God of the gaps. Really ?

_{Otangelo
January 18, 2023

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The arguments for God’s existence are based on positive evidence and logical inferences. Not gaps of knowledge.

God of the gaps and incredulity, a justified refutation of ID arguments? https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1983-gaps-god-of-the-gaps-and-incredulitya-justified-refutation-of-id-arguments

125 reasons to believe in God

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god

There is no evidence of Gods existence. Really?

1. The universe and biological systems appear designed. Therefore, most likely, they were designed.

2. The universe is like a wind-up clock, winding down as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. That means, it had a beginning, therefore a cause.

3. Laws and rules of mathematics and physics are imprinted in the universe, which obeys them. The fundamental physical constants, the universe, and the earth are finely tuned to permit life. Hundreds, if not thousands of constants must be just right. Who/what finely adjusted these parameters to permit life?

4. Cells ARE literally factories. Biological cells ARE an industrial park of millions of interconnected complex factories, full of machines, production lines, computers, energy turbines, etc.

5. Cell factories have a codified description of themselves in digital form stored in genes and have the machinery to process that information through transcription and translation into an identical representation in analog 3D form, the physical ‘reality’ of that description.

6. DNA has the highest storage density known, stores the blueprint of life, has information encoding, transmission, and decoding, and translation machinery.

7. Humans are moral beings, and have conscious intelligent minds, able to communicate, use language, and objective logic. Morals, the mind, information, and logic, are non-material, non-physical entities.

Comments

@PM1 @34 "Why aren’t living things like that? Why is that living things tend to act in ways that allow them to maintain themselves far from thermodynamic equilibrium?" Probably because living things are "Maxwell's demons".Jblais_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

"I cannot remember a time in my life when I didn’t hate authority figures" BTW, do you really think that all authority figures deserve hatred ?Jblais_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

"Because we can approach the universe from more than one point of view. If we think like scientists, we collect particular facts and slowly fit them into a more comprehensive theory. If we feel like artists (or mystics?), we begin with an act of intuitively feeling the underlying pervasive unity of all things." That doesn't answer my question. The question was not "why do WE see a distinction" but "why IS there a distinction". Is there a distinction or is there not ? "I would think the fundamental existential question that faces humanity is something a bit more tangible, such as “why gives my life purpose?” or “does humanity deserve to have a future?” or “why should care whether or not humanity becomes extinct?”" None of these questions are fundamental and any answer given to them becomes absurd if there is no reason why our contingent world exist. " For it to conceive of a possibility, yet not actualize that possibility, would mean that it refrains from acting on something that it could do. But then its power would not be absolutely unlimited." That doesn't follow. First, choosing not to do something does not entail that one's power is not unlimited. Second, why would God care about "physicality" per se ? If a possible world exists in God's mind, why suppose that God would care one bit about adding physicality to it ? From God's point of view, that wouldn't change or add anything. "So the question “why does our apparently contingent universe have the laws that it manifestly does?” would be answered as “because God necessarily does everything that He can conceive of, including bringing into existence this universe”." Again, why think that God cares about giving physicality to possible worlds that exists in his mind ? Why would He care about things being "physical" at all ? "Firstly, he reasons that animals (including humans) only act purposively in order to satisfy a need, but God cannot have any needs, since there is nothing that He lacks, hence God cannot act purposively." Again, that simply doesn't follow. One can act with a purpose that has nothing to do with the satisfaction of a need. "Secondly, he reasons that we make choices only because we can’t do everything that we want to do. But God can do everything that He can conceive of. Hence God cannot make choices." The idea that God's creation is equivalent to humans making choices because of some tradeoffs is rather silly. If these are the reasons why Spinoza rejects theism, these are rather unsophisticated, I would even say childish... "In other words, Spinoza thinks that classical theism is just too anthropomorphic: we tend to imagine God as being a person, like us in lots of ways, just way more powerful. " If that's indeed what Spinoza's idea of God was, then I'm afraid he didn't understand anything about classical theism. "As for why I like this view: well, firstly, the idea of God as being anything like a lord, sovereign, or king has always rankled my anarchist intuitions. I cannot remember a time in my life when I didn’t hate authority figures, and that includes all anthropomorphic conceptions of God. " We've all been teenagers at some point... Unfortunately, pantheism (Spinoza's version or others) just cannot answer the only fundamental question of why the contingent physical reality exists and why it's the way it is rather than some other way. Again, if there is a reason why the contingent physical reality exists, it can only be an intentional creative act from a transcendant God.Jblais_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1 @23, Previously posted:
– ID is not synonymous with Creationism. – ID Takes no position on the source of the intelligent design. – ID recognizes that biological research based on the appearance of design advances scientific progress faster than the presumption of undirected random chance. Examples: – The presumption of over 100 supposedly useless “vestigial” organs such as the thyroid (an other ductless glands): useless vestiges of random, undirected evolution. – The presumption that 98.8% of our genome is “junk DNA,” now called “non-coding DNA,” as additional examples of vestiges of random, undirected evolution by Susumu Ohno, the originator of the term. NEW: Discovered in 2019, “Small proteins also promise to revise the current understanding of the genome. Many appear to be encoded in stretches of DNA—and RNA—that were not thought to help build proteins of any sort.” https://www.science.org/content/article/new-universe-miniproteins-upending-cell-biology-and-genetics – The skeletal remains of extinct animals called dinosaurs supposedly lived roughly 65-250 million years ago were ALL supposedly petrified artifacts without any possibility for organic matter to survive. This was PREDICTED by Darwinism. It’s also failed, but Darwinists are grimly hanging on to the unscientific possibility that 100+ million years of background radiation miraculously allowed organic bone, stretchy connective tissue, and even red blood cells to survive (in Chile, a recent find of Ichthyosaurus remains included preserved soft tissue in strata dated to 130-140 million years ago). See also: Weak Anti_ID Arguments: https://uncommondescent.com/faq/
Creationism assumes that a deity is the answer to the question:
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Christian beliefs include creationism, but creationism is NOT exclusive to Christianity.
Yet for some reason I don’t see you and Andrew mocking Querius, Kairosfocus, Origenes, or StephenB for their “philosophical preening”.
I will absolutely welcome any mockery, deserved or not, against my person for any observed or presumed "philosophical preening." Philosophy was a general education requirement in college, and I found it almost intolerably boring and generally impractical. For example, I'm blissfully unaware of any instances where Philosophy has made anyone healthy, joyful, wealthy, or sexually attractive at a party. In the meantime, let me remind Darwinists of their twin gods-of-the-gaps, MUSTA and MIGHTA, who are frequently invoked by name in many breathless media announcements, scientific papers, and textbooks. They routinely fill in MASSIVE gaps in both origin-of-life research and the evolutionary development of massive complexity in living things and their ecosystems. -QQuerius_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Martin_r at 32, Someone could show him a drawing. https://www.engineersedge.com/wwwboard/posts/12610.htmlrelatd_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

