I wrote before that there is evidence for the existence of God. Without a great deal of examination or explanation, I thought I'd offer a quick list just for reference purposes. That way you can do your own homework.
1. The precision of the universe. There is a lot there, but see Dr. Bradley's piece as an example.
2. The human body. Think the brain, the eye, explaining how the entire venous system complete with heart, lungs, marrow producing blood, and the whole transportation system could just happen by chance.
3. Nothing comes from nothing. (The Kalām Cosmological Argument.) (Seriously, do you actually plan to argue that everything that is came from nothing at all?)
4. DNA. DNA is all about coding, information, data. It requires intelligence.
5. Jesus Christ. A historically accepted figure with historically documented events that indicate supernatural events that cannot be rationally or satisfactorily explained by natural means.
6. Universality of Religion. How does one explain that every known society as far back as can be examined has always had religion?
7. Ontological Argument. "If you can posit a being like 'God', there must be such a being." (Okay, maybe I don't find that convincing, but it is not "not evidence".)
8. Teleological Argument. Already hinted at, it's the argument from the obvious design of the universe.
9. Moral Argument. Every society has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Why?
10. The Bible. A book written over some 2000 years by more than 40 different authors while maintaining consistency and unity.
11. Prophecy. Closely related to #10, how does one explain how someone can explain hundreds of years in advance with precision and detail exactly what will happen?
12. Changed hearts mean changed lives. Don't like it? Fine. The fact remains that radical and unaccountable changes have occurred in people who have encountered the God of the Bible.
Other resources:
Astronomical Evidences, Hugh Ross
Evidence for God
Evidence from Bible.org
Just a brief list and some brief resources (that, admittedly, provide links to more resources that ... well, you get the idea). This is not a "comprehensive" list. Indeed, if you look, it's not even really an argument. It's simply ... a list. Note, also, that "I don't accept that evidence" or "I don't find it compelling" does not eliminate it.
9 comments:
Uh, no. #1 and 2-Because we do not understand the precision of something (ie universe, human body) does not posit that therefore a divine hand shaped it. More compelling is the simple fact that #1-the universe exists, for us, because it cannot exist differently. For us. Evidence points to alternate universes that probably have very, very different "laws" Biological evolution explains far more than the leap of logic to divinity. #3. Actually, at the quantum level this appears to happen all the time. #4. We are back to #2. Evolution my friend. #5. Now this is just silly. Yes, Jesus of Nazareth lived and died. (his last name is NOT Christ-that is a title) There is zero evidence as to supernatural behavior or events. Faith? Yes. Evidence. Nope. #6 Humans are pattern creating creatures. We have to explain anything. Biology again. #7 Even you agree that this is silly. #8 Nope. Not even close to acceptable. #9 Because all organizations strive for survival. #10 Sorry, but consistency and unity, as I would guess you imply, are not present in the Bible. No credible scholar makes that claim. You shouldn't either. #11 Because the prophecy was written after the fact. Again, good scholarship. #12 People also have changed hearts from an encounter with Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism. A great thing, but not proof.
Hi, Brian. Welcome to the conversation.
First, the original premise: "There is evidence for the existence of God. Your rejection of that evidence doesn't negate the fact that it's there." (That was back a few days ago.) Your response confirms that you reject the evidence, not that it's not there. Or, let me put it another way. If "proof" is defined as "the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true", then I will always affirm that there is no proof of the existence of God because no one can be compelled to accept that assertion as true. But included in the concept of proof is the existence of both "evidence" and "argument". For the existence of God, both of these exist. That is my claim. You haven't nullified that claim; you've simply denied that they are compelling. That is, you've agreed that there is no proof; you haven't eliminated argument or evidence.
On your comments, I didn't suggest that a universe that is hard to understand is evidence for God. I said that the precision of the universe was evidence. You're positing "random precision", a "chance exactitude", "It just happened that way and isn't that quite amazing?". I find that suggestion bizarre. I watch the Harvard video of what goes on in a single human cell and see irreducible complexity. You see something that any ol' billion years can throw together.
On #3, you said, "Actually, at the quantum level this appears to happen all the time." Now, I want to be clear here. You used the perfectly understandable phrase "appears to happen", which I get. Are you saying that it does indeed happen? Are you actually arguing that from absolutely nothing all that exists came to be? And would you, then, consider that a much more compelling argument than "All effects must have a cause"?
On Jesus, the Christ, simply because you write "There is zero evidence as to supernatural behavior or events" does not make it so. There is indeed historical evidence. The Gospels are historical documents. Even Josephus brings it up. So, again, by "zero evidence" you mean "No evidence that I will accept" -- just to be clear.
It appears, from most of your responses, that you do not believe in free will. Hardcore Evolutionists assure us that we are determined by our biology. We are "pattern creating creatures", we have morality because of biology, we are what we are because biology made us so. If this is the case, the arguments you posit are pointless, aren't they? I mean, neither you nor I can do anything other than what our biology makes us do, right?
