"...contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."- Jude 1:3
Showing posts with label facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label facebook. Show all posts

Friday, July 10, 2026

200 Reasons for the Existence of God

 I found the following list on Facebook. Posted by a Ben Puccio in a religious debate group. I don't know of Puccio compiled them himself or not. But they are a good compilation. Though, I wouldn't agree with all of them. And the explanations given are understandably brief. If they were exhaustive then the post would need to be book length.





200 Reasons for the Existence of God


A Cumulative Case from Philosophy, Science, Human Experience, and Christian History


I. Cosmological and Metaphysical Arguments

1. Why anything exists at all

Contingent reality does not contain the sufficient reason for its own existence. A necessary, self-existent ground of being offers an ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

2. The contingency of the universe

The universe could apparently have been different or absent. If it is contingent, its existence points beyond itself to a reality that exists necessarily rather than accidentally.

3. The Kalam argument

Whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause. Such a cause would have to transcend physical space, time, and matter.

4. The argument from change

Change is the actualization of potential. A chain of changing things whose causal power is wholly derivative ultimately requires a first actualizer that does not need to be actualized.

5. The argument from essentially ordered causes

Some causes operate only because they are being sustained by prior causes here and now, like a hand moving a stick. A hierarchy of purely instrumental causes requires a non-instrumental first cause.

6. The argument from sustaining causation

Even if the universe had no temporal beginning, contingent things would still need an explanation for their continued existence. God is proposed as the continuous sustaining cause of being.

7. The principle of sufficient reason

For every contingent fact, there is an adequate explanation of why it is so rather than otherwise. The totality of contingent facts therefore calls for a noncontingent explanation.

8. The impossibility of self-creation

Nothing can cause itself to exist, because it would have to exist before it existed. The universe therefore cannot be its own originating cause.

9. The limits of an infinite regress

An endless series of dependent explanations never supplies an independent explanation. A regress of borrowed existence points toward something whose existence is not borrowed.

10. The argument from composition

Composite things depend on their parts and on whatever unifies those parts. The ultimate foundation of all composed reality is therefore plausibly simple and noncomposite.

11. The argument from conditioned existence

Every finite object exists under conditions it did not choose or create. The total system of conditioned beings points toward an unconditioned source.

12. The argument from ontological dependence

Physical things depend on laws, fields, structures, and prior conditions. A reality on which everything else depends, but which depends on nothing more fundamental, resembles classical theism.

13. The argument from essence and existence

In ordinary things, what a thing is does not explain that it exists. Classical theists argue that the ultimate cause must be a being whose essence is existence itself.

14. The argument from finitude

Finite beings are limited in power, knowledge, duration, and location. Their limitations invite explanation in terms of a more fundamental, unrestricted source of being.

15. The argument from unity

Many distinct entities participate in one coherent reality. The metaphysical unity of the world may be better explained if all beings derive from one ultimate source.

16. The argument from multiplicity

A plurality of dependent beings does not explain itself merely by increasing their number. Even an enormous collection of contingent things remains contingent.

17. The argument from causal intelligibility

We successfully reason from effects to causes throughout science and ordinary life. Refusing any causal question at the level of the universe itself can appear arbitrary.

18. The argument from temporal becoming

If events genuinely come into being, reality includes a transition from potential future to actual present. A transcendent source can ground the existence and order of temporal becoming.

19. The argument from necessary being

If anything exists necessarily, it cannot be a merely physical object subject to change, division, and decay. A timeless, immaterial, necessary mind is a leading candidate.

20. The argument from ultimate explanation

Every worldview terminates in something basic. Theism argues that a necessary, rational, powerful being is a more satisfying terminus than an unexplained universe or brute fact.


II. Cosmic Order, Fine-Tuning, and Physical Reality

21. The fine-tuning of physical constants

Many constants fall within narrow life-permitting ranges. Design is offered as an explanation because intelligent agents are known to select parameters toward functional outcomes.

22. The fine-tuning of initial conditions

Life depends not only on laws but also on highly specific initial cosmic conditions. A purposeful setting of those conditions can explain their coordinated suitability.

23. The low-entropy beginning

The early universe appears to have begun in an extraordinarily ordered state. Such special order calls for explanation beyond the bare existence of physical laws.

24. The intelligibility of nature

The universe is accessible to rational investigation. A rational creator provides a natural explanation for why reality has an intelligible structure.

25. The mathematical structure of the universe

Physical reality is deeply describable through abstract mathematics. The fit between mind, mathematics, and matter suggests a common rational source.

26. The elegance of physical laws

Fundamental laws are often simple, unified, and mathematically beautiful. Their elegance is more expected on a worldview in which reason precedes matter.

27. The stability of natural laws

Science presupposes that nature behaves consistently across time and space. Theism can ground this regularity in the faithful governance of a rational creator.

28. The existence of laws rather than chaos

Matter does not merely exist; it behaves according to precise regularities. Lawlike order is at least suggestive of governance by intelligence.

29. The comprehensibility of the cosmos by human minds

Human cognitive capacities reach far beyond immediate survival tasks and can uncover remote cosmic truths. Design predicts a meaningful correspondence between mind and world.

30. The discoverability of nature

The universe contains stable patterns that can be discovered through observation, mathematics, and experiment. This epistemic hospitality is less surprising if creation is meant to be known.

31. The fine-tuning for chemistry

Complex chemistry requires a delicate balance among forces, particle properties, and stable atoms. The coordinated possibility of chemistry supports a design inference.

32. The fine-tuning for stars

Long-lived stars require specific relationships among gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces. Without such stars, the elements and energy needed for life would not exist.

33. The fine-tuning for carbon

Carbon's unusual bonding capacities and cosmic production make complex life possible. Its centrality can be interpreted as part of a life-oriented order.

34. The habitability of the universe

A universe may permit observers only if many independent conditions align. Their convergence can be seen as evidence of purposive arrangement.

35. The calibration of dimensionality

The number and character of spatial and temporal dimensions affect stable orbits, chemistry, and complex structures. Their suitability is philosophically significant.

36. The argument from cosmic scale

The immense age and size of the universe enable heavy-element production, stable galaxies, and habitable environments. Apparent vastness is compatible with a carefully staged creative process.

37. The argument from cosmic coherence

Phenomena from subatomic particles to galaxies participate in one integrated order. A single rational source explains this unity across scales.

38. The argument from boundary conditions

Laws alone often do not determine a unique universe; boundary conditions are also needed. Their life-permitting character raises a further explanatory question.

39. The limits of the multiverse response

A multiverse may reduce surprise but still requires a generator, laws, and a probability distribution. Design questions can therefore shift upward rather than disappear.

40. The cosmic design inference

When numerous independent parameters jointly achieve a rare, coherent, life-permitting result, purposive selection is a familiar explanatory category worth considering.


III. Life, Biological Information, and Organismal Order

41. The origin of life

The transition from nonliving chemistry to a self-maintaining, reproducing system requires coordinated functions. Intelligence is a known source of functionally integrated systems.

42. The origin of biological information

DNA contains sequences that contribute to highly specific biological functions. The existence of such information invites comparison with other information-bearing systems produced by minds.

43. The genetic code

Life uses a mapping system between nucleotide sequences and amino acids. The code-like character of this mapping has been taken as evidence of an intelligent source.

44. The information-processing architecture of the cell

Cells store, copy, edit, translate, transport, and regulate information. Their layered information processing resembles engineered systems in ways that support a design inference.

45. The coordination of cellular subsystems

Metabolism, membranes, replication, repair, and energy production depend on one another. The integrated whole is difficult to explain by considering each component in isolation.

46. The origin of replication

Natural selection requires heritable replication, yet the first replicating system cannot be explained by selection acting before replication exists. This creates a significant origin problem.

47. The origin of the genetic code's translation machinery

Proteins are built using information in DNA, while DNA is copied and interpreted by proteins. The mutual dependence of these systems raises a chicken-and-egg challenge.

48. Molecular machines

Cells contain rotary motors, transport systems, proofreading mechanisms, and assembly complexes. Their functional organization provides an intuitive basis for design reasoning.