@32
Do you seriously think, that PM knows what a MOSFET is ? And that it gets hot?
I can use Google as well as the next person, and if the Wikipedia doesn't make sense to me, I can ask my wife for a more basic explanation (she's an engineer). So here's a question: the kinds of machines that we build -- let's call them artifactual machines -- tend to be in thermodynamic equilibrium with their environment unless energy is being dumped into them. When that happens, entropy increases unless there's some way to couple the system with a cooling agent or mechanism. Why aren't living things like that? Why is that living things tend to act in ways that allow them to maintain themselves far from thermodynamic equilibrium?PyrrhoManiac1_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

@29
May I ask why, if God is the only substance, does this distinction between “the universe” and “God” exist in the first place ? Why is there any distinction at all ?
Because we can approach the universe from more than one point of view. If we think like scientists, we collect particular facts and slowly fit them into a more comprehensive theory. If we feel like artists (or mystics?), we begin with an act of intuitively feeling the underlying pervasive unity of all things.
The fundamental existential question that faces humanity is: why does the contingent physical reality we inhabit exists at all and why is it the way it is rather than some other way ?
I would think the fundamental existential question that faces humanity is something a bit more tangible, such as "why gives my life purpose?" or "does humanity deserve to have a future?" or "why should care whether or not humanity becomes extinct?" But, regardless, I agree that the question, "why is our (apparently) contingent universe the way that it is?" is a question worth asking.
How does Spinoza’s pantheism answer it ? As Schopenhauer said: “To call the world ‘God’ is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym” If there is a reason why the world exists, it can only be an intentional creative act from a transcendant God. Otherwise, there is no reason for anything, and thus everything is fundamentaly an accidental brute fact, with all the absurdity it implies…
Spinoza's response would be to say that a being of absolutely unlimited power (as we define God) would do everything that it could possibly do. For it to conceive of a possibility, yet not actualize that possibility, would mean that it refrains from acting on something that it could do. But then its power would not be absolutely unlimited. So the question "why does our apparently contingent universe have the laws that it manifestly does?" would be answered as "because God necessarily does everything that He can conceive of, including bringing into existence this universe". Another way of putting the point is that traditional classical theism envisions the act of Creation as a choice: something that He did for some purpose. Spinoza thinks that's nonsense, for two main reasons. Firstly, he reasons that animals (including humans) only act purposively in order to satisfy a need, but God cannot have any needs, since there is nothing that He lacks, hence God cannot act purposively. Secondly, he reasons that we make choices only because we can't do everything that we want to do. But God can do everything that He can conceive of. Hence God cannot make choices. In other words, Spinoza thinks that classical theism is just too anthropomorphic: we tend to imagine God as being a person, like us in lots of ways, just way more powerful. Spinoza thinks that if we begin with the definition of God as a being of absolutely unlimited power, it becomes clear that God cannot be anything like a person -- nothing at all like us. As for why I like this view: well, firstly, the idea of God as being anything like a lord, sovereign, or king has always rankled my anarchist intuitions. I cannot remember a time in my life when I didn't hate authority figures, and that includes all anthropomorphic conceptions of God. But, also, Spinoza's philosophical system requires being able to both think like a scientist and feel like an artist. As someone who attempted both science and art before becoming a philosopher, that speaks to me in a rather deep way.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Relatd Do you seriously think, that PM knows what a MOSFET is ? And that it gets hot? :martin_r_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

PM1 at 30, What's at stake? Having the correct worldview. Atheism: Nothing is designed. No one made human beings. You are an accident of evolution. When you die - nothing. ID: As science, it does not identify the designer. But, average people, and the Catholic Church, are connecting ID directly to God. Question: You are about to create something. Do you design it before making it?relatd_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

A Creator might be a designer -- or perhaps not -- I don't think it's obvious. But my point was rather that the inference can't go the other way around: a Designer does not need to be a Creator, even if the Designer is (in some sense) supernatural. Consider it this way: even if ID shows that the universe was fine-tuned for life, and that intelligent intervention was necessary for generating biological information, what does that really entail? That is at least consistent with the teachings of ancient Gnosticism: that the physical universe was created by a lesser spiritual being, the Demiurge, in order to imprison immaterial souls within flesh. Needless to say I am not advocating Gnosticism, only pointing that if ID is as compatible with Gnosticism as it is with Christianity, then ID does not have the resources for identifying the designer with God. Hence ID cannot work as an argument for the existence of God. It doesn't not even make the existence of God any more plausible or likely. But, since evolutionary theory is also perfectly compatible with the existence of God and belief in His creative will, love, and goodness, it is difficult for me to see what's really at stake. With regard to engineering concepts in biology: what seems obvious to people who don't care to think about these issues is not obvious to people who actually do take the time to think about these issues. For more, see "On Being the Right Size, Revisited: The Problem with Engineering Metaphors in Molecular Biology" and "Is the Cell Really a Machine?" -- also I just found out about this exciting volume, Philosophical Perspectives on the Engineering Approach in Biology: Living Machines?.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

@PM1 @19 " I’ve quite persuaded by Spinoza’s argument that God is the only substance, hence the distinction between “God” and “the universe” is that the universe refers to the totality of all infinite and finite modes (natura naturata, “nature natured”), and God refers to the fundamental unifying interconnectedness of all things (natura naturans, “nature naturing”)." May I ask why, if God is the only substance, does this distinction between "the universe" and "God" exist in the first place ? Why is there any distinction at all ? The fundamental existential question that faces humanity is: why does the contingent physical reality we inhabit exists at all and why is it the way it is rather than some other way ? How does Spinoza's pantheism answer it ? As Schopenhauer said: "To call the world 'God' is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym" If there is a reason why the world exists, it can only be an intentional creative act from a transcendant God. Otherwise, there is no reason for anything, and thus everything is fundamentaly an accidental brute fact, with all the absurdity it implies...Jblais_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Andrew at 27, The mission of some here is to make the obvious obscure. To confuse readers.relatd_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