On your certainty that the Bible is irrelevant and that prophecy was fulfilled by means of writing it as history (after the fact), both come from a priori assumptions. That is, "The supernatural cannot be -- miracles cannot occur -- therefore I will offer a counter argument to disprove them not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of my assumption." Show me evidence, for instance, that prophecy fulfilled was written after the fact. Show me your "good scholarship", and I'll show you that not one, significant biblical contradiction has ever stood up to scrutiny. Lots of "credible scholars" affirm this. Like your rejection of the evidence, simply denying that they exist doesn't change the fact that they do.
Hi Stan,
I must first apologize for the brevity of all my responses. Blogs seldom seem the place for extended discussions. ( and a few cut you off ) With that said, let me address your first argument in depth, that the physical universe “proves” the existence of God. However, before discussing this point I believe we must examine first the term “God.” I have not doubt, and some of your prior postings make this claim, that you would agree that “God” is not simply another bigger/better/more powerful/ thing/entity. You use the term “supernatural.” Fair enough, although the term unfortunately carries far too much cultural baggage (ranging from simple ghosts to anything we can’t explain) for its usefulness. However, I do believe we can agree on one simple definition with that term, that “God” is not of this universe. Unfortunately, “spirit” has too many problems as well, so I will not use that term either.
First of all, what is “God?” While scripture states God is spirit, I would argue that first, that use of language is time and culture sensitive, not to mention our understanding. To say God is spirit is to give boundaries or parameters. It “defines” God. If I say the word “bird” you will visualize a bird. It may be a parrot or sparrow, but still, a bird. “Bird” is nothing more than a pointer, a symbol. It directs us to a physical bird; “bird” is not however a bird. “God” is not God. “God” or “Allah” or “Jehovah” are pointers. Like “bird” they also are imprecise. Now that is just fine for “bird” since we can add modifiers, and because we can physically prove the existence of a bird. Still, language is terribly imprecise. So when you use the term “God” I honestly don’t know what you are saying. I can guess, based on prior comments, but that is still pretty vague. Unlike the physical bird however, “God” does not point to a physical structure that can be measure, analyzed, or duplicated. “God” points to quite literally a no-thing, or nothing. By no-thing I am not stating that “God” does not exist, but rather, “God” does not and cannot exist in any manner you or I, or any human, can imagine, measure, or prove. As defined by hard science, the areas you invoke when you use the universe and human body as “proof” of “God’s” existence, “God” cannot “exist” as “God” cannot be measured, analyzed, or duplicated.
Stan, sadly your comments simply add fodder to the facile arguments of the new atheists. When religion, some 150 or so years ago, (maybe a little longer) attempted to use the physical sciences to address the steady collapse of literalist biblical thinking, it set up first, the proverbial house of cards, and second, created an idol of “God,” an idol created out of ever increasingly complex definitions and terms. “God” now fits in a nice, neat, and safe little box.
By the way, the webpages you link to for “proof” of “God’s” existence are painfully simplistic and dissolve under even an 8th graders scrutiny. (not to mention they have no design sense!) Just more ammunition for the atheists. As a very side note, I think atheists are just as dishonest trying to prove “God” does not exist. Same problems. Agnostics are at least honest. What we do with that honesty is the only important thing.
Brian: "let me address your first argument in depth, that the physical universe 'proves' the existence of God."
I've said this multiple times in multiple ways in an effort to get it across. I don't know that I can because it appears that it's not happening. So, let me say it in the worst, but possibly most effective possible way:
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GOD'S EXISTENCE CAN BE PROVEN.
I know, not polite Internet usage of caps, but I can't figure out any other way to get it said. I do not argue that the physical universe proves the existence of God. I make no such statement. I specifically deny the existence of proof of God. The previous post (back on the 10th of this month) and this post are linked, and the concept is not "proof of God", but evidence. I am not "proving that God exists". I am simply explaining that there is evidence, which you (anyone) may choose to accept or deny, which you (anyone) may or may not find compelling, but which does certainly exist.
Brian: "'God' points to quite literally a no-thing, or nothing. By no-thing I am not stating that 'God' does not exist, but rather, 'God' does not and cannot exist in any manner you or I, or any human, can imagine, measure, or prove."
Yes, the very essence of agnosticism. Not merely "I don't know", but "We cannot know." It assumes, however, that this being that is outside of nature (supernatural) 1) has no means of interacting with nature or 2) no interest in doing so and 3) no means of communicating anything at all about Himself to humans. (Your argument, in fact, is the very essence of the Ontological Argument. If God is outside of our ability to imagine, measure, or prove ... why do we believe in Him?) (Note, by the way, that I didn't say Argument 7 was "silly" as you suggested. I said it wasn't convincing.)
On the problem of "atheists proving God does not exist", I can see what you're saying about agnostics. "I don't know" seems to be a valid, even possibly honest answer. (I say "possibly" having raised children who, caught in doing something wrong, would use the "I don't know" defense in the hopes of avoiding punishment.) What I cannot figure out is the goal of the agnostic. Having declared "I don't know", why proceed to these arguments? Why attempt to refute arguments for the existence of God, since your position is you don't know? And why is it only Christian arguments you (using the general "you" for all agnostics who do so) refute? Why is there not equal time spent refuting atheism? When the premise is "I don't know something", what do you hope to accomplish by arguing against that something? I could understand "I see your evidence; I just don't find it compelling." I don't understand, "You're wrong and you're not very bright, either." (Again, I'm referencing agnostics in general, not specifically you.)
Stan,
I will certainly acknowledge your usage of "existence," not "proof" of God. While I do agree there is a difference, I would argue that this is lost on the vast majority of the public, and secondly, still does not come up to the level of argument for "existence." That of course begs the question of the definition of "existence" and we are, as I see it, back to the problem of things and no-things. But then, that is how I see it.
"Yes, the very essence of agnosticism. Not merely "I don't know", but "We cannot know." It assumes, however, that this being that is outside of nature (supernatural) 1) has no means of interacting with nature or 2) no interest in doing so and 3) no means of communicating anything at all about Himself to humans." No where does the my discussion "assume that this being is outside of nature, has no means of interacting or no interest, or no means to communicate about him/herself. I simply state that we cannot "prove" or provide "evidence" to any of the above. We can however provide faith statements that can be deeply compelling. This however, is something quite different.
Sadly, the drive behind agnostics, and often atheists, is the desire to stand against militant fundamentalism. Both agnostic and atheistic stands are fundamentally weak but at least can provide a foil the theocratic fundamentalism in any religion. Atheism can be as dangerous however.
I'm very interested in Brain's response to this:
What I cannot figure out is the goal of the agnostic.
I'll be printing this off for discussions in our home schooling as we examine both of your arguments and how logical fallacies work; and as we do our best to poison--so to speak--our children's well.
Brian: "Both agnostic and atheistic stands are fundamentally weak but at least can provide a foil the theocratic fundamentalism in any religion."
Interesting comment for multiple reasons. First, it is an admission of weak arguments. Second, there appears to be some sort of fear of "theocracy" from "fundamentalism". (You talk about the problem of defining "God". I'm not at all sure what you mean by these terms.) I know of no "fundamentalist" Christians who wish to take over the world ("theocracy"). I would grant that some posers would want to do so, but since the source book for Christianity doesn't back such a move, it has to be done against the "fundamentals". Of course, this is not true of "fundamentalist" Moslems (for instance) who do indeed wish to impose a theocracy. Which brings me to the third interesting point. While you wish to "foil the theocratic fundamentalism of any religion", I have yet to see an agnostic or an atheist arguing against Judaism, Buddhism, especially not Islam. If it's any religion (and if Islam, for instance, would really call for a theocracy), why is it not any religion that is taken to task? And, finally, having removed "God" as any form of authority (another possible use of "theocracy"), I can't think of what basis you would have to offer that would provide a meaningful moral authority. If we are essentially biological bags of chemicals with no origin and no destiny except this meager, brief existence and no meaning or purpose except whatever we may choose to make it (which would appear to me to be self-deluding), the only possible basis for "good" or "bad" would be "whatever I want to make it".
You see? The whole thing strikes me as interesting.
Now, if, by "theocratic fundamentalism", you are simply referring to an individual who, based on the fundamentals of the Bible, chooses to live their life under the rulership of God, I cannot imagine how an agnostic would be opposed to such an idea. But ... I'm betting that's not what you had in mind.
Great post Stan.
All good arguments that prove there is evidence of a creator.
Brian's arguments are evidence that God is sovereign and the Calvinist point of view stands confirmed.
It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented, nor how historically accurate the bible is, those who are not called will not believe.
One can always find credible scholars to point to on either side of a long-debated topic. We see this in the global warming debate. Both sides assert they have credible scholars... and both sides do.
I stopped engaging in the "existence of God" debate a long time ago because it's like a nuclear war. Neither side will win.
This is how I see it:
If my belief in the God of the bible is wrong, in the end, I have nothing to lose. If the atheist's or agnostic's belief is wrong, in the end, they have everything to lose.
One would think that, logically then, the agnostic would at least choose to side with belief and go from there. (Err on the side of reason??) But they don't. Know why? Because God chooses whom He chooses. That's why.
Mike: "I stopped engaging in the "existence of God" debate a long time ago because it's like a nuclear war. Neither side will win."
There is real truth to what you say. I do not engage in the "debate" in the hopes of "winning". Indeed, I do not engage in any sort of Apologetics with the hope of "winning". My goal is to stand firm, to make a defense, to contend for the faith. I would guess that most of the value of what I do in that arena is for believers, not unbelievers. Christians -- those with regenerated hearts -- may have some wavering in faith, and perhaps my (or others') defense shores up their doubts. Anything beyond that (like an unbeliever who sees it and says, "Bing! Wow! Never saw that before. I do believe!") would be a miracle of God, not a result of carefully laid arguments and evidence.
It's not that I'm just not that good at it, or that there isn't sufficient evidence or logic behind it. It's that, as you've indicated, Natural Man cannot accept the things of God. Or, as Jesus told the Pharisees, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26).
Post a Comment