our beliefs. You can believe something 95% and still make efforts to show evidence for it's truthhood. In fact I think non-believers will be more willing to listen because we are being intellectually honest with them and ourselves.

But to cede a common ground is utterly fallacious. From my previous link:

Nor should one grant the hypothetical possibility of a world independent of God that can successfully function and be successfully understood in terms of the axioms of logic and science.

If the Christian apologist begins his argumentation with the assumption that man can successfully use logic and science to analyze and judge reality irrespective of the truth of Christianity, then the apologist has from the beginning abandoned the Christ "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3) and who gives epistemological "light to every man who comes into the world" (John 1:9).

To say that logic and science are God-neutral common ground is to deny the existence of the sovereign God of Scripture "for [whom] and through [whom] and to [whom] are all things" (Romans 11:36).

To say that the impersonal axioms of logic and science are the most basic principles of reality is to deny the Christ who "is before all things, and in [whom] all things consist" (Colossians 1:17). The Christ of Scripture is the Christ apart from whom man can do nothing (John 15:5).

To seek to build one's philosophical and scientific house apart from the God of Scripture is to labor in vain (Psalm 127:1). In its quest for common ground with the skeptic, evidentialism makes concessions that compromise the very essence of Biblical Christianity.

Here’s the real kick, though, Seraph:

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.

jlay wrote: Let me get this straight. A disbelief in God is not equal to "I do not have a belief that God exist."

Now I'm confused. I have heard many times that "the burden of proof is also on the atheist to show God doesn't exist". Obviously that statement applied to me means nothing. Skepticism/Incredulity at the concept of God does not occur, so there's no position for me to defend in that sense.

jlay wrote: 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.

I woud not claim to be completely neutral, it's not really possible. You might categorize me as part of the group "does not have a belief in God", but a lot of generalisations about atheists get applied to the whole spectrum when there is a difference.

jlay wrote: 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.

I wouldn't say indifferent, just open to the possibility that I'll never know rather.

DannyM wrote: 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

(2) sounds like making the active decision to not believe in God. I haven't done that to my knowledge.

Echoside wrote:

DannyM wrote: 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

(2) sounds like making the active decision to not believe in God. I haven't done that to my knowledge.

Do you accept God exists? Yes or no.

DannyM wrote:

Echoside wrote:

DannyM wrote: 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

(2) sounds like making the active decision to not believe in God. I haven't done that to my knowledge.

Do you accept God exists? Yes or no.

You just reiterated the exact thing i was criticizing. To say no sounds like i'm denying God, which isn't the case. It's not that black and white.

Echoside wrote:You just reiterated the exact thing i was criticizing. To say no sounds like i'm denying God, which isn't the case. It's not that black and white.

It's pretty simple. You haven't denied God exists. You just haven't accepted God exists. That's it. I accept God exists. You do not accept God exists. You don't deny God exists. But you don't accept God exists. If you denied God exists I imagine you'd be an atheist.

DannyM wrote:

Echoside wrote:You just reiterated the exact thing i was criticizing. To say no sounds like i'm denying God, which isn't the case. It's not that black and white.

It's pretty simple. You haven't denied God exists. You just haven't accepted God exists. That's it. I accept God exists. You do not accept God exists. You don't deny God exists. But you don't accept God exists. If you denied God exists I imagine you'd be an atheist.

Nothing to disagree with here, though I would like to emphasize what Jlay was questioning earlier, Disbelief in God and Lack of belief in God are not the same. You've just summarized why. Unless one wants to argue the definition of disbelief as not having negative connotations attatched to it

FWIW, I disagree with Danny on this. I'm not saying there isn't a difference between agnositicism and atheism. There is. But the bible is clear that anyone who can't come to terms with the obvious (Rom. 1:19-19) is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

It is not as if you are ignorant. You are a participant in a forum about God. You have information. To claim ignorance (which is what you are doing) is a bit of a stretch, IMO. You are welcome to elaborate if you think I am misunderstanding you.