"A Creator creates. He designs living things." Relatd, This is true. A creator has to be a designer. It's implied. The creator has to know the form of the creation and how to generate and relate the parts. A Conceiver is not a designer. That might be the issue. Definitions. Andrewasauber_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

PM1 at 23, Do you know anything about Industrial Design? The design of electronic devices? Why is there a heat sink around a MOSFET? Engineering applies 100% to living things. https://intelligentdesign.org/articles/molecular-machines-in-the-cell/ Please stop trying to mislead people. Living things are designed - this involves a level of engineering. Engineering that is far beyond anything humans can do.relatd_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

we will then have to endure yet one more tome from BA77
No one has to endure anything. It is completely voluntary. I rarely read anything that BA77 writes. When I do it’s nearly always factually correct. The difference is that you never provide anything factually correct. Just attempted put downs. Why would adults do this? It says you are childish as well as ignorant.jerry_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

PM1 at 15, Pffft! A Creator creates. He designs living things.relatd_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

@22
Well PM1, since I am primarily concerned with the absurd philosophy of atheistic materialism, and its bastard child Darwinism, that has infected our school systems, I could care less what your personal ‘abstract’ version of Spinoza’s god is.
It's funny to me how people who defend ID insist that it's slander to say that intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo, while repeating the same lies that creationism always tells -- in this case, the lie that evolutionary theory has any connection with what you call "atheistic materialism". I don't know why it's so important to you to believe that there's some deep connection between evolutionary theory and "atheistic materialism". But it's simply not true. What looks like a rational connection to you is just irrational fantasizing to the rest of us. While the ID community is unified by this shared delusion, that doesn't make it any less delusional.
Indeed, since you are, presumably, not an atheist, I’ve often wondered why you don’t just go over to Jerry Coyne’s and PZ Myer’s blogs and correct them on their philosophical ineptitude with atheistic materialism instead of hanging around here on UD, not really discussing the science mind you, but instead constantly perpetuating your philosophical mumbo jumbo. I agree with Andrew, your philosophical preening really is quite boring.
Oh, Coyne and Myers are boring. They don't care about philosophy at all. At least some people here do care about philosophy -- just not you and Andrew. Yet for some reason I don't see you and Andrew mocking Querius, Kairosfocus, Origenes, or StephenB for their "philosophical preening". I wonder why that is. Anyway, I've discussed the science of ID many times and explained why I think that the use of engineering concepts in molecular biology is fundamentally misguided. Perhaps you hadn't noticed.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Well PM1, since I am primarily concerned with the absurd philosophy of atheistic materialism, and its bastard child Darwinism, that has infected our school systems, I could care less what your personal 'abstract' version of Spinoza's god is. Indeed, since you are, presumably, not an atheist, I've often wondered why you don't just go over to Jerry Coyne's and PZ Myer's blogs and correct them on their philosophical ineptitude with atheistic materialism instead of hanging around here on UD, not really discussing the science mind you, but instead constantly perpetuating your philosophical mumbo jumbo. I agree with Andrew, your philosophical preening really is quite boring.
The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman – 2010 The religious beliefs that guided Kurt Gödel’s revolutionary ideas Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians Einstein and Gödel – By David Berlinski - March 01, 2002 Oh, to be a fly on a textbook when the century's greatest physicist walked home from work with its most influential mathematician Excerpt: Einstein once remarked to Oskar Morgenstern, one of the cofounders of game theory, that he went to the Institute chiefly to walk home with Gödel. http://discovermagazine.com/2002/mar/featgodel Kurt Gödel Excerpt: Kurt Friedrich Gödel (April 28, 1906– January 14, 1978) was an Austrian, and later American, logician,mathematician, and philosopher. Considered along with Aristotle, Alfred Tarski and Gottlob Frege to be one of the most significant logicians in history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del Kurt Gödel Religious views Gödel was a convinced theist, in the Christian tradition.[28] He held the notion that God was personal. He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: "Of course this supposes that there are many relationships which today's science and received wisdom haven't any inkling of. But I am convinced of this [the afterlife], independently of any theology." It is "possible today to perceive, by pure reasoning" that it "is entirely consistent with known facts." "If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning, then there must be such a thing [as an afterlife]."[29] In an unmailed answer to a questionnaire, Gödel described his religion as "baptized Lutheran (but not member of any religious congregation). My belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza."[30],,, According to his wife Adele, "Gödel, although he did not go to church, was religious and read the Bible in bed every Sunday morning",[32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del#Religious_views
bornagain77_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

@20
. A word of caution: don’t use “brain” and “mind” interchangeably because we will then have to endure yet one more tome from BA77
Fair enough. And for whatever it may be worth, when I'm being precise, I don't use "mind" and "brain" interchangeably, either. I was just being sloppy when I used them in 19 as if they meant the same thing. I don't actually believe that.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

PM1/19
I don’t know why you think I’m trying to avoid God. I’ve said several times that I’m not an atheist, and yet this information never seems to enter into your brain…Anyway, I don’t consider myself an atheist because I’m a Spinozist. I am hopeful that this information may finally get firmly lodged within your mind.
Don’t hold your breath. A word of caution: don’t use “brain” and “mind” interchangeably because we will then have to endure yet one more tome from BA77chuckdarwin_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

@17
Well PM1, I personally find those philosophical arguments, at least the ones I have familiarity with, to be very persuasive. But since you pride yourself in tying yourself into philosophically incoherent knots trying to avoid God, (instead of ‘naturally’ following the scientific evidence where it leads)
I don't know why you think I'm trying to avoid God. I've said several times that I'm not an atheist, and yet this information never seems to enter into your brain.
I’ll leave it to you to invalidate each and every one of those philosophical arguments from distinguished, college level, philosophers. I look forward to your published book.
Well, since I'm a mildly distinguished college level philosopher and so are most of my friends, I'm not terribly impressed by the fact that these arguments are made by people with the same job description that I have. But no, I'm not going to listen to all these arguments and refute them one by one, for two reasons: (1) my time and energy are limited and I don't give away my intellectual labor for free and (2) I really don't care all that much. Or, better put: I've quite persuaded by Spinoza's argument that God is the only substance, hence the distinction between "God" and "the universe" is that the universe refers to the totality of all infinite and finite modes (natura naturata, "nature natured"), and God refers to the fundamental unifying interconnectedness of all things (natura naturans, "nature naturing"). Anyway, I don't consider myself an atheist because I'm a Spinozist. I am hopeful that this information may finally get firmly lodged within your mind.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

