Evidence for God from Science

His five evidences for atheists to consider belief in God: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/ ... p=HPBucket

Was posted today on Fox News - some of it might have been better worded.

Its too bad this was on fox news instead of somewhere like CNN or MSNBC cause their viewers need to hear his arguments. Nonetheless, I'm glad Craig has been getting some airtime somewhere.

The problem I have seen is,

1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

That approach is not ideal, first because unless we are sure of the multiverse not being true, endorsing this view is a massive problem, should down the road we do find out that our universe began as a product of other pre-existing universes.

Until then yes, its a very nice explanation but it is certainly not important as the best explanation. First because of what I wrote above and second because while it may be the best explanation, for the atheist its a matter of fact or fiction, not a matter of probable or likely. Why would an atheist think about God as the best explanation when there is 1) an equal chance of multiverse, 2) he wants to know for sure, either its God or its not.

As long as there is a good margin of error, the argument never works.

God provides the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.

I have never gone with fine-tuning argument, though it is a bit more solid than Craig's first point I think. Because this can be argued with data.

God provides the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Yes.

God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Again agreed.

God can be personally known and experienced.

Yes, but this is highly subjective experience, one which I as a christian always hestitate to make an argument upon.

domokunrox wrote:Its too bad this was on fox news instead of somewhere like CNN or MSNBC cause their viewers need to hear his arguments. Nonetheless, I'm glad Craig has been getting some airtime somewhere.

I agree with dom on this. By being on Fox, Craig is essentially "preaching to the choir". I'd actually be surprised if CNN or MSNBC would carry a story like this.

1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

Neo wrote:
That approach is not ideal, first because unless we are sure of the multiverse not being true, endorsing this view is a massive problem, should down the road we do find out that our universe began as a product of other pre-existing universes.

If the multiverse was ever proven to be true, I believe this argument is still a good one. Unless Neo, you're promoting an eternal multiverse. But I don't think even you would go there.

Yes, the whole multi-verse thing is irrelevant to the question of its supposed source. ALL things have a beginning and cause. Even a MULTI-verse had to begin somewhere and it did not create itself. And the laws that guided it (from the very beginning) had to be designed and come from somewhere. There had to be a FIRST universe and it had to have a CAUSE, a Beginner. This is inescapable. Plus the supposed science suggesting such a thing is merely theoretical with less than a vapor of supporting evidence. And that vapor is the desperation of people desiring to explain how a universe began by itself out of nothing.

RickD wrote:

1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

Neo wrote:
That approach is not ideal, first because unless we are sure of the multiverse not being true, endorsing this view is a massive problem, should down the road we do find out that our universe began as a product of other pre-existing universes.

If the multiverse was ever proven to be true, I believe this argument is still a good one. Unless Neo, you're promoting an eternal multiverse. But I don't think even you would go there.

And even with an eternal universe the problem of motion is still insurmountable. Aquinas' first way was precisely formulated on those grounds. No matter what the case is, a first uncaused cause or a first unmoved mover is inescapable.

As a non-Christian, I figured I would give my personal responses to these arguments, as well as explaining why many atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians might reject them.

1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

To me, this is both a good and bad place to start. On one hand, I find it hard to reject the logic that a beginning of the universe had to have a first cause. And most people (myself included) are not well-versed enough in physics of philosophy to seriously start making heavy arguments over this for either side. That said, I reject the notion that this proves that the cause in question absolutely has to be the God that Craig describes. So his argument might poke a hole in atheism, but not any other type of belief that includes any kind of god-like being.

2. God provides the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.

The universe is nicely fine-tuned for us, yes (and the other living things on Earth and those potentially living elsewhere). But I reject the notion that it is impossible for a universe slightly different than ours to not support life of some sort, even if it wouldn't support us. Just like I think it is silly to think that life on distant worlds will look and live exactly like we do, and live on planets identical to Earth. I concede that our universe is good for our brand of life, per say, but a differently tuned universe could be just as good for a different type of life to flourish, even if it is infinitely different than life as we know it.

Craig is wrong, in my opinion, to claim that life cannot possibly exist in any other universe than one with our laws of physics. Such theoretical life just couldn't be us.

3. God provides the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Craig actually gives my answer in his explanation. I could very easily argue that human morality is just a function of evolutionary processes and that social norms are simply learned from those who raise us. It is undeniable that social behaviors and norms are evolved traits in every other species out there, so why can't our basic human morals be similarly evolved and learned?

4. God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

I'll be honest, I physically laughed out loud at this one. To claim that it is established historical fact and consensus that Jesus performed miracles, exorcisms, rose from the dead, and was God is absurd on so many levels. Maybe to Christian scholars such things are considered factual, but such events are not confirmed by any historical evidence beyond the Bible. No non-Christian who actually looks into this claim is going to go very far without finding it to be incorrect.

5. God can be personally known and experienced.

This just isn't a very helpful argument. It might be true, but a non-Christian who has never "experienced" God will find this to be a pretty lame proof of God. Combine that with the fact that, for centuries (or longer), people of literally every religion to ever exist have claimed to personally know and experience their religion...and this argument really only rings true to those already considered Christians.