49. Biological error correction

Living systems detect and repair many copying errors. Error-correcting processes are characteristic of systems organized to preserve information.

50. Functional sequence specificity

Many biological functions depend on particular arrangements among enormous numbers of possible sequences. The rarity of useful sequences can support an appeal to intelligent selection.

51. Protein folding

Proteins must reach precise three-dimensional shapes to function. The relationship between sequence and functional structure reflects a remarkable ordered search space.

52. The origin of cellular membranes

Life requires a boundary that is stable yet selectively permeable. The simultaneous emergence of containment, transport, and metabolism presents a coordination problem.

53. The unity of biological organization

Organisms are not mere heaps of parts; their parts work for the good of the whole. This organismal unity is naturally described in teleological language.

54. Biological purposiveness

Hearts pump blood, eyes enable sight, and immune systems defend organisms. Even when explained through mechanisms, their directed functions remain philosophically notable.

55. Development from a single cell

A fertilized cell executes an extraordinarily coordinated developmental process, producing differentiated tissues and body plans. This ordered unfolding resembles encoded planning.

56. Morphogenesis

Organisms reliably generate large-scale form from local cellular interactions. The emergence of body architecture adds an informational dimension beyond raw genetic sequence.

57. Biological robustness

Living systems often maintain function despite disturbance, damage, or variation. Robustness and redundancy are hallmarks of sophisticated design.

58. Biological repair and healing

Organisms actively restore damaged tissues and maintain internal equilibrium. These goal-directed capacities suggest systems organized for persistence and flourishing.

59. Convergent evolution

Similar complex solutions repeatedly appear in unrelated lineages. This can be interpreted as evidence that life is channeled toward discoverable, prestructured outcomes.

60. The cumulative biological design case

No single molecular feature settles the issue, but information, coding, integration, regulation, repair, and purposiveness together form a broader design argument.


IV. Consciousness, Mind, and Personal Identity

61. The existence of consciousness

Subjective experience is not captured merely by describing physical structures and motions. A worldview in which mind is fundamental makes consciousness less surprising.

62. The hard problem of consciousness

Objective brain descriptions do not explain why there is something it feels like to be a subject. Theism can ground finite consciousness in an ultimate consciousness.

63. Qualia

The felt redness of red, the painfulness of pain, and the taste of sweetness resist reduction to third-person physics. This suggests that reality includes irreducibly mental properties.

64. The unity of consciousness

Many neural processes are experienced within one unified field of awareness. A substantial self or soul offers an explanation of this unity.

65. The persistence of personal identity

A person remains numerically the same despite extensive physical and psychological change. Personal identity may therefore exceed the continuity of material parts.

66. The first-person perspective

Every conscious subject experiences reality from an irreducible 'I.' A purely impersonal ontology struggles to explain the emergence of genuine subjectivity.

67. Intentionality

Thoughts are about objects, propositions, and possibilities. Physical states considered only as physical do not obviously possess this directed 'aboutness.'

68. Mental causation

Reasons and intentions appear to cause actions. If mental explanations are genuine, mind is not merely an epiphenomenal byproduct of matter.

69. The causal power of beliefs

People act because they judge propositions to be true or good. Rational content seems to exert causal influence, which fits better if mind is a basic feature of reality.

70. The argument from free agency

Moral responsibility and rational deliberation presuppose meaningful agency. A creator of persons can ground real freedom more naturally than strict physical determinism.

71. The argument from rational insight

Humans can grasp logical necessity, mathematical truth, and universal principles. Such insight appears to transcend sensory association and survival conditioning.

72. The argument from abstract thought

We think about infinity, justice, possible worlds, and nonphysical objects. Our capacity for abstraction suggests that intellect is not reducible to sensation.

73. The argument from self-knowledge

A person knows their own thoughts in a direct way unlike observation of physical objects. This privileged access indicates a distinctive mental mode of being.

74. The argument from privacy of experience

No external observer can directly possess another person's experience. The privacy of consciousness suggests that persons are genuine centers of subjectivity.

75. The argument from phenomenal binding

Color, shape, sound, memory, and emotion are bound into a single experience. A unified conscious subject explains why they appear together.

76. The argument from the normativity of thought

Thoughts can be valid or invalid, rational or irrational. Mere physical events simply occur; they are not logically correct or mistaken.

77. The argument from meaning

Words and thoughts carry semantic content. Meaning is difficult to derive from syntax, chemistry, or causal correlation alone.

78. The argument from language

Human language exhibits reference, grammar, recursion, creativity, and shared meaning. These powers point toward rational personhood rather than matter alone.

79. The argument from other minds

We rationally infer unseen minds from meaningful behavior. By analogy, the meaningful order of the cosmos may warrant inference to a transcendent mind.

80. The argument from mind as fundamental

If finite minds exist and cannot be fully reduced to matter, an eternal mind may be a simpler ultimate foundation than mind emerging inexplicably from the nonmental.


V. Reason, Logic, Mathematics, and Truth

81. The existence of logical laws

Logical laws are universal, necessary, and not physical objects. They fit naturally as expressions of an eternal rational nature.

82. The law of noncontradiction

Contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same respect. This necessity appears to hold independently of human convention.

83. The objectivity of truth

Truth is not created by preference or power. A perfectly rational mind can ground truth as correspondence with reality.

84. The existence of propositions

Propositions can be true even when no human thinks them. Eternal truths are plausibly grounded in an eternal intellect.

85. Necessary truths

Mathematical and logical truths could not have been otherwise. Their necessity calls for a metaphysical home beyond contingent human brains.

86. The existence of numbers

Numbers are neither material objects nor mere private ideas, yet mathematics seems objectively true. Divine conceptualism grounds numbers in the mind of God.

87. The applicability of mathematics

Abstract mathematics astonishingly describes physical reality. A common rational author of mathematical and physical order explains their fit.

88. The discoverability of mathematical structure

Human beings uncover mathematical truths rather than freely inventing them. This suggests an objective rational order available to minds.

89. The reliability of reason

We trust rational inference as truth-directed. Theism predicts that minds created by reason are generally capable of recognizing truth.

90. The evolutionary argument against naturalism

If cognition is selected primarily for survival, confidence that all beliefs are truth-tracking may be weakened. Theism adds a reason to expect reliable cognitive faculties.

91. The normativity of logic

Logic does not merely describe how people think; it prescribes how they ought to reason. Such normativity is difficult to ground in physical causation.

92. The argument from inference

A conclusion follows from premises because of their logical content, not merely because one brain state causes another. Rational relations are irreducible to mechanics.

93. The argument from scientific rationality

Science assumes objective truth, valid inference, stable laws, and trustworthy cognition. Theism provides a unified metaphysical basis for these assumptions.

94. The argument from modal truths

Statements about what is possible, impossible, or necessary are not reducible to what physically happens. A divine intellect can ground the structure of possibility.

95. The argument from counterfactuals

Truths about what would occur under unrealized conditions guide science and daily reasoning. Their objectivity suggests a reality richer than concrete physical events.

96. The argument from universals

Many particular things instantiate common properties such as redness or triangularity. Universals can be understood as patterns grounded in divine ideas.

97. The argument from conceptual unity

Human thought unifies diverse experiences under concepts. Rational nature appears ordered toward intelligible forms rather than raw sensory flux.

98. The argument from epistemic duties

We believe people ought to follow evidence and avoid contradiction. These intellectual duties are genuinely normative and fit within a morally ordered creation.

99. The argument from truth's independence

Some truths would remain true even if every human denied them. Their independence from finite minds points toward a transcendent rational foundation.

100. The cumulative rationality argument

Logic, mathematics, truth, meaning, and reliable cognition form an interconnected rational order. Theism explains this order by placing mind before matter.


VI. Morality, Value, and Human Dignity

101. Objective moral values

Some things are truly good or evil regardless of opinion. A perfectly good God provides an objective standard rooted in an unchanging nature.