"But since you pride yourself in tying yourself into philosophically incoherent knots trying to avoid God" BA77, This is exactly what PM1 does. He could be honest and just acknowledge it, but he insists on tedious circumlocution, so as to give himself the pretense of sophistication. It's really boring. Andrewasauber_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

(I see PMI has deleted his comment saying that I didn't need to list all those arguments since only one logically valid philosophical argument was needed to prove the existence of God) Oh well, anyways, here is my response to his deleted comment. Well PM1, I personally find those philosophical arguments, at least the ones I have familiarity with, to be very persuasive. But since you pride yourself in tying yourself into philosophically incoherent knots trying to avoid God, (instead of 'naturally' following the scientific evidence where it leads), I'll leave it to you to invalidate each and every one of those philosophical arguments from distinguished, college level, philosophers. I look forward to your published book. Myself, I'll stick to the empirical evidence from science since it most directly points to the existence of God.
1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for intelligent life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’ (C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule). Short defense of each claim https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHkCYvFiWiZfMlXHKJwwMJ7SJ0tlqWfH83dJ2OgfP78/edit
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact modern science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after 'theory of everything' Specifically, allowing the Agent causality of God (and of humans) ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, (via their belief in 'contingency'),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
Oct. 2022 - although there will never be, (via Godel), a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between quantum mechanics and general relativity, all hope is not lost in finding the correct ‘theory of everything’. https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-766384
bornagain77_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Of related note, here are some philosophical arguments for the existence of God:
Table Of Contents for TWO DOZEN (OR SO) ARGUMENTS FOR GOD: THE PLANTINGA PROJECT I. Half a Dozen (or so) ontological (or metaphysical) arguments (A) The Argument from Intentionality (or Aboutness) • Lorraine Keller, Niagara University • "Propositions Supernaturalized" (B) The Argument from Collections • Chris Menzel, Texas A&M • "The Argument from Collections" (C) The Argument from (Natural) Numbers • Tyron Goldshmidt, Wake Forest • "The Argument from (Natural) Numbers" (D) The Argument From Counterfactuals • Alex Pruss, Baylor University • "Counterfactuals, Vagueness and God" (E) The Argument from Physical Constants • Robin Collins, Messiah College • "The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability" (F) The Naive Teleological Argument • C. Stephen Evans, Baylor University • "An Argument from Design for Ordinary People" (H) The Ontological Argument • Elizabeth Burns, Heythrop College • "Patching Planting’s Ontological Argument by Making the Murdoch Move" (I) Why is there anything at all? • Josh Rasmussen, Azusa Pacific; and Christopher Gregory Weaver, Rutgers University • "Why is There Anything?" II. Half a dozen Epistemological Arguments (J) The argument from positive epistemic status • Justin Barrett, Fuller Seminary • "Evolutionary Psychology and the Argument from Positive Epistemic Status" (K) The Argument from the confluence of proper function and reliability • Alex Arnold, The John Templeton Foundation • "Is God the Designer of our Cognitive Faculties? Evaluating Plantinga’s Argument" (L) The Argument from Simplicity and (M) The Argument from Induction • Bradly Monton, Independent Scholar • "Atheistic Induction by Boltzmann Brains" (N) The Putnamian Argument (the Argument from the Rejection of Global Skepticism)[also, (O) The Argument from Reference and (K) The Argument from the Confluence of Proper Function and Reliability] • Even Fales, University of Iowa • "Putnam's Semantic Skepticism and the Epistemic Melt-Down of Naturalism: How Defeat of Putnam's Puzzle Provides a Defeater for Plantinga's Self-Defeat Argument Against Naturalism" (N) The Putnamian Argument, (O) The Argument from Reference, and (P) The Kripke-Wittgenstein Argument from Plus and Quus • Dan Bonevac, University of Texas • "Arguments from Knowledge, Reference, and Content" (Q) The General Argument from Intuition. • Rob Koons, University of Texas at Austin • "The General Argument from Intuition" III. Moral arguments (R) Moral Arguments (actually R1 to Rn) • David Baggett, Liberty University • "An Abductive Moral Argument for God" (R*) The argument from evil. • Hud Hudson, Western Washington University • "Felix Culpa!" IV. Other Arguments (S) The Argument from Colors and Flavors • Richard Swinburne, Oxford University • "The Argument from Consciousness" (T) The Argument from Love and (Y) The Argument from the Meaning of Life • Jerry Walls, Houston Baptist University • "The God of Love and the Meaning of Life" (U) The Mozart Argument and (V) The Argument from Play and Enjoyment • Philip Tallon, Houston Baptist University • "The Theistic Argument from Beauty and Play" (W) Arguments from providence and from miracles • Tim McGrew, Western Michigan University • "Of Miracles: The State of the Art and the Uses of History" (X) C.S. Lewis's Argument from Nostalgia • Todd Buras, Baylor University and Mike Cantrell • "A New Argument from Desire" (Z) The Argument from (A) to (Y) • Ted Poston, University of South Alabama • "The Argument from So Many Arguments" V. "Or so": Three More Arguments The Kalam Cosmological Argument • William Lane Craig, Houston Baptist University • "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" The Argument from Possibility • Brian Leftow, Oxford University • "The Argument from Possibility" The Argument from the Incompleteness of Nature • Bruce Gordon, Houston Baptist University • "The Necessity of Sufficiency: The Argument from the Incompleteness of Nature" Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God: The Plantinga Project - Paperback https://www.amazon.com/Two-Dozen-Arguments-God-Plantinga/dp/0190842229 20 Arguments For God’s Existence - Dr. Peter Kreeft 1. The Argument from Change 2. The Argument from Efficient Causality 3. The Argument from Time and Contingency 4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection 5. The Design Argument 6. The Kalam Argument 7. The Argument from Contingency 8. The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole 9. The Argument from Miracles 10. The Argument from Consciousness 11. The Argument from Truth 12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God 13. The Ontological Argument 14. The Moral Argument 15. The Argument from Conscience 16. The Argument from Desire 17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience 18. The Argument from Religious Experience 19. The Common Consent Argument 20. Pascal's Wager http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/ Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God - (Lecture starts around the 12 minute mark) https://youtu.be/Qi7ANgO2ZBU?t=723 In this video, Dr. Chad McIntosh presents over 100 arguments for the existence of God. Each argument is presented in visual form followed by recommended sources for further research. At the end, we discuss what a similar list of arguments for atheism would look like (and what it would imply for the theistic list of arguments). 