If you have information about the existance of God, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that you merely 'lack' belief. Saying you are undecided, IMO, is denial of sorts. It may not be overt, but I still see it that way.

jlay wrote:FWIW, I disagree with Danny on this. I'm not saying there isn't a difference between agnositicism and atheism. There is. But the bible is clear that anyone who can't come to terms with the obvious (Rom. 1:19-19) is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

It is not as if you are ignorant. You are a participant in a forum about God. You have information. To claim ignorance (which is what you are doing) is a bit of a stretch, IMO. You are welcome to elaborate if you think I am misunderstanding you.

If you have information about the existance of God, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that you merely 'lack' belief. Saying you are undecided, IMO, is denial of sorts. It may not be overt, but I still see it that way.

Totally agree. Even if one is said to be ignorant for whatever reason (societal, geographic, etc.) one can STILL know God through natural reason. They may not know that God is a Trinity, for example, as that is known through revelation (faith) but one can certainly know God without such revelation.

Echoside wrote:Nothing to disagree with here, though I would like to emphasize what Jlay was questioning earlier, Disbelief in God and Lack of belief in God are not the same. You've just summarized why. Unless one wants to argue the definition of disbelief as not having negative connotations attatched to it

No-one has ever said non-belief is equivalent to disbelief. But this does not mean you don't have available to you the same knowledge and evidence as the rest of us.

Jlay draws on this nicely.

jlay wrote:FWIW, I disagree with Danny on this. I'm not saying there isn't a difference between agnositicism and atheism. There is. But the bible is clear that anyone who can't come to terms with the obvious (Rom. 1:19-19) is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

It is not as if you are ignorant. You are a participant in a forum about God. You have information. To claim ignorance (which is what you are doing) is a bit of a stretch, IMO. You are welcome to elaborate if you think I am misunderstanding you.

If you have information about the existance of God, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that you merely 'lack' belief. Saying you are undecided, IMO, is denial of sorts. It may not be overt, but I still see it that way.

LOL. Don't think we disagree too much here, J. Agnosticism, it increasingly seems to me, is practically meaningless. How can somebody say we can not have knowledge of God when they cannot even account for knowledge itself?

DannyM wrote: How can somebody say we can not have knowledge of God when they cannot even account for knowledge itself?

I don't think I've said that at any point in this thread.

DannyM wrote:

No-one has ever said non-belief is equivalent to disbelief. But this does not mean you don't have available to you the same knowledge and evidence as the rest of us.

Jlay draws on this nicely.

Jlay wrote:
Let me get this straight. A disbelief in God is not equal to "I do not have a belief that God exist."

Also, I've never claimed at any point that I had less information available to me, although I don't think it unreasonable that the information would take a while to process. I've had days where the thought has occured to me that maybe a god does exist, but that just opens up a host of new questions about Christianity specifically. I am NOT saying the material hasn't been addressed, rather I haven't got to it. Is that an excuse? Maybe not, if God is so "obvious" as everyone likes to put it. But it's not obvious to me , supressed innocently or by unrighteousness and I'd think if I could approach this issue so perfectly I wouldn't need God in the first place.

Echoside wrote:

DannyM wrote: How can somebody say we can not have knowledge of God when they cannot even account for knowledge itself?

I don't think I've said that at any point in this thread.

I know. But you are agnostic, right?

Echoside wrote:Also, I've never claimed at any point that I had less information available to me, although I don't think it unreasonable that the information would take a while to process. I've had days where the thought has occurred to me that maybe a god does exist, but that just opens up a host of new questions about Christianity specifically. I am NOT saying the material hasn't been addressed, rather I haven't got to it. Is that an excuse? Maybe not, if God is so "obvious" as everyone likes to put it. But it's not obvious to me , suppressed innocently or by unrighteousness and I'd think if I could approach this issue so perfectly I wouldn't need God in the first place.

You’ve already admitted to having no account for your presuppositions. Yet you are plodding along in this inconsistency. If a person believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of God, yet this person cannot even account for his own ability to reason, then why should this person be taken seriously when his own conclusions are based on such shaky foundations?