102. Objective moral duties

Moral duties possess authority over us even when disobedience benefits us. A personal moral lawgiver can ground genuine obligation.

103. The distinction between legality and morality

Governments can legalize injustice, so law cannot create ultimate moral truth. A higher standard is required to judge human laws.

104. The failure of majority rule as a moral foundation

A unanimous society could still endorse oppression. Moral truth therefore transcends collective preference.

105. The is-ought gap

Descriptions of what organisms do do not by themselves establish what persons ought to do. Divine purpose can connect human nature with moral obligation.

106. The authority of conscience

Conscience often confronts us as an authoritative demand rather than a preference. This experience is intelligible if conscience answers to a real moral authority.

107. Intrinsic human worth

Human beings are treated as ends rather than tools. Their value is securely grounded if they are intentionally created and loved by God.

108. Equal human dignity

People differ radically in ability, health, intelligence, and social usefulness, yet possess equal basic worth. The image of God explains this equality.

109. Universal human rights

Rights that no government may revoke require a foundation higher than government. Creation by God can ground inalienable rights.

110. The wrongness of cruelty

Cruelty for amusement seems objectively wrong in every culture and possible world. Such necessity fits an eternal standard of goodness.

111. The goodness of love

Self-giving love is regarded as intrinsically valuable, not merely useful. The Christian claim that ultimate reality is loving gives this value an ontological foundation.

112. Moral accountability

Praise and blame assume that actions truly matter. Final accountability before a perfectly just God gives moral choices enduring significance.

113. Hidden wrongdoing

An evil act remains evil even if no human discovers it. Divine knowledge explains why morality is not dependent on social detection.

114. Uncorrected injustice

Many victims receive no justice in this life. A final judgment preserves the rational hope that injustice will not have the last word.

115. Moral heroism

People sometimes sacrifice safety, wealth, or life for what is right. Such acts make sense if moral goods are objectively worth more than survival.

116. The reality of evil

Calling something genuinely evil presupposes an objective standard by which it falls short. Evil therefore indirectly points toward objective goodness.

117. Moral progress

To say a society has improved morally requires a standard beyond social change itself. God provides a fixed measure against which progress can be assessed.

118. Repentance

Repentance is more than regret over consequences; it is recognition of real guilt. Guilt makes deepest sense in a personal moral universe.

119. Forgiveness

True forgiveness addresses objective wrongdoing without denying justice. A personal God can unite justice, mercy, and reconciliation.

120. The moral coherence of theism

Theism offers one foundation for value, duty, dignity, accountability, justice, mercy, and hope rather than treating them as unrelated brute facts.


VII. Beauty, Meaning, Desire, and Human Experience

121. The existence of beauty

Beauty appears in nature, music, mathematics, character, and art. Its depth and apparent objectivity fit a reality grounded in perfect beauty.

122. The experience of the sublime

Vast landscapes, stars, and great music evoke awe that seems directed beyond utility. Such experience can be interpreted as awareness of transcendence.

123. Mathematical beauty

Mathematicians often value elegance, harmony, and surprising unity. The convergence of truth and beauty suggests a rational and aesthetic source.

124. The beauty of natural order

Nature frequently displays symmetry, proportion, pattern, and form. These features are consistent with artistic intelligence behind creation.

125. The beauty of moral character

Courage, humility, fidelity, and sacrificial love are perceived as beautiful. This union of moral and aesthetic value suggests a common transcendent source.

126. The argument from desire

Humans experience longings for perfect goodness, lasting joy, and ultimate communion that finite goods do not satisfy. Such desires may point toward a transcendent fulfillment.

127. The longing for eternity

Human beings resist the finality of death and long for enduring significance. This may reflect orientation toward a reality beyond temporal life.

128. The search for ultimate meaning

People seek not only local goals but a reason for existence as a whole. A creator can ground objective purpose rather than merely self-assigned projects.

129. The need for narrative coherence

Humans understand life through stories of origin, purpose, conflict, and destiny. Theism places individual lives within an objective cosmic narrative.

130. The experience of wonder

Wonder treats existence as gift rather than mere fact. The fitting object of gratitude for existence is a giver.

131. The phenomenon of gratitude

People often feel gratitude for life, beauty, or providence even when no human benefactor is responsible. This impulse naturally reaches toward God.

132. The value of persons

Personal relationships are often regarded as having ultimate rather than merely instrumental value. A personal source of reality makes this valuation coherent.

133. The irreducibility of love

Love includes knowledge, freedom, commitment, and self-gift. It is more at home in a universe whose foundation is personal than impersonal.

134. The longing for perfect justice

Humans desire not merely power but a world in which wrongs are finally made right. This desire aligns with belief in a righteous judge.

135. The longing for unconditional acceptance

Finite relationships only imperfectly answer the desire to be fully known and loved. Theism offers the possibility of perfect personal knowledge and love.

136. Existential resilience

Faith in providence often enables people to endure suffering without declaring life meaningless. This practical coherence supports, though does not prove, the worldview.

137. The meaningfulness of sacrifice

Sacrifice can be noble even when it brings no evolutionary or social reward. Objective purpose makes self-giving acts eternally meaningful.

138. The experience of vocation

Many people experience their lives as a calling rather than a self-invented preference. Calling is most intelligible if there is a caller.

139. The intuition that life is gift

People commonly speak of life as received rather than owned. This orientation suggests dependence on a generous source.

140. The cumulative existential case

Beauty, longing, gratitude, love, vocation, and meaning converge on a picture of reality that is personal, purposeful, and transcendent.


VIII. Religious Experience, Providence, and Miracles

141. Widespread religious experience

Across cultures, people report encounters with a transcendent personal reality. The breadth of this testimony gives it prima facie evidential weight.

142. The sense of the divine

Belief in God may arise naturally through a basic cognitive faculty, much as belief in the external world arises through perception. Such belief can be rational unless defeated.

143. Experiences of divine presence

Some individuals report an overwhelming awareness of holiness, love, or personal presence. These experiences are evidence for those who have them unless better explained away.

144. Transformative conversion

Conversions sometimes produce durable changes in character, priorities, relationships, and conduct. Radical transformation can count as evidence of contact with a reality beyond the self.

145. Answered prayer

Specific prayers followed by strikingly appropriate outcomes can contribute to a cumulative case, especially where coincidence becomes an increasingly strained explanation.

146. Providential timing

Some events occur with such personal significance and timing that they are reasonably interpreted as guidance. Theism supplies a framework for meaningful providence.

147. Experiences of guidance

People sometimes report clear, morally serious direction that yields unexpected knowledge or beneficial outcomes. Such cases can be evidence of personal agency beyond them.

148. Experiences of forgiveness

Individuals often describe a release from guilt accompanied by moral renewal after turning to God. This fits the hypothesis of a real forgiving presence.

149. Mystical experience

Mystics across traditions report unity, transcendence, and a reality more fundamental than ordinary perception. Their testimony deserves critical but not dismissive consideration.

150. Near-death experiences

Some reported near-death experiences include lucid consciousness, life review, or veridical-seeming perception during severe physiological crisis. They may challenge a strictly material account of mind.

151. Miracle claims

Well-attested extraordinary events, if natural explanations are inadequate, can serve as evidence of agency beyond ordinary physical causes.

152. Healing claims

Some recoveries are reported as medically unexpected and closely connected with prayer. Careful cases can add probabilistic support to theism.

153. The persistence of worship

Humans repeatedly orient themselves toward worship, devotion, and transcendence. This may indicate a real object corresponding to a deep human capacity.

154. Cross-cultural awareness of moral transcendence

Cultures differ, yet many recognize sacred obligation, guilt, sacrifice, and accountability. These recurring patterns can reflect awareness of a transcendent moral order.

155. The phenomenon of revelation

Many people claim that ultimate reality has communicated rather than remained silent. Competing claims require evaluation, but revelation is possible if God is personal.

156. Corporate religious experience

Groups sometimes report shared experiences that cannot be reduced to one person's private imagination. Such cases increase the evidential complexity.