1 0:19:23 Aquinas' First Way — Unmoved Mover 2 0:23:46 Aquinas' Second Way — Uncaused Cause 3 0:24:20 Aquinas Third Way 4 0:26:26 Samuel Clarke-ish 5 0:30:48 Leibniz's CA 6 0:35:22 Leibnizian CA: Davis-Craig 7 0:36:17 Leibnizian CA: Pruss 8 0:37:52 The Gale-Pruss CA 9 0:43:07 CA without the Principle of Sufficient Reason 10 0:45:39 Koon's CA 10b 0:48:34 Koon’s Argument Simplified 11 0:51:48 Pruss and Rasmussen's Contingency CA 12 0:53:04 Emanuel Rutten's Atomistic CA 13 0:54:10 The Kalaam CA 14 0:55:08 Alexander Pruss' Kalaam CA 15 0:55:48 Swinburne's Inductive CA 16 0:58:20 Scotus' Modal CA 17 1:00:50 James Ross' Modal CA 18b 1:02:18 Christopher Weaver’s Modal CA 18 1:02:37 Rasmussen and Weaver CA 19 1:04:35 Pruss and Rasmussen's Modal CA 20 1:05:35 Descarte's CA XX 1:08:27 THE Cosmological Argument Ontological Arguments (1:10:10) 21 1:10:13 Anselm's First OA (Proslogion II) 22 1:11:45 Descarte's OA 23 1:13:00 Anselm's 2nd OA (Proslogion III) 23b 1:14:35 Hartshorne on Anselm’s Proslogion III 23c 1:15:26 Maydole’s Reconstruction 24 1:15:59 Anselm's Other Other OA 25 1:17:15 Plantinga's OA 25b 1:18:01 The Modal OA Simplified 25c 1:19:45 Key Modal Inference - - 1:20:52 Defenses of the Possibility Premise 26 1:21:42 The Phenomenal Defense of Plantinga's Possibility Premise 27 1:23:52 Godel's Demonstration of the Possibility Premise 28 1:25:06 Pruss's Improvement on Godel's Demonstration 29 1:25:49 Maydole's Modal Perfection Argument 30 1:28:13 Bernstein's Demonstration of the Possibility Premise 31 1:29:45 Nagasawa's Maximal God Approach to the Possibility Premise Design Arguments (1:34:51) XX 1:34:51 The Argument from Bananas 32 1:35:08 Aquinas' Fifth Way 32b 1:36:30 Étienne Gilson’s Justification 32c 1:36:41 Aquinas’ Fifth Way: Simplified 33 1:38:09 Design in Biology: Origin of Organic Life 34 1:38:53 Chandler's Divine Intervention Argument 35 1:40:15 Design in Biology: Organic Structures Paley 36 1:41:48 More faithful version of Paley 37 1:42:35 Pruss' Analogical DA 38 1:43:07 Design in Biology: Information 39 1:44:43 Tennant's Argument from Cosmic Teleology Fine-Tuning Arguments (1:46:24) - - 1:46:25 Fundamental Constants and Laws - - 1:47:03 Examples of Fine-Tuning Arguments 40 1:47:11 FTA by Elimination 41 1:49:34 FTA by Bayes 41b 1:50:40 Collins on the FTA 42 1:52:45 Collins' Fine-Tuning for Discoverability 43 1:55:30 Perceiving Design Moral Arguments (1:57:07) 44 1:57:07 Generic Argument from the Objectivity of Morality 45 1:57:30 Abductive Argument from the Objectivity of Morality 46 1:58:10 The Normative Implications of Evil 47 1:59:03 Evil as Privation of Good 48 2:00:10 Horrendous Evils 49 2:01:45 Universal Moral Beliefs 50 2:02:43 Sidgwick and Kant 51 2:03:40 A Kantian Argument from Adams 52 2:06:00 Oderberg on Cosmic Justice 53 2:07:18 Layman’s Moral Argument 54 2:09:04 The Need for Divine Aid in Being Moral 55 2:11:15 The Moral Gap 56 2:12:44 Duty to Promote the Highest Good 57 2:13:36 Objective Obligations and Duties 58 2:15:32 Argument from Conscience 59 2:17:21 The Intrinsic Harmfulness of Wrongdoing 60 2:18:43 Moral Knowledge 61 2:20:08 Apprehension of Objective Norms 62 2:21:02 Altruism: Schloss 63 2:21:54 Altruism: Pruss Experiential Arguments (2:23:56) - - 2:24:04 Examples of Religious Experience 64 2:26:32 Analogy with Aesthetic Experience 65 2:28:04 Hick on Religious Experience 66 2:28:52 Swinburne on Religious Experience 67 2:29:11 Plantinga on Proper Basicality 68 2:29:24 Alston on Perceiving God 1 69 2:29:59 Alston on Perceiving God 2 70 2:31:13 Yandell on Religious Experience 71 2:32:17 Ontomystical Argument 72 2:32:52 Personal Transformation 73 2:34:40 NDEs and Religious Experience 73b 2:35:04 NDEs and Life After Death Arguments from Miracles (2:35:28) - - 2:35:28 Preliminaries: Hume - - 2:36:50 Generic Argument from Miracles 74 2:37:21 Historical Candidates for E: Exodus (Kuzari Principle) 75 2:38:34 Historical Candidates for E: Spectacular Events of Jesus' Ministry 76 2:38:53 Historical Candidate for E: Resurrection 77 2:40:34 Contemporary Candidates for E - - 2:41:08 Craig Keener 78 2:44:12 Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle Metaphysical Arguments (2:47:25) 79 2:47:30 Lowe’s Argument from Abstract Objects 80 2:47:42 Feser's Augstuinian Proof 81 2:47:56 Lowe on Objects of Reason 82 2:48:12 Arguments from Propositions 83 2:50:19 Argument from Sets 84 2:51:47 Argument from Unities 85 2:52:20 Unities: Contingents 86 2:52:51 Unities: Wholes 87 2:54:08 Unities: The Cosmos 88 2:54:39 Rasmussen's Argument from Limits 89 2:55:15 Applicability of Mathematics 90 2:55:31 Global Economy Argument (Leftow's Reductions) 91 2:56:56 Argument from Possibility (Modality) Nomological Arguments (2:57:08) - - 2:57:08 Prolegomena 92 2:58:11 Laws as Counterfactuals of Divine Freedom 93 2:58:35 A Scholastic Argument 94 2:58:57 From Induction to Laws to God 95 3:00:00 From Induction to God 96 3:01:27 Simplicity of Divine Laws (Swinburne's Argument from Induction) 97 3:01:42 From the Incompleteness of Nature (from Quantum Mechanics) Axiological Arguments (3:02:28) - - 3:02:28 Axiology Definition 98 3:03:16 Aquinas' Fourth Way 99 3:03:39 The Deontic Argument 100 3:04:07 The Modal Deontic Argument 101 3:04:43 Objective Beauty 102 3:06:18 Aesthetic Sensibilities 103 3:06:37 Natural Beauty as Product of Aesthetic Intent 104 3:07:04 Natural Beauty as a Gift 105 3:08:47 Natural Beauty as a Natural Sign 106 3:09:13 Beauty in Mathematics 107 3:09:29 Inherent Human Value/Worth 108 3:10:11 Equal Worth 109 3:10:58 Natural Rights Noological Arguments (3:11:31) 110 3:12:34 Thinking Things (Locke) 111 3:13:02 Psychophysical Laws (Swinburne's Argument from Conciousness) 112 3:13:20 Nonphysical Concious States (Moreland's Argument from Conciousness) 113 3:13:35 Conciousness Per Se 114 3:14:06 Paley's Arguments from Flavors and Colors (Gratuitous Pleasures) 115 3:15:04 Intelligibility of the World 116 3:17:02 Argument from Reason 117 3:18:20 Naturalness of Theistic Belief 118 3:18:58 Argument from Certainty 119 3:19:27 Knowledge as Proper Function 120 3:19:48 Epistemic Probability 121 3:20:09 Reliability of our Cognitive Faculties 122 3:20:24 Anti-Realism 123 3:21:15 Idealism 124 3:22:02 Knowability: A Fitch-style Proof 125 3:22:54 Modal Epistemic Argument Linguistic Arguments (3:24:20) 126 3:24:25 Concept Acquistion 127 3:25:52 Linguistic Ability 128 3:26:03 Semantic Content 129 3:26:38 Falsity of Semantic Indeterminism Anthropological Arguments (3:29:23) 130 3:29:29 Argument from Desire 131 3:29:50 Modal Argument from Desire 132 3:30:11 God as Motivational Center 133 3:30:28 Love 134 3:30:57 Objective Meaning 135 3:31:06 Meaning as Endowed 136 3:32:21 Meaning as Narrative 137 3:32:38 From the Naturalness of Belief in Objective Meaning 138 3:33:03 Happiness and the Afterlife 139 3:33:33 Political Authority 140 3:34:13 Free Will 141 3:34:52 Pascal's Anthropological Argument 142 3:36:04 Consensus Gentium 143 3:36:36 Rehult's Consensus Gentium Argument 144 3:37:10 A More Modest Consensus Gentium Pragmatic Arguments (3:37:57) 145 3:38:34 Pascal's Wager (from Infinite Expected Value) 146 3:39:08 Pascal's Wager (from Greater Expected Value) 147 3:39:18 Pascal's Wager (Jackson and Rogers) 148 3:39:55 Pascal's Wager (Rota) 149 3:41:10 The Jamesian Wager 150 3:42:15 Rationality of Devotion to God 151 3:43:50 From Personal to World Benefits Meta-Arguments (3:44:36) 152 3:44:53 Transcendental Arguments - - 3:45:35 Cumulative Case Arguments 153 3:45:42 Arbor’s Cumulative Credence Raiser 154 3:46:19 The Possibility of a Sound Theistic Argument
bornagain77_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

