Evidence for God from Science

So, I've been having conversations with an agnostic who says that he won't take any leaps of faith towards a religious explanation of anything in the universe because he says it isn't proven in any way.
Specifically, when I present arguments such as irreducible complexity in the universe, the resurrection of Jesus, the Cosmological argument, etc. he says that those are merely things that science hasn't been able to answer yet, and he won't commit to any God to explain what science will eventually be able to explain with a "perfectly rational, naturalistic explanation."

What are the holes in this logic? Aren't there things we take leaps of faith on every day, even without sufficient scientific evidence?

The Kalām cosmological argument:[10]

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;

Therefore:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

Science hasn't proven this? Science has certainly shown that The Universe has a beginning. And, Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. So, ask him to show you the flaw in this argument. Seems pretty "cut-and-dried" to me.

koopa184 wrote:he won't commit to any God to explain what science will eventually be able to explain with a "perfectly rational, naturalistic explanation."

Seems to me he's already committed to a god (of time gaps).

Yes, science will eventually be able to explain everything but when that happens it won't be science like WE know it to be.

The holes in his logic?

Wow, many.

Like Byblos already said. Sounds like he believes science can explain everything eventually. Science of the gaps.

Here's what you do. Take 3 sheets of paper. Draw a circle in 1 and write Nature in it. Ask him if he thinks that science can explain OUTSIDE of the circle. Then on 1 sheet of paper write Science, and on the last sheet of paper write philosophy.

He actually shot himself in the foot with just about every word you quoted.
Ask him to define "perfectly". What is it? Where did you get that idea?
Next ask him to define "rational". What is it? What makes an idea rational?
Next, I would object that the universe according to him presupposes that there is a naturalistic explanation.

Science cannot explain everything. There are several things we believe, yet we're rational to believe their truth.

Aesthetic truth cannot be accessed by the scientific method.
Moral truth cannot be accessed by the scientific method.
Science presupposes math and logic, and to attempt to use math and logic to explain itself is arguing in a circle.

From here you proceed to show that science is unable to explain anything outside of the circle of nature, and that if there is something outside of the circle, it can be proven ONLY in philosophy.

Use the Kalam cosmological argument, along with the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem. Expand upon that with Hilbert's hotel. You need to basically stomp the idea of an infinite universe out of him before you proceed with your proofs.

Unless you get the person to surrender that point, you wont get anywhere.

Not to be contrarian, but as stated, your friend is correct. The kalam, for example, really is just a God-of-the-gaps argument. The second premise may or may not be true. It is probably true, but science may one day show it is not. A much better rendering of that argument is as follows:

1. That which comes into existence has a cause
2. It appears that the universe came into existence
3. Therefore, it appears that the universe has a cause

THAT is undeniable. THAT takes full advantage of modern science. If your friend chooses to reject it, then he has to argue why you should reject what science appears to suggest. Something like this would do the trick . . .

1. If there is no God, then the universe is eternal
2. There is no god
3. Therefore the universe is eternal
4. Therefore, any theory that posits a finite universe is incorrect
5. Therefore, it is incorrect to posit that the universe came into existence

But this obviously begs the question.So on what basis does he ask you to reject what science currently insists looks very much likely to be the case? The leap of faith here is not on our part. We're just going where the evidence suggests. He's taking the leap of faith by assuming that the universe is eternal when all the evidence says otherwise.

This, though, is why I dislike the modern ID movement. Arguments to the contrary, it really just is a God-of-the-gaps argument as it is currently presented. The sooner we accept the fact that God's existence is a philosophical and not scientific question, the sooner we can get on with it. Because using science to prove God will ALWAYS assume a god-of-the-gaps by nature, since, by nature, any such argument has science demonstrating the inability of science to explain reality and thus the necessity of appealing to something "above" science, e.g., God.

A friend of mine is agnostic ( at best) but he believes that we eventually will find proof of life on other planets and that we have been visited by such.
When I mentioned that there is more evidence for God than for intelligent aline life on another planet, he said that he didn't agree.
Fine.
So I asked if this intelligent life on another planet is so advanced as to have intergalatic travel?
Yes he replied that they would have to be very advanced.
So I asked if he would be open to the possibility that this "alien life" could have been mistaken for "godlike" beings 1000's of years ago?
And he said yes that is quite possible.
To which I replied that he seems quite open to the possibility of GOD, as long as it firs into HIS view of what HE things "god" CAN be.

Couple of thoughts on Jac's points here.

If the KCA is considered a "God of the gaps" argument, then isn't any utilization of science by IDers a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario? The KCA isn't just "filling in" where science is silent, it is taking advantage of the most up to date scientific theorems and hypotheses and evidence. The Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem for example, scientists will agree the evidence points toward the beginning of a universe. So how can it be a gap argument when its taking advantage of "the filling in" of science? If you adopt this mentality, there is literally no scientific argument or discovery that could be considered anything other than a "God of the gaps" argument. Conversely, its putting science to a standard that naturalists wouldn't like very much, you could say that science never proves anything and really hasn't filled in any gaps at all.

Secondly, I don't know if I see a strategic point in weakening the claim. If it were shown that the universe were eternal, or if it looked like there was even a possible way for the universe to be eternal, then the argument would fail anyway. It looks to me like merely saying "it appears" would completely trivialize the argument and wouldn't do justice to the force of the science and the opinions of the type of people (scientists, physicists) that a naturalist is actually going to pay attention to.

And I suppose it should be mentioned that Craig has put a lot of work into the philosophical side of the argument as well, giving his philosophical reasons for denying that the universe is eternal.

Finally, should mention that I'm playing devil's advocate a bit. I'm not disenchanted with Craig's arguments really, but I've come to appreciate the classical and presuppositional side of things more. In my mind they do a better job of heeding Scripture and the Christian view of God and theology as a whole than evidential apologetics. Craig's a great apologist but he's wrong on a large number of theological issues imo, I don't feel that his theological work is as rigorous or forceful as his apologetic work. Also have come to appreciate other versions of his common arguments (ontological for example) as strong or stronger than the versions he uses.

narnia4 wrote:Couple of thoughts on Jac's points here.

If the KCA is considered a "God of the gaps" argument, then isn't any utilization of science by IDers a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario? The KCA isn't just "filling in" where science is silent, it is taking advantage of the most up to date scientific theorems and hypotheses and evidence. The Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem for example, scientists will agree the evidence points toward the beginning of a universe. So how can it be a gap argument when its taking advantage of "the filling in" of science? If you adopt this mentality, there is literally no scientific argument or discovery that could be considered anything other than a "God of the gaps" argument. Conversely, its putting science to a standard that naturalists wouldn't like very much, you could say that science never proves anything and really hasn't filled in any gaps at all.

Depending on how you use scientific arguments, then you are right. All of them are god-of-the-gaps. I already said plainly I am no fan of the ID movement. I think it gives away the farm, so to speak, by granting certain assumptions that should never be granted (e.g., material passivism). I also question the general wisdom in building an entire set of arguments on the premise that God couldn't design His creation to work without Himself having to plug in certain gaps here and there. I'm not saying I believe in evolution. I don't. But I think things like the DNA/protein chicken and egg problem, which is very real, makes for a bad argument for God's existence because, at bottom, the basic premise is, "This couldn't have happened without God," which is to say, "God chose to employ a method of creation that couldn't work without His intervention." That's hardly a controversial statement, but for reasons I won't get into here (as they pertain to the OEC/YEC debate), I don't think it's a wise one to make (theologically speaking).

By the way, if you want my specific arguments on the Kalam, here's a paper I wrote on the subject titled Grounding the Kalam, and here's a presentation I do for groups based on that paper from time to time. You may or may not find it helpful.

Secondly, I don't know if I see a strategic point in weakening the claim. If it were shown that the universe were eternal, or if it looked like there was even a possible way for the universe to be eternal, then the argument would fail anyway. It looks to me like merely saying "it appears" would completely trivialize the argument and wouldn't do justice to the force of the science and the opinions of the type of people (scientists, physicists) that a naturalist is actually going to pay attention to.

On the contrary, it strengthens the argument. When you assert that the universe definitely has a beginning and then go on to assert that you know that from science, you open yourself to the obvious criticism as to whether or not science definitively proves such a thing. It does not. It certainly looks that way, but it does not. Heck, physics breaks down at 10^-43 seconds after the BB. We just don't know what it was like before that. So you end up getting into this highly theoretical debate about whether or not science shows a beginning, and you are being thereby asked to prove something you cannot.

On the other hand, you do not have to prove that all the evidence suggests there is a beginning. You are inclined to go where the evidence leads, you can say. The evidence strongly suggests that the universe had a beginning. You can then ask the atheist, on what basis do you want me to deny the scientific suggestion? In other words, the argument, phrased the way I suggested it, forces the atheist to provide a warrant for his skepticism towards science in this one area. He does NOT have to provide a warrant for his skepticism of the second premise the way it is normally stated, because, scientifically, we just don't know it.

And I suppose it should be mentioned that Craig has put a lot of work into the philosophical side of the argument as well, giving his philosophical reasons for denying that the universe is eternal.

Arguments from authority don't impress me, and the more I read Craig, the less and less I'm impressed with a lot of his work anyway.

Finally, should mention that I'm playing devil's advocate a bit. I'm not disenchanted with Craig's arguments really, but I've come to appreciate the classical and presuppositional side of things more. In my mind they do a better job of heeding Scripture and the Christian view of God and theology as a whole than evidential apologetics. Craig's a great apologist but he's wrong on a large number of theological issues imo, I don't feel that his theological work is as rigorous or forceful as his apologetic work. Also have come to appreciate other versions of his common arguments (ontological for example) as strong or stronger than the versions he uses.

Agreed.

Ah, I remember glancing at the paper in the past, I'll read through it when I get a chance and reply here if I have any problems or questions.

Thinking of your version, I guess I'd have no problem with it at all really. I may be mistaken (its been a while since I read up on the KCA), but I believe that Craig has said that his argument depends on the A theory of time. From what I understand what's considered to be some of Craig's best work has been on time. However, since there's hardly any consensus whether A-theory or B-theory (if either) is correct, maybe the argument does come off as too strong and easily deniable and should depend on probabilities. Craig talks about probabilities all the time anyway, after all.

On Craig's theology in general again, I think that some of his ideas (Molinism) only have adherents because Craig is the guy saying them and young apologists gravitate toward Craig because of his not losing debates. Should mention too that I read your excellent paper on divine simplicity, it'd be a shame if some reject that classical doctrine just on Craig's say-so. Not to knock Craig too much though, I find his clarity on apologetic matters to be very beneficial.

Thanks for the kind remarks. I don't intend to knock Craig, either. He's doing his own work for the Lord and will be rewarded by Him appropriately. I agree with you in questioning a lot of his theology, and he and I come from differing schools of philosophical thought. What Craig is undeniably great at is the debate. He wins. But that doesn't make him right. Still less, as you noted, does that mean we should transfer his authority to other areas.

For what it is worth, his doctoral dissertation, as I'm sure you know, is on the resurrection of Jesus. I mean, yes, he has extensive theological and philosophical training, but his expertise is historical. Again, to beat a dead horse, I'm not saying he doesn't know what he's talking about on the issue of time. He's spent a lot of time talking about it! He's an expert in A-theory. But does that make him an expert on all the other views? No, I don't think so, and I think the other views better account for our basic intuitions.

The bottom line, getting back to the OP, for me, is that we need to recast the way we are doing apologetics. We need to get away from attempted scientific demonstrations. The nature of science doesn't allow it, and as long as we argue in that mold, we'll forever be (I think rightly) accused of employing God of the Gaps arguments. We need to offer, instead, philosophical demonstrations. Science is helpful, but science can only make suggestions as to what is probably the case, and based on that (again, what is PROBABLY the case), we can reason. That is, we can say, "Well, science suggests this is true. And on the assumption that this is true, fully recognizing that it may not be, then that must be true (namely, that God exists)." That's not a useless argument. It's a probabilistic argument, like everything else in science. And I'll take a dozen good probabilistic arguments showing that we can be 99.5% confident that God exists. Let the atheists claim the .05% confidence in their position. I'll take those odds every time.

But I also have metaphysical demonstration, which gives me 100% proof. Every time. The KCA a metaphysical proof is not.

Heh, well, I disagree with the Craig bashing. Bottom line is that he is battling and winning souls over to Christ. You may not like his tactics, or disagree with him. However, he didn't get to where he is by accident.

If your philosophical school was truly better at the battles he faces, don't you think God would have made it happen instead? Let's keep it in perspective, and be humble. God certainly put him where he wanted him. I don't agree with all his arguments, either. I think they even sometimes get boring.

The KCA however, I don't concur with you both. Its not a proof of God, but it certainly isn't a God of the gaps argument. Don't be silly, only a silly empiricist would make such a statement.

From the KCA, he proceeds into a deductive argument. Do you really disagree with it? The key is that he proceeds forward. He doesn't just stand there with the KCA and go, "God, I win". If you disagree with his time theory included into his argument, fine. That's only a part of his reasoning, not the rest of it where you agree.

Dom, the only silly thing in this thread is you suggesting that God would only let true ideas when (over a short period of time, no less!). Don't be so patronizing.

And, yes, the KCA is a God of the gaps. You can say that's wrong all you want, but I've laid on several arguments as to why that is. You don't have to interact with them. You're under no obligation to do so. You're under no obligation not to just make an assertion. But an assertion without argument is freely ignored. As it stands, I think Craig, and KCA defends, are wrong when the present the KCA the way they do. The standard syllogism does not prove God exists, granted. No one, Craig included, says it does. Everyone argues that it proves that the universe has a cause.

It does not. The minor premise cannot be proven.

What it can do is suggest that it is most probable, based on what we know now, that the universe had a beginning. It can suggest that we have good warrant for thinking that the universe had a beginning and implicitly challenge the warrant who claim that it does not. It is not a demonstration, however, metaphysical or otherwise, of the universe's finite origins. The first premise is a necessary metaphysical truth. The second is a contingent, physical theory. The first can be demonstrated. The second cannot.

Now, in an age when people don't understand the proper place of science, you can get away with asserting the second premise as if it were fact. But doing so gives away the farm on a host of other issues. And besides that, it's plain dishonest, which is no proper basis for arguing for God. If you want a Cosmological Argument that demonstrates a First Cause, look to Aquinas or Aristotle or a host of others. Even Leibniz and Descartes have interesting arguments that demonstrate the First Cause exists, and do so properly (although they are, in my view, less secure, but for technical reasons).

Jac, what are you talking about, brother?

You're argument against the KCA is contrived for the sake of holding your position. Its the same kind of skepticism that David Hume asserted, but ultimately even he gave up and accepted it because its an impossible position to hold.

Don't be silly, that minor premise can indeed be proven. Unless, you want empirical evidence? Is that what you're looking for?
I can give you a philosophical demonstration to support the truth of that 2nd premise. I cannot give you a empirical demonstration.

Actual infinites do not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_ ... rand_Hotel
Never mind the person who edited it to say it doesn't demonstrate a logical contradiction because it absolutely does.

It violates the LNC, and if accepted, there is a necessary connection to throw all math and logic out of the window. The very math and logic we stand on.

Let me get quick idea of where you stand on this.
Do me a favor and make a venn diagram (or 3 columns) with 2 circles intersecting. 1 circle label "ideas only in mind" the other labeled "exist in reality". Fill that out, and tell me where "God" is, and then tell me where "Actual infinites" are. Then tell me how they got there. Actually, this would be a very good exercise for everyone here, so anyone reading feel free. Its a fun exercise.

Also, FYI, I use Descartes first cause argument as my primary proof, but I updated it with some new additions. I don't encounter much problems. I don't like Aquinas' unmoved mover demonstration. Namely, there is no necessary connection to motion. An empiricist can see "motion" what they cannot see is the "has to".

Dom, it's widely agreed that Hilbert's paradox isn't logically self-contradictory. It's just strongly counter-intuitive, but counter-intuitive is in no way the same as self-contradictory.

Look, if you want to have a serious discussion, you need to recognize that your mere pronouncements don't amount to an argument, persuasive or otherwise. Calling me silly, discounting my views as nothing more than Humean, labeling the contrived, attributing motives, etc. . . . even if you are right, it doesn't prove your case, because you are just asserting. What it does is demonstrates a complete lack of interest (or ability) in engaging in ideas with which you disagree, amounting to little more than veiled personal attacks. I mean, if you want to be so shallow in your thinking, then fine, but just don't be surprised when people stop taking you seriously. You'll be like all the shallow minded atheists out there who are convinced that they're arguments are SO AMAZING that theists run and hide. And every time a theist quits talking to them, they become more convinced of the matter, when truth be told, we just all get tired of their mindless banter.

Your positions are defensible, Dom. The school you represent is respectable. I disagree with it, but it's respectable. You, however, disrespect it and those you disagree with when you conduct yourself as you are doing. A little humility is in order for all of us. I'm as guilty as sin when it comes to polemics and bald assertions, and I'm the first say that when I fall into that, I'm at my poorest.

Now, if you'd like to have a serious conversation about anything, I'm perfectly open to it. My wife is going out of town, so I'll have some time to do the time thread, for instance. But if you continue your history of calling ideas silly and making broad assertions, as if highly refined positions can be so easily dismissed, then I promise you it won't last long.

edit:

You do realize that Aquinas was an empiricist, right? And besides, do you even understand the definition of motus?