157. The practical fruits of authentic spirituality

Love, humility, courage, reconciliation, and service can emerge from genuine religious commitment. Good fruit supports the credibility of the claimed source.

158. The epistemology of testimony

Much of human knowledge rests on credible testimony. Religious testimony should not be rejected merely because its subject is transcendent.

159. The cumulative experiential argument

A single experience may be ambiguous, but millions of varied experiences, transformations, prayers, and providential events form a substantial cumulative body of testimony.

160. The best-explanation approach to experience

If God exists, religious experience is expected. If no transcendent reality exists, the persistence and depth of such experience require an alternative explanation.


IX. Historical and Specifically Christian Considerations

161. The historical existence of Jesus

Jesus of Nazareth is firmly situated within first-century history. His life provides a concrete focal point for evaluating claims of divine revelation.

162. Jesus' extraordinary self-understanding

The Gospel traditions portray Jesus as acting with divine authority, forgiving sins, redefining sacred institutions, and identifying himself uniquely with God's reign.

163. The moral and spiritual power of Jesus' teaching

Jesus' synthesis of love, holiness, mercy, enemy-love, humility, and devotion to God has exerted exceptional moral influence.

164. The crucifixion of Jesus

Jesus' execution under Pontius Pilate is among the most secure facts of his life. Christianity therefore begins with a public historical event, not an abstract myth.

165. The disciples' resurrection proclamation

Jesus' followers very early proclaimed that God had raised him bodily from the dead. The speed and centrality of this proclamation require explanation.

166. The transformation of the disciples

The disciples moved from fear and disillusionment to public witness under persecution. Their conviction is consistent with experiences they interpreted as encounters with the risen Jesus.

167. The conversion of Paul

Paul changed from persecutor to apostle after what he understood as an appearance of Christ. His conversion is a major historical datum.

168. The conversion of James

James, identified as Jesus' brother, became a leader of the Jerusalem church after earlier skepticism in the Gospel tradition. His change calls for explanation.

169. The early resurrection creed

The tradition preserved in 1 Corinthians 15 is widely regarded as early. It shows that resurrection belief was present near Christianity's beginnings.

170. The rise of resurrection-centered Christianity

A crucified messianic claimant would ordinarily be viewed as defeated. The emergence of a resurrection-centered movement is historically striking.

171. The empty-tomb tradition

Multiple Gospel traditions place women as the first discoverers, an unusual feature if the story were crafted merely for rhetorical advantage in that culture.

172. The Jewish context of resurrection belief

First-century Jewish expectations did not normally anticipate one individual rising ahead of the general resurrection. The Christian claim was therefore not an obvious invention.

173. The willingness of early witnesses to suffer

Suffering does not prove a belief true, but it strongly supports sincerity. Key early Christians did not behave as though they knowingly fabricated their message.

174. The rapid expansion of Christianity

Christianity spread from an obscure, crucified founder despite social and political hostility. Its growth invites explanation beyond ordinary incentives.

175. The coherence of the incarnation

If God wished to reveal divine character personally, entering history in human nature is philosophically coherent and existentially fitting.

176. The person of Christ as revelation

Christianity claims not merely that God sent propositions, but that God disclosed divine character through a life of holiness, compassion, sacrifice, and victory over death.

177. The cross as the union of justice and mercy

The Christian account presents God as neither ignoring evil nor abandoning sinners. The cross offers a morally serious synthesis of judgment, forgiveness, and self-giving love.

178. The resurrection as divine vindication

If the resurrection occurred, it would uniquely confirm Jesus' authority and God's action in history. The historical case therefore has enormous worldview significance.

179. The explanatory scope of Christian theism

Christianity connects creation, reason, morality, sin, forgiveness, suffering, love, history, and hope in one narrative centered on Christ.

180. The cumulative case for Christian revelation

Historical arguments do not begin from zero; they join the broader case for God. If theism is already plausible, resurrection and revelation claims become more credible.


X. Comparative, Pragmatic, and Cumulative Arguments

181. The explanatory scope of theism

Theism addresses why anything exists, why nature is ordered, why minds arise, why morality binds, and why meaning matters within one framework.

182. The explanatory unity of theism

Rather than positing unrelated brute facts for laws, consciousness, reason, value, and purpose, theism traces them to one ultimate rational source.

183. The personal explanation argument

Some realities are best explained by reasons and intentions rather than mechanisms alone. The universe's contingent order may ultimately require a personal explanation.

184. Inference to the best explanation

God need not be demonstrated deductively to be rationally affirmed. Theism can be assessed by explanatory power, scope, coherence, and comparative plausibility.

185. The limits of brute facts

Declaring the universe, laws, consciousness, or morality unexplained brute facts halts inquiry rather than answering it. Theism offers a deeper explanatory level.

186. The insufficiency of physicalism

If consciousness, reason, normativity, and value resist reduction to physics, a purely physical ontology may be incomplete. Theism naturally expands reality to include mind and value.

187. The insufficiency of relativism

Relativism struggles to condemn injustice across cultures or explain moral reform. Theism provides an objective moral standpoint.

188. The insufficiency of nihilism

Nihilism cannot preserve objective meaning, dignity, or moral obligation. Theism accounts for why these central human convictions may be true rather than illusory.

189. The argument from worldview fit

Theism fits many of our deepest rational, moral, aesthetic, and personal experiences without requiring us to dismiss them as systematic deception.

190. The argument from epistemic confidence

A rational creator gives reason to trust that our minds and the world are matched well enough for knowledge. Radical naturalism can make this fit appear accidental.

191. The argument from existential livability

A worldview should be capable of being lived consistently. Theism supports practices of truth-seeking, moral responsibility, hope, love, and gratitude.

192. Pascal's wager as prudential reasoning

Where evidence does not compel certainty, the possible stakes of relationship with God can make sincere investigation and commitment rationally urgent.

193. The argument from proper basicality

Belief in God may be rationally basic when formed through conscience, awe, experience, or a sense of divine presence, much like belief in other minds.

194. The argument from cumulative probability

Many modest pieces of evidence can jointly make a hypothesis strong even when none is decisive alone. The case for God is naturally cumulative.

195. The convergence of independent lines

Cosmology, fine-tuning, consciousness, morality, reason, beauty, experience, and history arise from different domains. Their convergence strengthens the design hypothesis.

196. The resilience of theistic belief under critique

Theism has generated sophisticated responses to centuries of objections. Its intellectual durability shows that it is not easily dismissed as a primitive gap-filler.

197. The fertility of theistic metaphysics

Theistic assumptions historically supported confidence in rational order, moral responsibility, and the intelligibility of nature. A fruitful worldview earns evidential consideration.

198. The argument from ultimate personal reality

Persons are among the most valuable realities we know. It is philosophically plausible that ultimate reality is not less than personal but supremely personal.

199. The argument from maximal explanation

A necessary, omnipotent, rational, good creator explains more fundamental features of reality than any single impersonal entity usually proposed as ultimate.

200. The final cumulative case

The case for God rests not on one isolated puzzle but on the total pattern: existence, order, life, mind, reason, morality, beauty, experience, and history all become more expected under theism.


A Compact Cumulative Argument

1. Contingent reality requires an ultimate explanation.


2. The universe exhibits rational, mathematical, and life-permitting order.


3. Life contains integrated information-processing systems and purposive organization.


4. Consciousness, reason, truth, and moral obligation are not easily reduced to impersonal matter.


5. Human beings encounter beauty, meaning, conscience, transcendence, and religious experience.


6. Theism unifies these features by grounding them in a necessary, rational, personal, and good source.


7. Christian theism adds a historical claim: this God has acted decisively in Jesus Christ.



Answering Five Specific Atheist Go-To Talking Points


On Facebook a fellow by the name of Matthew Thomason listed 5 specific go-to talking points contemporary atheist usually give. Having done apologetics for decades myself I can confirm he's right about the 5 points he lists.