@12
ID does not point to the Christian God per se but is 100% consistent with it.
Sure, but so what? Consistency is logic on Easy Mode. After all, evolutionary theory is fully consistent with both ID and theism. My point is that a designer is not identical with a creator. The designer could be a creator, but doesn't have to be. As Kant put the point way back in 1781, the argument from design teaches only that there must be a being of immense power and knowledge, not that there must be a being of absolutely unlimited power and knowledge. One would need to go beyond the logical resources of ID in order to show that the designer (even the designer of the whole universe) is a creator God. As far as ID is concerned, it's perfectly compatible with both Abrahamic theisms (the designer of the universe is an infinitely powerful, wise, and good transcendent Being) and with Gnosticism (the designer of the universe is an immensely powerful, clever, and evil transcendent being). In other words, none of the arguments (1)-(6) actually demonstrate that God exists, because they are all compatible with Gnosticism. And (7) at most establishes some form of Platonism, which does not entail theism because Platonic atheism is perfectly intelligible and coherent.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

My bad
an oxymoron because it’s always true. Has Seversky ever gotten anything right in 16 years here?jerry_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

Seversky/6 Upon reflection, of course, you are right. My bad…..chuckdarwin_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

None of these “arguments” (referring to (1) through (7) in the OP) warrant the conclusion that God exists
Of course they do. The fine tuning points to a creator. Whether it’s the Christian God is another matter. For that one has to go to other forms of argument. Biology points to an intelligence. Not necessarily the creator of the universe. Each, the universe and biology, points to a purpose that can be inferred by the nature of the design. ID does not point to the Christian God per se but is 100% consistent with it. To get to Christianity there is a three step process: 1) there is a creator - 100% consistent with ID. 2) Christ is the creator or sent by the creator - nothing to do with ID. 3) Christ started a religion or essentially the creator started a religion - nothing to do with ID. Those who support or oppose Christianity have to deal with this line of reasoning which in mostly beyond ID.jerry_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