I agree with Ivellious. The ''Five Reasons'' to believe in God are not very convincing. They'll work if you're preaching to the converted but laughable to anyone else. Sorry.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree with Ivellious. The ''Five Reasons'' to believe in God are not very convincing. They'll work if you're preaching to the converted but laughable to anyone else. Sorry.

FL

They've helped many.

The thing is, on a surface level, they're certainly laughable. But, the moment you "bite" and dig into them, then quickly the non-Christian will have a headache.

Above, I read people don't really get the thrust of Craig's #1 #3 and #4 arguments. The fact some are unacquainted with Craig's response to multi-universe (something than has comes up every so often in the 100 or so debates), that #3 is seen above to be a argument against a any kind of morality relative or otherwise, and #4 has many facts accepted by secular and Christian historians such that even Antony Flew said, "The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity." Finally, #2 which I'm not taken by for reasons that I just inherently see true design all around me whether looking at plant-life, animal-life and the immediate design of things. Who needs probability arguments when things are immediately obvious? However, the complexity found in microbiology was something that also lead Flew away from his Atheism.

Further, Craig's book Reasonable Faith, which goes quite deeply into these things... I know personally has lead someone back to Christ. Someone who had turned away... and who upon first reading too found the words in the book laughable, until he read further and got to understand what was being said better.

RickD wrote:

1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

Neo wrote:
That approach is not ideal, first because unless we are sure of the multiverse not being true, endorsing this view is a massive problem, should down the road we do find out that our universe began as a product of other pre-existing universes.

If the multiverse was ever proven to be true, I believe this argument is still a good one. Unless Neo, you're promoting an eternal multiverse. But I don't think even you would go there.

I am not, I am just saying, IF, and that's a big if, ever it got proved that it was true, that would throw this specific argument in the trash can. The first cause argument is slightly different than the kalam argument. In this instance, the kalam would be in trouble, not the first cause argument.

Personally, I don't like to make arguments on positions which may be proven false in the future.

Philip wrote:Yes, the whole multi-verse thing is irrelevant to the question of its supposed source. ALL things have a beginning and cause. Even a MULTI-verse had to begin somewhere and it did not create itself. And the laws that guided it (from the very beginning) had to be designed and come from somewhere. There had to be a FIRST universe and it had to have a CAUSE, a Beginner. This is inescapable. Plus the supposed science suggesting such a thing is merely theoretical with less than a vapor of supporting evidence. And that vapor is the desperation of people desiring to explain how a universe began by itself out of nothing.

I agree 100%, but that is not true for the kalam, the kalam specifically means this universe, not an endless chain of universes.

Kurieuo wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree with Ivellious. The ''Five Reasons'' to believe in God are not very convincing. They'll work if you're preaching to the converted but laughable to anyone else. Sorry.

FL

They've helped many.

The thing is, on a surface level, they're certainly laughable. But, the moment you "bite" and dig into them, then quickly the non-Christian will have a headache.

Above, I read people don't really get the thrust of Craig's #1 #3 and #4 arguments. The fact some are unacquainted with Craig's response to multi-universe (something than has comes up every so often in the 100 or so debates), that #3 is seen above to be a argument against a any kind of morality relative or otherwise, and #4 has many facts accepted by secular and Christian historians such that even Antony Flew said, "The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity." Finally, #2 which I'm not taken by for reasons that I just inherently see true design all around me whether looking at plant-life, animal-life and the immediate design of things. Who needs probability arguments when things are immediately obvious? However, the complexity found in microbiology was something that also lead Flew away from his Atheism.

Further, Craig's book Reasonable Faith, which goes quite deeply into these things... I know personally has lead someone back to Christ. Someone who had turned away... and who upon first reading too found the words in the book laughable, until he read further and got to understand what was being said better.

The thing is it could be really helpful for some as you mention in your post but it could also be irrelevant to why people have rejected God. A lot of atheists have rejected God also because of emotional pain or trauma, others have had intellectual problems. These kind of answers are good with the latter category of unbelievers but not for the former.

Also as with this, the question is not if you see design but if that design is a design by choice or by consequence. The atheists think its the latter, ID people think it intelligent and is the former. So the argument works for some, and not for others. And ultimately imo, just wastes time as I have never seen anybody got impressed by it, one reason being that it just gets you deism at best, not the christian God.

It is strange to think that a given set of arguments will convince everyone. That is certainly an unreasonable expectation given that not everyone's objection to faith is the same in nature.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree with Ivellious. The ''Five Reasons'' to believe in God are not very convincing. They'll work if you're preaching to the converted but laughable to anyone else. Sorry.

FL

Really - they are one of the main reasons I came to Christ. I find them utterly convincing, and I am not stupid by any stretch. If it wasn't for people like WLC and Rich Deem I would be headed for eternal damnation. So frankly I find your comment somewhat bewildering and arrogant.

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree with Ivellious. The ''Five Reasons'' to believe in God are not very convincing. They'll work if you're preaching to the converted but laughable to anyone else. Sorry.

FL

Really - they are one of the main reasons I came to Christ. I find them utterly convincing, and I am not stupid by any stretch. If it wasn't for people like WLC and Rich Deem I would be headed for eternal damnation. So frankly I find your comment somewhat bewildering and arrogant.

Silvertusk.

I totally agree Silver, without philosophical arguments for the existence of God my journey may have never begun, while it was only a portion of why I came to Christ it was still an important piece of the puzzle.