To my fellow Christians, almost all atheists you will interact these days will have 5 specific go-to talking points, but there are plenty of simple responses to them (the ones offered below are simplifications, as I'm resisting my usual impulse to be as detailed and exhaustive as possible):


1. The Problem of Evil - How can God allow all of the terrible evil and suffering we see in the world?


a) The argument assumes that there cannot be any possible morally sufficient reasons for God to allow for the suffering we have seen in the world. This is far from clear, and the burden of proof is on them here. 


b) The core message of Christianity places more weight on the need for us to be redeemed and to embrace reconciliation to God in an uncoerced capacity and therefore in the context of a free pursuit of God that may itself require a world suffused with uncertainty and varying degrees of hardship. 


c) Our capacity for moral and spiritual growth is informed by uncertainty and unpredictable suffering, both that of others and our own. 


d) The world we live in consists of an infinitely complex tapestry, for which the far-reaching consequences of senseless tragedies, especially those farther removed from our immediate circumstances, are increasingly impossible for us to lock in with anything approaching certainty. As such, the confidence of any skeptic who wants to insist that it is obvious that there could be no justification for God to allow observed suffering is seriously strained. Of course, this argument only works when we factor in the prescribed priorities of God as revealed by the Christian metanarrative. 


2. Difficult Old Testament Passages - Are we really to think that these rough practices described in the Old Testament are the moral ideal and that these are universal prescriptions a good God wants us to follow?


a) A holistic reading of the biblical corpus reveals that there is a redemptive movement hermeneutic at play, which pushes against the notion that institutional practices described in the OT are being conveyed as universal societal prescriptions or as moral ideals. In fact, there are hints throughout that God's people are being nudged away from standard human practices and gradually towards the moral ideal embodied in Christ. 


b) Scholars across the ideological spectrum have noted that ancient Israel, while having the same institutional practices as the rest of the world, nevertheless were surprisingly humanitarian in comparison to their ancient Near Eastern counterparts. This reflects the aforementioned redemptive trajectory already being in play in the Old Testament throughout. This does not mean the practices the ancient Israelites were allowed to continue in were morally ideal. 


c) There is a strong argument -- from sociology, psychology, history, and common sense -- to be made that it is unrealistic to think ancient Israel, or any society, could have been completely morally reformed overnight or within just a few generations. In fact, it's plausible that any society would be subject to considerable risk of destabilizing under these expectations being relentlessly imposed. 


d) In many instances, when skeptics cite "difficult passages", it becomes evident that they have failed to distinguish between descriptions and prescriptions. 


e) In many instances, when skeptics cite "difficult passages", it becomes evident that they have failed to note the distinction between apodictic laws and casuistic laws, that "legal codes" of the ancient Near East are increasingly thought by scholars not to be literal codes, and that surrounding precedents in the text inform a more flexible view of the actual practices and punitive enforcements that actually would have been routinely carried out in ancient Israel. 


3. The Irrationality of Belief in God - There is no evidence for the existence of God.


a) This reflects a profound lack of knowledge in matters of epistemology. Evidence is trivially easy to come across, and merely amounts to data that rationally would be more expected or less surprising given a hypothesis (such as "God exists"). 


b) This objection is typically motivated by an adherence, conscious or not, to an outdated epistemology known as logical positivism, which is both plagued with internal contradictions and is massively too restrictive. 


c) Even science itself doesn't operate on verificationism, but on abductive reasoning, theory-choice, coherence, explanatory scope, and probabilistic support relations understood through the lens of the expectation/surprising principle. 


d) Theism, and even Christianity in particular, has a rather rich philosophical heritage. Desperate caricatures aside, internet atheists never really give legitimate reasons for why a mind-first ontology is something "silly" or "dumb" for someone to hold to. They typically just coast off of some sense that atheism is the "intelligent" position because it has become trendy for people to say that in certain circles of insufferable troglodytes. Rest assured, there are actually plenty of atheists out there who cringe at atheists of this particular ilk. 


4. Bad Moral Fruits - Christians are deeply immoral. Just look at MAGA!


a) This doesn't entail nor does it probabilify the nonexistence of God or the falsehood of propositions such as "Jesus is God" or "Jesus was raised from the dead as a vindication of his claims to divine authority, status, and title". 


b) Yes, there are plenty of Christians doing terrible things. That's because they are people, humanity is messy, and there isn't some cosmic filter that prevents people from draping themselves in a Christian label and doing whatever they like. 


c) In terms of historical episodes that skeptics often point to, their analysis is often superficial and amounts to simplistic bivariate comparisons. They completely overlook the complexities that accompany the psychology of human group dynamics and their inferences often amount to "People who were Christian did bad thing X - > therefore, Christianity caused them to do X". Serious historians and sociologists are not going to take this inference seriously. 


d) Even atheist historians are coming around to acknowledge that Christianity actually paved the way to profound moral reform over time. The rights of women and children, sexual norms, altruism, prosocial behaviors that transcend tribalism, and the notion of human dignity were being reinforced by core Christian doctrines. Occasional bad conduct from some Christians in history does not undercut broad societal trend in places where Christianity became the dominant influence. 


e) Multivariate analysis actually shows that intrinsic Christian religiosity predicts greater prosocial behaviors and better mental health outcomes, as well higher rates of adoption and more generous charitable giving. Multiple metrics of individual prosperity that are fairly unobjectionable show this positive trend. 


f) MAGA itself, speaking as someone outside of that camp, is far more nuanced than is often depicted. I talk to countless people who voted for Trump consistently who don't like the man personally, don't favor all of his positions, but simply thought he was less of an existential threat and was more favorable to their personal interests and the interests of society. There is a whole other can of worms to consider when getting into how often people simplify and speculate on the motives for people's positions on markets and borders. I won't get it to that here. 


5. Argument from So Many Denominations - Christianity cannot be true, because Christians have so many disagreements. 


a) Again, this doesn't entail nor does it probabilify the nonexistence of God or the falsehood of Christianity. 


b) Christians need not assume epistemic parity or equal importance across all theological questions on the table. In fact, no Christian I know of does. 


c) Worldviews, models, explanatory frameworks and so on always have variegated issues that are either unclear, left unresolved, or invite diversity of viewpoints, despite people subscribing to the broader framework agreeing on the core contentions. This occurs in science, history, and countless other mediums of inquiry. Not sure why it isn't allowed in theology, but, then again, neither do internet atheists. They just mindlessly parrot this talking point. 


Anyway, there it is. There is much I left out, and I barely scratched the surface, but it's a good starting point.




Tuesday, September 2, 2025

Answers To An Atheist's Mocking Questions About Heaven

 

The following [in blue] is a list of questions an atheist asked in a Facebook group. My answers [with minor additions] are below.


**copied from another group***


SOME FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT HEAVEN:


The following are questions I posted on a Christian forum. Instead of answers, I was blocked. I thought they'd take advantage of this to "win me to Christ?" Anyways.


1. Does heaven exist? If so, where's evidence?


2. According to the bible, heaven is described as streets of gold. Why is it decorated with gold? Is gold still valuable in heaven?


3. People (or faithful Christians) will be rewarded in heaven, according to the bible. But what are they going to do with those rewards? Since obviously, there's not going to be any needs in heaven?


4. Those who diēd as infants, are they going to grow up in heaven? Or they'll remain infants?


5. Are you going to chat with Jesus, Moses, Adam, Eve, etc? What kind of things will you be talking about?


6. Is thinking going to take place in heaven? Because we normally think about how to solve problems, how to use creative techniques, etc. But since there's no problems in heaven, then what exactly are Christians going to be thinking about?


7. If you get to heaven and discover someone you loved hasn't made it, will you miss them, or you'll be emotionally numb? 


8. Can you be happy and joyful, even while other people are being tortÅ«red simply because they didn't believe in the correct religious teachings? E.g. people who are born in India are most likely Hindu. And those in Saudi Arabia are mostly Muslim. Because religion is not discovered, it's inherited. 


9. What are you going to be spending your time on in heaven? Praising God for eternity? Day and night? Is this something God enjoys? 