None of these "arguments" (referring to (1) through (7) in the OP) warrant the conclusion that God exists. (4), (5), and (6) at most show that there must exist an intelligent designer that is not itself alive in a biological sense. (Even if the designer of life on this planet were a technologically advanced being that was alive in a biological sense that came from a different planet, since that designer probably didn't arise without intelligent intervention, either, then on pain of regress, there must be a non-biological intelligent being somewhere in the process.) (2) only shows that the universe had a cause and says nothing about what the cause was. (1) and (3) trade on the ambiguity between cosmic ID (solving the fine-tuning problem) and biological ID (solving the problem of biological information). It seems curious to me that ID often insists on both cosmic ID and biological ID: one designer to select the values of parameters of fundamental physics and another designer to cross the explanatory gulf from chemistry to biology. In any event, there's no argument here that these designers are the same being or that either of them is the God of the philosophers or of Scripture. One could be a Gnostic and believe that both designers are Satan. (7) assumes that "Morals, the mind, information, and logic, are non-material, non-physical entities". That's hugely question-begging, but even if this assumption were granted, it wouldn't entail that God exists. It shows that some version of Platonism is true, and Platonism is perfectly compatible with atheism (see here). While it's probably true that most people will associate the Designer with God, a mere association is just a psychological disposition -- it is not the conclusion of a logical argument, hence it is not rationally warranted.PyrrhoManiac1_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Darwinian atheists, Instead of ever producing any real-time empirical evidence to substantiate their grandiose claims, i.e their 'just-so stories', for Darwinian evolution, (namely that unguided, mindless, processes can spontaneously create life and all the diversity therein), Darwinian atheists rely mainly on two philosophical arguments to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution.,,, Which are the 'argument from evil' and the "God of the gaps' argument.
Elite Scientists Don’t Have Elite Reasons for Being Atheists - November 8, 2016 Excerpt: Dr. Jonathan Pararejasingham has compiled video of elite scientists and scholars to make the connection between atheism and science. Unfortunately for Pararejasingham, once you get past the self-identification of these scholars as non-believers, there is simply very little there to justify the belief in atheism.,,, What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true.,,, The few that did try to justify their atheism commonly appealed to God of the Gaps arguments (there is no need for God, therefore God does not exist) and the Argument from Evil (our bad world could not have come from an All Loving, All Powerful God). In other words, it is just as I thought it would be. Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism. Finally, it is also clear the militant atheism of Dawkins is a distinct minority view among these scholars. https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/elite-scientists-dont-have-elite-reasons-for-being-atheists/
Yet both of these philosophical arguments fail for the atheist. The 'argument from evil' fails in that to even presuppose the existence of evil you must first presuppose an objective standard of good that has been departed from. In other words, the existence of God must be presupposed as being true for the 'argument from evil' to even have a chance at success. As C.S. Lewis succinctly noted, "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” - C.S. Lewis
Likewise the 'God of the gaps' argument also collapses in on itself. Namely, the Darwinian atheist presupposes that everything, (for instance, the universe, the laws of nature, life, and consciousness), can all be explained completely 'naturalistically' without ever invoking God for their explanation. Yet, as Dr. Michael Egnor pointed out in his debate with the popular internet atheist Matt Dillahunty, nothing can be explained without invoking God, i.e. "Every change in nature proves His existence. Every cause in nature proves His existence. Everything that exists in nature proves His existence. Every degree of perfection in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of natural design proves His existence. Every realization of possibility in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of organization in nature proves His existence. Every abstract concept proves His existence. Every reason for anything in nature proves His existence. And every twinge of human conscience proves His existence.",,,,
The Divine Hiddenness Argument Against God's Existence = Nonsense - Michael Egnor -Oct. 4, 2021 Excerpt: We will set aside Scriptural revelation and personal experience (given that atheists like Dillahunty discount these anyway) and consider the ways in which God shows Himself in nature (i.e., the ten ways that God’s existence can be known that I listed during my debate with Dillahunty. Here are three excellent references for the details of these various arguments: Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide, (Edward Feser), Five Proofs of the Existence of God (Edward Feser), and Letters to an Atheist (Peter Kreeft). These and other works cover evidence such as Aquinas’ First Way (by change in nature), Aquinas’ Second Way (by cause in nature), Aquinas’ Third Way (by contingent existence), Aquinas’ Fourth Way (by degrees of perfection), and Aquinas’ Fifth Way (by design in nature) as well as the Thomistic argument from existence, the Neoplatonic argument (from the order of things), the Augustinian argument (from abstract objects), the rationalist argument (from the principal of sufficient reason), and the argument for Moral Law (from the reality of objective moral obligation). Each of these proofs of God’s existence is revealed to us through our intellect. Is the information that God provides in these ways sufficient to convince a reasonable person of His existence? Consider the ten ways that simple everyday experience provides inexhaustible evidence for His existence: Every change in nature proves His existence. Every cause in nature proves His existence. Everything that exists in nature proves His existence. Every degree of perfection in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of natural design proves His existence. Every realization of possibility in nature proves His existence. Every manifestation of organization in nature proves His existence. Every abstract concept proves His existence. Every reason for anything in nature proves His existence. And every twinge of human conscience proves His existence. Natural science provides massive evidence for His existence as well. The Big Bang — i.e., the creation of the universe from nothing in an immense primordial flash of light — is a remarkable confirmation of the beginning of the book of Genesis. Astrophysicists have discovered dozens of physical forces and properties in the universe that must have very specific values to permit human life — and of course these forces and properties do have exactly the values necessary for our existence (as if Someone rigged physics just for us). The DNA in living things is an actual code — in every meaningful sense like a computer code with letters and words, grammar and phrases, sentences and punctuation. And life forms’ intracellular metabolism is run by an astonishingly intricate and elegant system of biological nanotechnology. So my question to Dillahunty and to other atheists who endorse the Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence is this: What is it about God’s existence that you still consider hidden? https://mindmatters.ai/2021/10/the-divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence-nonsense/
As John Lennox quipped, "God is not a "God of the gaps", he is God of the whole show."
Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show By John C. Lennox Excerpt: Krauss does not seem to realize that his concept of God is one that no intelligent monotheist would accept. His "God" is the soft-target "God of the gaps" of the "I can't understand it, therefore God did it" variety. As a result, Krauss, like Dawkins and Hawking, regards God as an explanation in competition with scientific explanation. That is as wrong-headed as thinking that an explanation of a Ford car in terms of Henry Ford as inventor and designer competes with an explanation in terms of mechanism and law. God is not a "God of the gaps", he is God of the whole show. https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show.html
