Evidence for God from Science

This is not original to me. It's also a variant of the Divine Hiddenness argument.

1. If the Biblical God exists, then his existence would be evident to anyone who sincerely seeks God.
2. Biblical God's existence is not evident to everyone who sincerely seeks God.
3. Therefore, Biblical God doesn't exist.

Now, I'm not saying this is a be-all and end-all refutation of Christian theism. But I think that, despite its simplicity, it is a potent argument.

What are the possible responses? Here are the ones I am aware of.

1) Calvinism. No argument here. Calvinism is certainly an adequate response. However, in the case of Calvinism, there is absolutely nothing the unbeliever can even do to come to faith, so they cannot be blamed for their disbelief.

2) Inclusivism or Universalism. No argument here, either. If we can be saved without belief in God/Jesus, then that's an adequate response, too.

3) Deny the existence of sincere unbelievers.

This is the approach nearly anyone who reads this thread will take. I will argue below that such an approach is indefensible.

Here it is necessary to distinguish between two cited ways in which an individual can arrive at the belief of Christian theism. One is intellectual. The other is spiritual. Depending on the Christian, they will appeal to either of the two paths, sometimes both, to claim that disbelief in Christianity is unjustified.

If we stick to the intellectual path, it's very easy to prove how there are sincere unbelievers in this respect. There are parts in the world where the 'evidence' for Christianity cited by apologists isn't even available (and if you're feeling tempted to inform that one can be saved without hearing the gospel, don't do it. What I am talking about is not hearing about the intellectual justifications for believing). There are also people who are not sufficiently intelligent or educated to grasp it.

Thus, if your basis for condemning unbelievers collectively as being insincere is that the evidence is just so strong, I don't think that works very well.

As for the spiritual path, here, the standard response is appealing to religious pluralism. It makes no sense that an individual would intentionally believe in the wrong god - who demands equal, if not harder moral strictures - despite knowing, deep down, that the Christian God is real. And there are many who die believing in what from Christianity's perspective, are false faiths.

Therefore, in my opinion, thus just isn't an adequate response.

Actually I would challenge the first premise. What on earth would make you think it is true? Define "sincerely seeks" (and the individual terms there as well -- what is the difference in seeking and sincerely seeking; and what do you understand seeking to be?). Define "evident"--and evident to whom? By what standard would His existence be evident? Are you appealing to a lowest common denominator? If so, can you justify such a claim? If not, then where do you place the standard, and why? And what about those for whom the evidence is not evident according to the standard you are suggesting--would they not serve as a defeater for the argument?

All in all, (1) is far too shaky. I don't even know what you mean by it, much less that I should, would, or do accept it.

Romans 1:18-32
18.For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,19.because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.20.For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.21.For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22.Professing to be wise, they became fools,23. and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.24.Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.25.For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.26.For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,27.and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.28.And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,29.being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,30.slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,31.without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;32.and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

I am a Calvinist, and we do hold that man is responsible for his sins but that's another issue. Putting that aside.

A few problems with this argument-

1. I've seen this one before (or close variants of it) and I think it really misses the mark when it comes to what Christians believe and would claim on stuff like this. It places too much emphasis on the intellectual when more often Christians consider things to be a spiritual issue. I can only shake my head at self-important atheists (and Christians add to this problem sometimes) as if their unbelief in gods of any kind proves something against theism and Christianity in particular.

2. The first premise needs to be proven, not assumed. Why must we assume that (1) is true? It doesn't seem obviously true to me. And if you can't prove that, then obviously the whole argument falls apart.

3. Implying that it must be "sincere unbelievers or "not sincere unbelievers" is a gross oversimplification of the issue. People have a tremendous ability to delude themselves, evidence may be smacking someone in the face and they might just not see it because of their upbringing, surroundings, genetics, biases, whatever. I chalk it up partially to the aggrandizing of libertarian free will, there's this assumption that people are somehow totally unbiased and reasonable. There's an assumption that "skepticism" is a stance that people take up and then are free of emotional and spiritual and cultural and genetic factors. Naive at best, and dangerous and harmful. So I have no doubt that probably most skeptics and non-believers do think they're completely unbiased and reasonable, and that's why "sincere" bias can be so much more deadly than understanding where you came from and what you want to be true. This is true of some Christians and other religions as well, I'm not picking just on the irreligious.

In fact, I continue to be fascinated by just how easy it is for people to find evidence for what they want to be true, ignoring other factors. Haven't you ever noticed that theists tend to want there to be a God? On the other side, when atheists don't want a God who allows evil or suffering or frowns on partying or homosexuality or whatever, wham! All of a sudden they're "enlightened" and find the "obvious" evidence that God doesn't exist.

So I'd say that all that shows that the argument is too simple to be very powerful. Sincere, rational, all these things are hard to seek out.

4. I think most Christians would probably agree that God gives the unbeliever sufficient evidence for them to believe at some point in their lives. It wouldn't have to be immediately, it could only be a moment where He makes the truth clear. The argument here would need to prove that God doesn't do that (I'd say that if a Bible is available to you, then he's done that anyway), and imo that's almost impossible to prove. There are interesting variations of the argument from divine hiding, but this version here fairly clearly doesn't get it done.

5. Finally, as far as people who haven't had a chance to read the Bible, kind of a non-issue. Theologians have debated how God handles those who haven't heard, but the fact is that anybody reading this forum does have an opportunity to believe.

So yeah, don't think this one works.

Some of you guys are making your apologetics far too complicated. You guys need to keep it simple. You guys are dancing all around the wrong words and didn't read the import ones to keep it simple.

His argument can be simplified as follows

1. Something exists IF and ONLY IF there is evidence available for anyone who inquiries for said evidence.

This premise carries a presupposition, and MUST be defended first in order for your argument to even stand. If its even any good at that point.
Not that we can tell by just looking at it, but I've got that hunch that your presupposition is logical positivism. However, I'm not interested in knocking down strawmen, so I'll allow you to explain to me what it is, and what rational basis you stand on.
So far, it looks like you're banking on this one immediate inference and its not looking good.

2. That something's existence isn't available to anyone who inquiries for said evidence.

This premise has nothing going for it

3. Therefore, that something doesn't exist

Checkmate?

So, lets break this one down and instead place symbols in there

1. IF G, then E
2. There is no E
3. Therefore, no G

This is quite simply Denying the antecedent.

domokunrox wrote: 1. Something exists IF and ONLY IF there is evidence available for anyone who inquiries for said evidence.

No, that's not it. More like "a very particular thing (i.e. the biblical god) which claims to desire people to believe in his existence with all his heart exists only if the evidence is available for anyone who inquiries for said evidence".

It would take some serious mental cartwheels to deny that this seems intuitively true.

Now, others have offered responses that are more difficult to respond to, and I admit I am procrastinating because I don't think I am able to adequately answer them. At least, not yet.

This premise has nothing going for it

I spent most of the initial post defending that premise.

Dom, Noah is correct. You've generalized (1) into a universal claim, for which you have no basis. It is certainly true that IF one holds to your restated premise, then it is obviously true of the particular case of God. But the claim is a particular--not of a universal.

Beyond that, even your reconstruction does not deny the antecedent.

• 1. IF G, then E
  2. There is no E
  3. Therefore, no G

Is denying the consequent--E is the consequent here, whereas G is the antecedent. But denying the consequent is just a modus tollens and perfectly acceptable. To deny the antecedent would require to change (2) to "~G" and the conclusion would be "~E."

The logic of this argument is sound if you agree that the premises are each correct; this is not an example of denying the antecedent.

I considered myself a born-again Christian for over a decade. I loved being Christian--emotionally...socially...spiritually. In my mid-20s I started to really think about why I believed in God, and eventually I realized that I only held these beliefs because I wanted them to be true. Deciding that I don't have any real evidence for God's existence was no over-night process, and I spent a lot of time searching for justification for my beliefs. I was devastated.

Perhaps I was deluding myself? But in my opinion, I was sincerely searching for evidence that God exists, and was not fulfilled. I still venture to discussion boards like this (which is a great forum with so many brilliant and caring people) hoping that I will find something new.

I believe that this is inconsistent with the passage from Romans that Zionist posted in this thread.

Of course, arguments can be made about what the passage REALLY meant...but this fact won't change:

Despite my desire to believe that Christ the Son exists and that he is my salvation, I am not saved.

Consider also the following:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12

Read that, carefully. Can you read that and honestly think that the guy doesn't want Christianity to be true? That he doesn't want to submit to god out of "pride"? That he's willfully suppressing its truth because he wants to live a life of "sin and self-gratification"?

No. And, there are thousands of people like him. For me, this is the best evidence that, at the very least, any form of Christianity which claims that 1) God wants all people to be saved 2) Anyone who doesn't believe in God isn't saved, isn't true.

Noah1201 wrote: Can you read that and honestly think that the guy doesn't want Christianity to be true?

Oh, brother. I tried not to puke (figuratively speaking!) while reading that guy's story. I get annoyed reading Oh, I Just Wanted God To Love Me! stories, even when they come from former-''Christians''-cum-atheists like this guy. I find that reading this stuff is like being sentenced to watch chick-flicks over and over and over.

But I did it for you, Noah. I did it to answer your questions,

Noah1201 wrote: Can you read that and honestly think that the guy doesn't want Christianity to be true? That he doesn't want to submit to god out of "pride"? That he's willfully suppressing its truth because he wants to live a life of "sin and self-gratification"?

The guy sounds like a sap, a fake. Maybe he's rejecting his pastor father and has found that atheism is an effective way to do it. I'm always suspicious about former pastors' children becoming atheists...it is just too easy. I have respect for former fiends becoming Christians because that is miraculous, but goody-two-shoes kids going bad are just being...human. So, my answer to your three questions above are, succinctly: No, he doesn't want Christianity to be true; and he doesn't submit to God because he doesn't believe, period; and he doesn't know the truth, period.

FL

Can I tack on a genuine question here? Why does God want us to believe and why does he care?

Beanybag wrote:Can I tack on a genuine question here? Why does God want us to believe and why does he care?

Are you the type of person who goes to McDonalds to buy a screwdriver?!

Your question has nothing to do with the subject. In any event, it is treated fully elsewhere.

FL

Eureka wrote:I believe that this is inconsistent with the passage from Romans that Zionist posted in this thread.

Why?

Of course, arguments can be made about what the passage REALLY meant...but this fact won't change:

Despite my desire to believe that Christ the Son exists and that he is my salvation, I am not saved.

I'm not saying you are saved -- I don't know -- but what makes you think you aren't?

Jac3510 wrote:

Eureka wrote:I believe that this is inconsistent with the passage from Romans that Zionist posted in this thread.

Why?

I was referring mostly to 20.For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

I understand that it is easy to see amazing things in the world everyday...but I don't think that it is so obvious that God is the cause for all of this beauty. This verse makes it seem like belief in the existence and divinity of the Christian God is the easy route, such that only people who intentionally stray from this belief will lose faith. I did NOT intentionally stray from any belief.

Eureka wrote:Of course, arguments can be made about what the passage REALLY meant...but this fact won't change:

Despite my desire to believe that Christ the Son exists and that he is my salvation, I am not saved.

Jac3510 wrote: I'm not saying you are saved -- I don't know -- but what makes you think you aren't?

I do not believe in God. Even if there is a supreme creator/deity (which would not surprise me), I find it highly unlikely that human knowledge of God and Jesus (as understood through scripture) is reliable, let alone inerrant. I cannot convince myself to have that faith--and trust me, I was much happier when I had that faith.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: Oh, brother. I tried not to puke (figuratively speaking!) while reading that guy's story. I get annoyed reading Oh, I Just Wanted God To Love Me! stories, even when they come from former-''Christians''-cum-atheists like this guy.
--
No, he doesn't want Christianity to be true; and he doesn't submit to God because he doesn't believe, period; and he doesn't know the truth, period.

FL - I don't know how sincere this guy is; and I imagine his blog would serve as a great rebellion against his father as you suggested. But please be careful. If you were struggling with overwhelming doubts, I imagine it wouldn't help you much to hear Christians say that your stories make them want to puke. I'm sorry if my "Christian" -cum-lost story makes you ill, but it is genuine. And you can't know if the same feelings might happen to you.

Best,

E

Eureka wrote:I was referring mostly to 20.For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

I understand that it is easy to see amazing things in the world everyday...but I don't think that it is so obvious that God is the cause for all of this beauty. This verse makes it seem like belief in the existence and divinity of the Christian God is the easy route, such that only people who intentionally stray from this belief will lose faith. I did NOT intentionally stray from any belief.

What makes you think the passage is referring to every individual human being? Who does "they" refer to?

I do not believe in God. Even if there is a supreme creator/deity (which would not surprise me), I find it highly unlikely that human knowledge of God and Jesus (as understood through scripture) is reliable, let alone inerrant. I cannot convince myself to have that faith--and trust me, I was much happier when I had that faith.

I'm still a bit lost. You seem rather convinced that you had faith at one point. So where do you get the idea that you aren't saved? Do you think you lost your salvation? That you were never saved to begin with? (All that assuming, of course, for the sake of argument that Christianity is true.) There are certainly differences of opinion on this, but you stated rather categorically that you are not saved. But you said you believed. So I'm wondering where you get the idea that you aren't saved after all.