10. Are people going to sleep in heaven, or their eyes will be open 24 hours for eternity? 


11. Are people going to be learning in heaven? Will ignorance exist? 


12. Satan was kicked out of heaven, according to the bible, his crime was a wrong thought. What guarantee do you have, that you'll not develop a wrong thought while in heaven, especially that you had many of them on earth?m he [[sic]]


My Answers Below:

//1. Does heaven exist? If so, where's evidence?//

Read books on Near Death Experiences like:

a.) Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven: A Brief Introduction in Plain Language by Steve Miller

b.) Imagine Heaven: Near-Death Experiences, God's Promises & The Exhilarating Future that Awaits You by John Burke

//2. According to the bible, heaven is described as streets of gold. Why is it decorated with gold? Is gold still valuable in heaven?// 

 You have to understand that there's a difference between the conscious disembodied condition during the Intermediate State which may simulate physical reality, and the Eternal Kingdom of God on Earth [and heaven?] after the resurrection of the body. The description of gold streets could be figurative. Though possibly literal. Just because some streets are gold doesn't mean all are made of gold. Also, gold will have aesthetic value because of its beauty, but not the same financial value. There will be no lack in heaven, so the "economy" will be different.   

Rev. 21:5-7 LSB
[5] And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He *said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.” [6] Then He said to me, “They are done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. [7] He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.

//3. People (or faithful Christians) will be rewarded in heaven, according to the bible. But what are they going to do with those rewards? Since obviously, there's not going to be any needs in heaven?//

Rewards come in different forms. From closeness in rank and nearness to God in the kingdom; to responsibilities in ruling cities, peoples and angels [Matt. 19:28; Luke 19:16-19; 22:30; 1 Cor. 6:3]; greater honor [Rom. 2:6-10]; etc. 

Read these sermons:

1. The Weight of Glory by C.S. Lewis
https://www.doxaweb.com/assets/weight_of_glory.pdf
[Last link seems to be back again]

2. Heaven by Edward D. Griffin

https://gospelmeals.blogspot.com/2020/05/heaven-by-edward-d-griffin.html


3. When I Was A Child by Edward D. Griffin
//4. Those who diēd as infants, are they going to grow up in heaven? Or they'll remain infants?//

They will either slowly grow up in the afterlife, or be fully grow instantaneously [like Adam & Eve].

//5. Are you going to chat with Jesus, Moses, Adam, Eve, etc? What kind of things will you be talking about?//

Yes, we will have relationships and conversations with Jesus and the other redeemed people. Probably with angels too. Topics? Virtually everything. But sanctified conversations. Topics will include Redemptive History in the wide [civilizations] and narrow [individual]. The wonders of creation and New Creation. Old and New heavenly Music. Maybe even old and New novels.

//6. Is thinking going to take place in heaven? Because we normally think about how to solve problems, how to use creative techniques, etc. But since there's no problems in heaven, then what exactly are Christians going to be thinking about?//

There may be more scientific discoveries to be found in the New Creation. In physics, mathematics, philosophy. Read Griffin's sermon on "When I Was A Child" linked above.

//7. If you get to heaven and discover someone you loved hasn't made it, will you miss them, or you'll be emotionally numb? //

Your thinking will be so sanctified that in one sense you will be sad that any human made in God's image is in hell, but at the same time be fully convinced and satisfied that it's perfect justice. You'll be able to see that then, even if in this life it might not seem so.

//8. Can you be happy and joyful, even while other people are being tortūred simply because they didn't believe in the correct religious teachings? E.g. people who are born in India are most likely Hindu. And those in Saudi Arabia are mostly Muslim. Because religion is not discovered, it's inherited. //

That's a misrepresentation. They are in hell for their sins against God, themselves and others, not merely because they didn't believe the right things. God didn't have to provide salvation to anyone or send them the Gospel message to believe. God would have been within His just rights to withhold both atonement and the Gospel from them. And God does withhold the message from some. 

//9. What are you going to be spending your time on in heaven? Praising God for eternity? Day and night? Is this something God enjoys? //

Read the sermons I linked to above.

//10. Are people going to sleep in heaven, or their eyes will be open 24 hours for eternity? //

They probably won't need to, but will likely be able to. Eating will probably not be necessary, but it will be part of the pleasures and rewards of heaven [Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:29; 22:18]. So why not also with sleep?


//11. Are people going to be learning in heaven? Will ignorance exist? //

Yes. See Griffin's sermons above.

Eph. 2:7 ESV
so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:12 ESV
[12] It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.


//12. Satan was kicked out of heaven, according to the bible, his crime was a wrong thought. What guarantee do you have, that you'll not develop a wrong thought while in heaven, especially that you had many of them on earth?m he//

Not merely wrong thoughts, but evil and rebellious thoughts and actions. The person of Satan [who wasn't named "Satan" at the time] attempted to overthrow God and usurp His position/throne. See Isa.
 14 and Ezek. 28 which are chapters about human kings at the surface level of the text, but probably have a secondary meaning regarding Satan's rebellion and fall from his former high status among God's angels. 



Friday, July 30, 2021

Why Isn't the Bible Clearer?

 

In a facebook group I belong to, an atheist asked this of Christians:


For all the literalist Christians- why do you think god took so many words to tell you some simple truths? If your god is so evident and real, why not just put out a useful pamphlet telling us the basics, rather than have to do it via a long winded, easily misinterpreted, morally ambiguous, repetitive and confusing text that hardly anyone can tolerate reading in its entirety? For useful and concise yet spiritually wise story-telling, it's difficult to find a better book than The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran. It seems a shame to me that the bible isn't more like that book. Thoughts?

I gave the following brief reply with minor editing. I've also added material that wasn't in the original response in purple:

There are many non-ultimate reasons, and other ultimate reasons.

- Our efforts, diligence and industry in trying to understand the Bible reveals our sincerity and seriousness in knowing about God and His ways. It weeds out those who aren't serious and sincere. Our response to the Bible exposes our character. It also affords room and possibility for rewards for diligence. Raking is easy, but you only get leaves. Digging is hard, but by doing so you can find diamonds and gold. Most people are only willing to rake the Bible. Because of our sinful nature, we are naturally intellectually lazy and immoral and biased in our reading/studying of the Bible. Yet, we are that way willingly, and therefore culpably so.

Prov. 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.

-A critic might ask, "Why couldn't Jesus and/or the Bible refrain from using idioms and only use pure universal unambiguous propositional prose so that every generation of Bible readers could understand plainly?" It's not clear that human language can be completely free of the use of idioms, emblematic language and other non-propositional like language. See the first section [pages 2-5] of Steve Hays' article here to get my meaning and point:

Why I Believe by Steve Hays

-Often, it's not just/merely the clear propositional aspects of the Bible that inspire faith [which is more than mere belief BTW], but it's often the narrative thrust of the Bible that often does so even more. Non-Christians understand how powerful narrative is in forming/developing morals. That's why Hollywood has been taken over by the most radical non-Christians. Why the woke want to impose their values on both theists and non-theists.

- A completely understandable Revelation this side of death [and of the eschaton, the final Day of Judgment and Final Manifestation of God] wouldn't capture & sustain the continual intrigue and fascination of humans for very long. Even regarding wonderful earthly things, we often take them for granted because they are so common and easily understood. This is why even ordinary human poetry and Shakespeare's works fascinate people who don't fully understand them. The mystery adds to and is part of the enjoyment. The more you dig into the Bible the more gold is found. Many Christians know by experience how studying a Biblical subject can be very enjoyable and awe inspiring.

Take for example the subject of the Messiahship of Jesus. Here's a link to Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum's 21 lectures on the Jewish Life of Christ:

More could be said and enumerated regarding non-ultimate reasons. But I'll leave it at that.

The ultimate reason is that in God's sovereignty, He has inspired Scripture to say what it does in order to save the guilty elect and judicially condemn the guilty non-elect.

I'm a Calvinist Protestant, but even high predestinarian Catholic Blaise Pascal wrote in his famous Pensées:

//Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.//

//563 The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it. //

//577 There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.—Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Sébond.//

//574 All things work together for good to the elect, even the obscurities of Scripture; for they honour them because of what is divinely clear. And all things work together for evil to the rest of the world, even what is clear; for they revile such, because of the obscurities which they do not understand.//

//562 It will be one of the confusions of the damned to see that they are condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion.//

//576 God has made the blindness of this people subservient to the good of the elect.//

My point being that if the Bible were any more clearer OR any more ambiguous in either direction, not all and only all of God's elect might be saved. Though, the doctrine of predestination and the various options available to Christians is an in-house debate in Christianity and shouldn't take a center stage or usurp attention from the main issues. Christians are free to disagree on this topic. Whether one is a Calvinist like myself, or an Arminian, or middle knowledge Molinist, or middle knowledge Congruist, or Augustinian et cetera.

Also, if the Bible were too clear, then God's providential plan for history [or literally HIS-story] would not come to pass. The progress of Redemptive History and of civilization, with all it's ups and downs, are part of God's plan to glorify Himself and prove man's need for God. There are three main views on the Millennium among Christians. All three are within the pale of Christian orthodoxy. Amillennialism, Premillennialism and Postmillennialism. If postmillennialism is true [as I suspect], then one day the world of humanity will eventually be fully evangelized and Christianized such that the majority of humanity will be saved on earth and all aspects of society will be sanctified. That's a process that will take time. A process that will bring greatest glory to God. Just like in superhero movies the origins story with all its struggles and ups and downs to develop character in the protagonist makes the journey all the more glorious. God is like the Mickey to the Rocky of human history. Or the Mr. Miagi to the Karate Kid of human history. Or the Obi Wan Kenobi to the Luke. You also need a Vader to fight the Luke. The wheat must struggle with the tares/weeds [cf. the Parable of the Wheat and Tares in the Bible].

Even if I'm wrong about Postmillennialism and Premillennialism or Amillennialism were true, a Bible that were much clearer wouldn't result in fulfilling either the Premil or Amil position.

Also, God's ways are deeper and higher than our ways. Moreover, God's nature, while truly apprehensible, is nevertheless incomprehensible. We can apprehend God to some degree, but we cannot fully comprehend God exhaustively. The finite cannot contain the infinite.

Rom. 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"
35 "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?"
36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Isa. 55:6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near;
7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

I then recommended reading The Weight of Glory by C.S. Lewis

SEE ALSO MY BLOGPOST:

Friday, May 21, 2021

Quick Refutation of a Meme [2021 05]

A meme I responded to on Facebook: 




Quick rebuttal. Regarding #2, it's an in-house debate among Christians whether human free will is libertarian or compatibilistic. As a Calvinist I think it's compatibilistic [as most knowledgeable Calvinists do].


Regarding #3, God didn't send the flood in judgment for man's use of free will, but for their SINFUL use of free will. God judges sinners for their sins and abuse of their God given free will. It's an in-house debate among Christians whether the flood was local or global. I think it was local and DID NOT encompass the entire Earth.


Regarding #4, God didn't randomly favor Abraham and his descendants. God, being omniscient [all-knowing] and omnisapient [all-wise] doesn't do anything randomly. Rather, God sovereignly choose Abraham's line in which to move forward His providential redemptive plan for history. To use his line to eventually bless the world [Gen. 18:18; 22:18; Gal. 3:8]. Because it would be through his line that the Messiah would come.


Regarding #5, it's an in-house debate in Christianity whether God still speaks outside of Scripture [i.e. the Bible]. I'm a continuationist and therefore believe that God does still speak and give revelations. But they are not on par with the authority of the Bible, nor can they be added to the already completed canon of Scripture. The Bible alone is the infallible Word of God, and is alone the universally binding public Revelation. All further revelations are private [rather than public] and not universally binding. They must be judged by the higher authority of Scripture, and rejected if they contradict Scripture. A good youtube channel with theologically responsible continuationists is The Remnant Radio YT channel.


Regarding #6, I'll address that in the next comment. [see below]


Regarding #7, JEsus didn't just "kill Himself". Jesus laid down His life as an atonement for sin to pay the penalty of sin on behalf of sinners so that they can be forgiven, justified, reconciled to God and adopted into God's family.


Regarding #8, it's just a variation on #5. So, read my response to #5 and then go do some research. I'd invite people to examine the evidence for modern miracles and the supernatural. Read:

Craig Keener's two volume Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, 


Keener will be coming out with a new book on miracles in Oct. with 70% new material.


Rex Gardner's Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates


Read the appendices in Robert Larmer's The Legitimacy of Miracle as well as his book Dialogues on Miracle.


Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland is coming out with a book on miracles in November.


Regarding the first part of #6 . American slave owners often were hesitant to teach their slaves to read because the Exodus story in the Bible would plant the seed in their minds of deliverance from slavery like the Israelites received from the Pharoah of Egypt. The Bible isn't pro-slavery, it permits it. Regulation is not advocation. Just as the laws of divorce in the Bible isn't an advocation of divorce. The Bible doesn't advocate slavery as the ideal. There were different kinds of slavery in the Mosaic covenant. All of which were different from 1st century Roman slavery or American slavery. 


As Steve Hays put it:

//2. Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?


i) The OT doesn’t endorse “slavery.” Lawmakers don’t endorse everything they regulate. Rather, the law sets boundaries. The law doesn’t prescribe an ideal.1


ii) “Slavery” is ambiguous. This can stand for very different arrangements. In the OT you have:


a) Indentured service for insolvency or property crimes. This is a form of financial restitution.


b) Enslavement for POWs or war captives. This is more humane than executing POWs. Repatriating enemy soldiers isn’t feasible inasmuch as they will simply regroup and resume hostilities.


c) Acquisition of foreigners. This is unenviable. However, living conditions in the ANE [[i.e. Ancient Near East]] were harsh. Poverty and famine were widespread. Better to be a slave in Israel, with the legal protections and provisions afforded you, than to starve to death. These laws don’t exist in a vacuum. They need to be understood in relation to the socioeconomic challenges of survival in the ANE.


G. Wenham, Story as Torah (Baker 2000), chap. 5.//

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/qa_steve_hays.html#slavery


Moreover, the seeds of abolishing slavery from advancing civilization are in the Bible. That's why the Abolition movement was started/headed by Christians. If the New Testament flat out condemned slavery, it would have been such a revolutionary teaching that it could have resulted in insurrection and the early Christians would have been immediately targeted and wiped out by the Romans. If instead of planting the SEEDS of abolition, the New Testament taught the idea of IMMEDIATE abolition, it would have spread too quickly in society that if slaves rebelled en mass both the owners and the slaves would have perished economically. Since, in such societies the slaves are almost as dependent on the owners, as the owners are on the slaves. It was almost a symbiotic relationship that benefited both.


However, with the seeds of the abolition of slavery in the New Testament's teaching, the acceptance and eventually the practice of slavery could be slowly phased out as it eventually did in Christian Europe and America.


Part of the Christian Gospel has strong themes of liberation.

2 Cor. 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom/liberty.


Jesus said in Luke 4 [quoting Isaiah 61]:

18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,

19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."


Regarding the 2nd part of #6. The Old Testament kosher dietary laws were a temporary injunction for the people of God because at the time redemption was only publicly limited to the Israelites. They are no longer binding. Since they no longer serve their purpose to be emblematic of the distinction between holy Hebrews and unholy Gentile Pagans, now that the Gospel has gone to the entire world. It's now being offered for all Gentile nations [i.e. the goyim]. There's nothing wrong with continuing to observe the kosher laws, but they are no longer binding. It would be wrong and legalistic to *require* people to observe them.



Saturday, March 3, 2018

Atheistic Objection to "Thoughts & Prayers"


Recently it's been popular on social media to object to theists stating that their "thoughts & prayers" go out to the living victims of tragedy. Usually, this objection comes from simplistic atheists. The following meme is representative of their objection.


I got that meme from an atheistic Facebook group. The following is my response [with minor adjustments].