Contrary to what atheists believe, there is simply nothing within reality that can be explained completely 'naturalistically'. In fact, it is the atheist himself who is guilty of making 'naturalism of the gaps' arguments. i.e. How did the universe originate? Atheist: "We don't know but someday we will find a completely naturalistic explanation for the creation of the universe." How did the finely tuned laws of nature originate? Atheist: "We don't know but someday we will find a completely naturalistic explanation for the laws of nature." How did life originate? Atheist: "We don't know but someday we will find a completely naturalistic explanation for how life originated." How did consciousness originate? Atheist: We don't know but someday we will find a completely naturalistic explanation for how consciousness originated". In short, the atheist is guilty of the very thing he accuses the Christian of being guilty of. Namely, the atheist accuses the Christian of illegitimately inserting God into scientific explanations to cover up his ignorance, yet it is the atheist himself who is illegitimately inserting his atheistic naturalism into scientific explanations in order to cover up his ignorance. To paraphrase Nietzsche, "into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they call methodological naturalism',,,
God of the gaps – Origins of the term From the 1880s, Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part Two, “On Priests”, said “… into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God.”.[3],,, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Origins_of_the_term
In fact, contrary to what atheists believe, no scientific explanation has ever been explained completely naturalistically without recourse to God. As a prime example, atheists often speak of the law of gravity as if it has been explained completely naturalistically. Yet the law of gravity has certainly not been explained naturalistically. In fact, it is impossible for the 'bottom up' explanations of Atheistic materialists to account for any 'top-down' universal law, such as gravity, that dictates how the material particles will behave in this universe,
“There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations. Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws. Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.” Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.” – Origenes - UD blogger
And this is not just some common sense observation that 'bottom up' materialistic explanations are at a complete loss to explain 'top down' universal laws. The fact that 'bottom up' materialistic explanations can never account for 'top down' universal laws has now been proven via extension of Gödel's incompleteness theorem into quantum physics. As the following article notes, “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and these findings “challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
Moreover, although atheists insist that in order to stay 'scientific' you must invoke only naturalistic explanations, i.e. methodological naturalism, the fact of the matter is that, number 1, atheistic naturalism had nothing whatsoever to do with the founding of modern science,
New Book: For Kepler, Science Did Not Point to Atheism - Stephen C. Meyer - January 17, 2023 The Conflict Myth Unmade,,, As historian Ian Barbour says, “science in its modern form” arose “in Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world,” because only the Christian West had the necessary “intellectual presuppositions underlying the rise of science.”2 So, what were those presuppositions? We can identify three. As Melissa Cain Travis shows, (in her book: "Thinking God’s Thoughts: Johannes Kepler and the Miracle of Cosmic Comprehensibility"), all have their place in Kepler’s seminal works. More generally, all find their origin in the Judeo-Christian idea of a Creator God who fashioned human beings and an orderly universe. (1) Intelligibility First, the (Christian) founders of modern science assumed the intelligibility of nature. They believed that nature had been designed by the mind of a rational God, the same God who made the rational minds of human beings. These thinkers assumed that if they used their minds to carefully study nature, they could understand the order and design that God had placed in the world.,,, (2) The Contingency of Nature Second, early pioneers of science presupposed the contingency of nature. They believed that God had many choices about how to make an orderly world. Just as there are many ways to design a watch, there were many ways that God could have designed the universe. To discover how He did, scientists could not merely deduce the order of nature by assuming what seemed most logical to them; they couldn’t simply use reason alone to draw conclusions, as some of the Greek philosophers had done.,,, (3) The Fallibility of Human Reasoning Third, early scientists accepted a biblical understanding of the power and limits of the human mind. Even as these scientists saw human reason as the gift of a rational God, they also recognized the fallibility of humans and, therefore, the fallibility of human ideas about nature.,,, Such a nuanced view of human nature implied, on the one hand, that human beings could attain insight into the workings of the natural world, but that, on the other, they were vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and prematurely jumping to conclusions. This composite view of reason — one that affirmed both its capability and fallibility — inspired confidence that the design and order of nature could be understood if scientists carefully studied the natural world, but also engendered caution about trusting human intuition, conjectures, and hypotheses unless they were carefully tested by experiment and observation.11,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2023/01/new-book-for-kepler-science-did-not-point-to-atheism/
,,, and, number 2, directly contrary to what atheists have falsely presupposed with their presupposition of 'methodological naturalism', all of science, every nook and cranny, is based on the presupposition of Intelligent Design and is certainly not based on their presupposition of methodological naturalism.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
Moreover, insisting on naturalistic explanations, i.e. methodological naturalism, no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, ends up driving science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
So thus, although the atheist will often falsely accuse the Christian of illegitimately making 'God of the gaps' style arguments, the fact of the matter is that it is atheist himself who is illegitimately trying to make 'Naturalism of the gaps' style arguments in order to cover up for his ignorance. Moreover, presupposing naturalism, instead of theism, as being true beforehand drives science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure. In short, from the founding of modern science itself in medieval Christian Europe, to today, atheistic naturalism never has had, and never will have, a legitimate place in scientific explanation. And, to be even more blunt, atheistic naturalism is a completely useless, garbage, philosophy that atheists have illegitimately tried to impose onto the science method in order to try to justify their personal rejection of God. To paraphrase Nagel, atheists simply "don’t want there to be a God; (they) don’t want the universe to be like that.”
"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” - Thomas Nagel - (”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)
In conclusion, the atheist's rejection of God as a viable scientific explanation turns out NOT to be a scientific issue rooted in scientific evidence. But instead the atheist's rejection of God as a viable scientific explanation turns out to be a psychiatric issue which is rooted simply in his personal rejection of, and/or rebellion against, God.
John 15:24-25 If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have seen and hated both Me and My Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated Me without reason.’
bornagain77_{January 19, 2023
January
01
Jan
19
19
2023
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply