Evidence for God from Science

Hi y'all,

A while ago I read a skeptical blog which set forth an argument that went something like this:

(1)Scientific naturalism is based on the assumption that for every effect there is a natural cause. Causality is then, a relationship between two phenomena. One being present is both sufficient and necessary for the other effect to follow. In other words, nothing is totally random. Not even quamtum mechanics, which is based on probabilities.
(2)If God created the universe, everything is dependent on His will.
This would mean that either:
- God created logic out of pre-existing logic (which doesn't make sense and leaves one asking why the need for God at all). Or
- Logic is dependent on God, which would invalidate causality because an act (such as creating the universe) being dictated by God is essentially a random act, for it is not related to any other effect. God could, in theory, square a circle, or make 2 = 5.
(3) For (1) to be true, (2) must be false.
(C) God cannot exist.


My beef is with (2), but the part of the argument I find hard to debate is when it is said that for God to create logic, he would have to be bounded by pre-existing logic. Any thoughts?

You are correct to divert your attention to 2. The person only lists two alternatives, and I'm not sure they deal well with the second one.

If logic is made a characteristic of God's nature (as we understand righteousness to be), then God need not have created logic. And logic is dependant on God, not because He created it which would make it temporally dependant, but because it is apart of Him.

Kurieuo

terminatordrei wrote:Hi y'all,

A while ago I read a skeptical blog which set forth an argument that went something like this:

(1)Scientific naturalism is based on the assumption that for every effect there is a natural cause. Causality is then, a relationship between two phenomena. One being present is both sufficient and necessary for the other effect to follow. In other words, nothing is totally random. Not even quamtum mechanics, which is based on probabilities.
(2)If God created the universe, everything is dependent on His will.
This would mean that either:
- God created logic out of pre-existing logic (which doesn't make sense and leaves one asking why the need for God at all). Or
- Logic is dependent on God, which would invalidate causality because an act (such as creating the universe) being dictated by God is essentially a random act, for it is not related to any other effect. God could, in theory, square a circle, or make 2 = 5.
(3) For (1) to be true, (2) must be false.
(C) God cannot exist.


My beef is with (2), but the part of the argument I find hard to debate is when it is said that for God to create logic, he would have to be bounded by pre-existing logic. Any thoughts?

This is what is known as Methodological Naturalism.

Premise one is in fact the problem, in my estimation. While science as a discipline certainly, by definition, cannot prove a postulation of the existence of God in a manner that will place God into the framework of their methodology, they, in fact, engage in their own leap to an unsubstantiated conclusion and there are circular loops within this postulate as well very similar to what they often point to in Theistic thinking.

Logic is only as useful as the premises that any given logic rests upon.

The fact that something can be shown to be internally consistent, is necessary but it in itself does not encompass and consitute truth independently.

I get what you're saying Canuck and agree that science per se doesn't have a say in the existence of God. I also concur with you when you said that the coherence of an argument doesn't make it true. However, as I understand it, the crux of the issue here is whether God creating something would undermine the concept of causality (because God could make effect B prior to A or anything come into existence without any relation to other phenomena).
Like Kurieuo, I think there are more possibilities for (2) than the ones mentioned, but see no fault in (1). Could you please further explain your train of thought?

If logic is made a characteristic of God's nature (as we understand righteousness to be), then God need not have created logic. And logic is dependant on God, not because He created it which would make it temporally dependant, but because it is apart of Him.

Thank you Kurieuo. I've considered that too. How would you argue that logic is a property of God though?

terminatordrei wrote:I get what you're saying Canuck and agree that science per se doesn't have a say in the existence of God. I also concur with you when you said that the coherence of an argument doesn't make it true. However, as I understand it, the crux of the issue here is whether God creating something would undermine the concept of causality (because God could make effect B prior to A or anything come into existence without any relation to other phenomena).
Like Kurieuo, I think there are more possibilities for (2) than the ones mentioned, but see no fault in (1). Could you please further explain your train of thought?

If logic is made a characteristic of God's nature (as we understand righteousness to be), then God need not have created logic. And logic is dependant on God, not because He created it which would make it temporally dependant, but because it is apart of Him.

Thank you Kurieuo. I've considered that too. How would you argue that logic is a property of God though?

I'll try. I'm not sure I'm good for much more than I've said.

As it stands now, I'll follow this thread and chime in if I have anything of value to say (value being used loosely in this context.)

I have some self-training in philosophy, logic and apologetics, but I'm not particularly adept at high level conversations beyond some generalities that over time appear to make sense to me.

terminatordrei wrote:

If logic is made a characteristic of God's nature (as we understand righteousness to be), then God need not have created logic. And logic is dependant on God, not because He created it which would make it temporally dependant, but because it is apart of Him.

Thank you Kurieuo. I've considered that too. How would you argue that logic is a property of God though?

The same could be asked of righteousness—how would one argue that righteousness is a property of God? Well, we tend to just assume it, perhaps as apart of Christian teachings we see revealed in Scripture and also within Christian tradition. Although we could deduce it through reason perhaps via moral arguments such as if some things really are good or bad, then there needs to be an all-good standard somewhere by which we can know what is good and bad.

Similarly, it seems God being logical could be assumed based upon Scripture, especially within the Apostle Paul. Logically it could be argued that given it is inconceivable to think logic at one time never existed, then if aseity (eternal existence) is a property only God possesses, and logic has this quality, then logic must be apart of God. Or arguing in another direction, if God is logical, and God has always existed, logic has always existed and thus was never created.

What do you think?

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:

terminatordrei wrote:

If logic is made a characteristic of God's nature (as we understand righteousness to be), then God need not have created logic. And logic is dependant on God, not because He created it which would make it temporally dependant, but because it is apart of Him.

Thank you Kurieuo. I've considered that too. How would you argue that logic is a property of God though?

The same could be asked of righteousness—how would one argue that righteousness is a property of God? Well, we tend to just assume it, perhaps as apart of Christian teachings we see revealed in Scripture and also within Christian tradition. Although we could deduce it through reason perhaps via moral arguments such as if some things really are good or bad, then there needs to be an all-good standard somewhere by which we can know what is good and bad.

Similarly, it seems God being logical could be assumed based upon Scripture, especially within the Apostle Paul. Logically it could be argued that given it is inconceivable to think logic at one time never existed, then if aseity (eternal existence) is a property only God possesses, and logic has this quality, then logic must be apart of God. Or arguing in another direction, if God is logical, and God has always existed, logic has always existed and thus was never created.

What do you think?

Kurieuo

Couldn't logic as a discipline based upon rationality in Man be argued as a fruit of man's being made in the image of God?

It is inferred and subject to circularity as a charge in rebuttal.

Has logic been observed in any other species?

If not, then the uniqueness of man argues in favor in that construct.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Has logic been observed in any other species?

If not, then the uniqueness of man argues in favor in that construct.

Mathmatical cognition has been observed in other animals.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Couldn't logic as a discipline based upon rationality in Man be argued as a fruit of man's being made in the image of God?

It is inferred and subject to circularity as a charge in rebuttal.

Has logic been observed in any other species?

If not, then the uniqueness of man argues in favor in that construct.

Never thought of that, but it seems like a great argument to me. Even if other animals display some logical comprehension, humanity certainly seem to have it more fully in being able to philosophise and so forth.

Kurieuo

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Has logic been observed in any other species?

If not, then the uniqueness of man argues in favor in that construct.

Mathmatical cognition has been observed in other animals.

Bit of a stretch. I realize that there have been observations in chimps and dolphins that do extend the abilities in animals over what has previously been observed.

Logic, in this context is more than rudimentary interaction with a direct environmental condition. Logic entails abstract thought and corralation of concepts into an synthesis.

Apples and oranges.

Canuckster1127 wrote: Bit of a stretch. I realize that there have been observations in chimps and dolphins that do extend the abilities in animals over what has previously been observed.

Logic, in this context is more than rudimentary interaction with a direct environmental condition. Logic entails abstract thought and corralation of concepts into an synthesis.

Apples and oranges.

Abstract thought may not be possible without language.
Members of the
Pirahí£ tribe find it difficult to count and keep track of more than four objects.

What is logic really? Is it a way for us to understand the world around us? Logic tells us that we cannot end up with more oranges than we began with. Because in nature oranges don't magically appear.

We can extend this method of thought greatly beyond this original context, however there is an innate logic within each of us which is not so different than that observed among animals.

Could not this be compared to the Euthyphro Dilemma but with logic? God does not arbitrarily choose what is right or wrong nor does He ascribe to a higher power, for His very Being is moral. Then this could be true for logic as well. God's very nature is rational. For these reasons God cannot do things that are impossible. 2 Timothy 2:13 states that God cannot deny Himself, if God were to break the laws of logic it would be a denial of Himself.

But that's what the argument objects to. If God can only do what is possible, He is constrained by logic. Or putting it another way, logic exists prior to Him, at least that's what I got from the logic being created from pre-existing logic part. However, as has been mentioned before by others, logic being a property of God would dispell that notion. The problem now is defending rationally this other view. I'm up for it.

Hi,
(having a bit of trouble with my computer, so hopefully this message is sent properly)

My belief regarding Causality and the existence of God is that the central concept is based on paradox. That because God is Cause (the Creator) God is in fact both Cause and Effect. Of, just as in Christian doctrine: God, the Alfa (the top) is in fact The Alpha AND the Omega. That God is 2 opposites both at the same time.

Just as Jesus declared that the greatest is the one who humbles himself.

Ultimately, the answer to the question whether God exists or not, is:
God exists AND God does not exist.
What the mind currently holds as being reality (existence) is in fact subject to being (and in a sense I suppose already is) equal to what the mind believes does not exist. (that's my best way of explaining this...)
That, because the universe goes according to a law of relativity, everything that exists exists because its opposite does.
Acknowledge that God exists and does not exist, and you change how your mind defines whatever it defines as reality; and you broaden your acceptance and understanding of it. Since this goes perfectly according to the law of opposites existing relative to each other, you recreate your image of God, and therefore, your idea of Cause and Effect.

This whole concept has to do with perception and the ability to change perception and the implications that it has for changing experience.