Evidence for God from Science

Maytan wrote:I've been curious about RTB's courses. Looking forward to an insight into your experiences.

Bob wrote:Can archeology, or all of Christian apologetics, provide overwhelming evidence for Christian theism?

Response:

Archeology can provide support for the historical accuracy of the Bible, but, by itself, does not prove that the Bible is the infallible, error-free, word of God, as some well meaning Christians assert.

Before responding to this question with a parsing of the words “proof” and “evidence” and the kind of thing that you, the grader, are looking for, I would like to digress a bit and look at the bigger philosophical question involved. If we start from the premise that without faith it is impossible to please God ( Hebrews 11:6 ), and if we recognize that faith is something short of absolute certainty (Hebrews 11:1 ), we Christians should not expect to discover a sure-fire, slam-dunk, incontrovertible proof supporting Christian theism (which would include biblical inerrancy in general, and, in particular, the historicity of biblical claims buttressed via archeological findings).

Why?

Because that would eliminate the need for faith, as defined by the Bible, and therefore the source of what is pleasing to God and an essential element in our salvation.[1]

If Christian faith is at best a reasoned expectation based on trust and hope, is God pleased that we confidently expect to see the Sun appear above the horizon at a designated time each morning? Was our trust and hope stretched by our expectations of this occurrence? Is there a heartfelt submission and child like trust involved in observing the sun rise right on time just as the newspaper said it would?

When I survey the blogs, debates, and arguments on both sides of the ideological and theological (believers v. nonbelievers) divide, I come to the conclusion that one can argue either way somewhat convincingly and but ultimately inconclusively. Some would despair and buy into post modernism (there is no absolute truth, only opinions that are conditioned by our culture). But post modernism is neither a necessary nor a reasonable response (another topic).

I see this state of affairs-- the cosmic evidentiary Mexican standoff--as what we would expect to find if the Bible is indeed inerrant and God breathed. Just as we see that there is an incredible amount of fine tuning involved in the laws of physics and the conditions that make our existence possible, I believe that God has fine tuned this standoff to a point that we must provide the tie breaker through an exercise of faith. The heart ultimately trumps the mind, but the later must inform the heart.

So in the end it boils down to a heart matter, as the Bible said would all along.

Does my conclusion negate the practice of Christian apologetics? Absolutely not.

Christian apologetics--especially of the evidential kind and science apologetics in particular--provides the critical element of a reasonableness to our faith. We cannot expect a place at the public square of ideas if all we can offer is hope without this being real and reasonable. (Almost any religion can offer hope and be a crutch to walk through this world of suffering and death.) It’s one thing to believe and trust in the Rain God, Mother Earth, or even the Tooth Fairy, but is it reasonable? (I would argue that Christian theism stands the tests of reasonableness and accordance with the facts of nature, in a way that Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, etc does not, and that’s where Christian apologetics come in.

When the evidence and arguments seem to balance out, it boils down to trust and hope, or faith, if you will. The doubting must eventually be replaced by either rejection or acceptance of the theistic package with all that this entails—salvation through grace, but also our daily decision to seek the face of God and reject the ways of the world—an impossible feat to put to practice, but possible as we walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16 ).

cubeus19 wrote:Something else I was wanting to ask you Gman, since this is a topic that interests me I was wondering who are some good and reputable Bible archeologists who are also Christian? Because sadly, many that are out there especially the more well known ones like Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke (just google them or check their wikipedia pages to see what I mean) they are pretty much to biblical archeology what Kent Hovind and Carl Baugh are to creation science. Both tend to make radical sounding claims and their evidence doesn't check out. I may check out that program you are taking from reasons.org since they at least are known for being less reckless and dubious with their arguments and evidence.

This stuff really troubles me since I don't know what the deal is with people like Hovind, Baugh, Wyatt and Cornuke. Do they blantly lie about things or are they just very ignorant and sloppy in their work? I hope it's the latter because if it's the former this could cause a lot of credibility issues within the Christian apologetics community. But I thought I would mention that.