1. The apparent fact that the phrase "thought & prayers" instead of merely "prayers" has, from my observation, arisen after the emergence of aggressive atheism [cf. The New Atheism movement] suggests to me that that addition of "thoughts" to the simple term "prayers" was an attempt by non-theists and atheists to be included in wishing the living victims of tragedy well. Especially since, a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of most prayers are thoughts. You can have thought without prayer, but you usually don't have prayer without thought [I'm leaving aside the issue of speaking in tongues whereby one allegedly can pray without knowing what one is praying about because it's not pertinent to the issue]. Given theism, the statement "Our thoughts and prayers are for/with the victims" would tend to seem to be redundant. So, if there's any asininity to the phrase "thoughts & prayers", it might actually find its source in atheism, not theism.

2. Those who object to people saying they are praying for the living victims of tragedy on account of the [alleged] fact that praying doesn't do anything to help beg the question that it doesn't help. They would have to be omniscient to know all the various ways God might respond to prayer in the short term, long term, the spiritual, the physical, the emotional, the financial, the earthly, the heavenly [e.g. victims of tragedy might end up getting "saved" because of seeing their need for God]. So, if anything, it's objectors to praying and prayers who are potentially being unmerciful toward the victims. If the atheistic objectors point out that theists who pray don't also do something tangible in this physical world, so what? Not everyone (whether theist or atheist) can do something tangible or financial (etc.) about a situation. Since, hard atheism [positive belief in the non-existence of all possible gods], as opposed to soft atheism [mere lack of a belief in gods], is impossible to prove; the logical, rational and merciful thing is for soft atheists to tolerate [or even encourage] theists to pray for victims of tragedy. But many atheists would rather not be that logical or rational.

3. Also, what's wrong with thought? An atheist or theist could be spending some time thinking of the victims and later come to some insight into how he or she CAN **NOW** help the victims, and even possibly prevent future similar tragedies. Isn't that precisely what objectors to "Thoughts & Prayers" are attempting to do when they object? Namely, thinking. That is, unless they're willing to admit that they are being UNTHINKING when they make such asinine objections to " *̲T̲H̲O̲U̲G̲H̲T̲S̲*̲ & Prayers".

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Atheist Discussion with "CN" and "MRJ" on Science and Presuppositionalism

The following discussion occurred on Facebook in May 2017. My first name is James. So, it's usually me who is being referred to when the name "James" is used. My comments are those by "AP" [for Annoyed Pinoy]. The discussion has been slightly edited and it's not always chronological (since Facebook threads can be commented on at any time). I've only included those portions where I interacted with others, or others interacted with me. Initials are used to maintain anonymity.

FYI, Many of the comments and points I made in the original Facebook discussion (which I've recorded in this blog) I also wanted to make in John Loftus' blogpost HERE. Both discussions occurred approximately the same time. However, by the time I was ready to make the same points there, I was already mentally fatigued because I had already had long involved discussions with multiple people in multiple threads simultaneously. In addition to that, it was clear to me that the atheists I was dialoguing/debating with there were especially unreceptive, resistant and antagonistic. I felt I had done more than enough to clear the field of objections to Christianity so that those with a seeker's heart might reconsider the possible truth of Christianity. On Loftus' blogpost, I posted with the Nickname "BibleLosophR". 


The Original Post on Facebook that began the discussion was the following by CN.



CN: William Lane Craig, the man to whom our little club is dedicated, has spent his life selling the notion that Christianity is a truth which can be realized by carefully studying history, nature, and the physical universe. He makes his living assuring his followers that the religion they were taught as children need not merely be accepted on blind faith, but that anyone who sincerely and thoroughly evaluates the available evidence can reasonably conclude that the core claims of Christianity are, in fact, true.

His religion, he claims, rests not on uncritical acceptance of culturally transmitted stories, but on a rigorous foundation of intellectual analysis and inference.

A week or so ago, I posted an argument here demonstrating that Theism cannot be rationally affirmed. This argument was met with no significant opposition. It undermines Craig's approach the matter of Christianity's truth wholesale.

It proves, in fact, that Christianity is *not* a conclusion to which a sincere and careful thinker can arrive by evaluating the evidence. It is *not* a conclusion which can be reached by carefully analyzing the nature of the universe or the historical facts surrounding the resurrection narrative. It is *not,* in fact, reasonable at all.

I am actually quite comfortable, on the strength of this one essentially unopposed argument, in declaring that the purpose of this page has been fulfilled. "Reasonable Faith," referring both to the body of work around which Craig has built his ministry and the notion that his religion can be reasonably affirmed by a sincere and careful seeker of truth, has been debunked. Craig's faith is not reasonable, and if you believe the same thing that he does, we can say with essentially perfect confidence that your faith is not reasonable either.

AP: I'd say that only a knowledgeable and philosophically adept presuppositionalist could answer your arguments. Unfortunately, most presuppositionalists like myself aren't very capable. In general, we'd point out that in comparison to atheism(s) [i.e. various atheistic worldviews], Christianity better provides for the preconditions of intelligibility. Grounding the metaphysical existence of, and/or epistemological belief in things like the laws of logic; abstract entities; laws of nature; laws of morality; genuine objective value (e.g. human dignity etc.); assumption of the general reliability of our sensory and cognitive faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as sources of justified true belief; the existence/knowability/orderly nature of the external world; the adequacy of language to describe the world; the use of the principle of induction; causation etc.).

Some capable presuppers include folks like Paul Manata, James Anderson, Steve Hays et al.


CN: Yeah, I gotta tell you, presuppositionalism is not promising.

AP:  I'm curious, have you ever listened to the Paul Manata vs. Dan Barker debate? I think Manata did a great job. The only major disagreements I would have with Paul in the debate is his assumption of Young Earth Creationism (I'm an Old Earth Creationist), and his cessationist position on Revelation (which made his response to Dan's "talking cat" parallel weak). If you're interested, here's the debate on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/140QVvwL9dU


CN:  i'll have a listen

CN:  Well, I'm through the first ten minutes, wherein Paul makes a remarkable fool of himself. Either his argument is an attack on something Dan actually believes, in which case it is irrelevant to the question, here, because Dan's beliefs are silly and not representative of atheism, or Paul's attack is against a pure straw man, in which case it is still irrelevant.

His basic contentions, that there cannot be any atheistic grounds for rational epistemology and that atheism is internally inconsistency, are both obviously false.

It may be that what *Dan* believes provides him no grounds for rational epistemology, or that what Dan believes is internally inconsistent, but Paul has made it inescapably clear in his intro that his critique cannot possibly apply to atheism in general.

AP: Well, it is a debate and so it only makes sense that he addresses his opponent's position. If I recall correctly, later on he'll make more comments that do apply to atheism in general.

CN:  I'm about five minutes into Dan's response, and in all fairness, it is...bad. like, he's all over the place. He's rambling. His presentation is *way* worse than Paul's.

Even so, Paul *at best* may have some critique of Dan's particular melange of beliefs. He's going to have to change tack almost completely in order to actually offer any argument that's even *relevant* to the issue under discussion in this thread.

CN: Paul's first rebuttal is scattered. Dan isn't capitalizing--I suspect if he were familiar with the typical presupp spiel, he would be able to, because Paul's stuff is predictable and mostly nonsense, and the result is sort of a scattered back and forth where Paul doesn't have any points to make and Dan isn't on the ball enough to point that out.

AP: Well, I'll grant you that Evidentialist, Classical, and Cumulative Case apologetics (by themselves apart from a presuppositional framework) are very weak. There are 5 major approaches to Christian Presuppositionalism, except for one, they all affirm the use of evidences [without being "evidentiaLIST"].

I haven't read your latest argument against theism, I probably wouldn't understand it. But even assuming (ad arguendo) that theistic belief cannot be arrived at rationally, that doesn't mean it's necessarily irrational (i.e. contrary to reason). I don't know if you do claim theism [i.e. theistic belief] is IRrational.


MJR: Yup, exactly why Dan Barker is one of my least favorite atheist debators.

CN: Dan has made a significant mistake in his treatment or morality, here in the middle of Paul's first cross-examination, but Paul of course fails to actually make any relevant points off of Dan's error.

CN: What I claim is that theism is not a belief that can be affirmed rationally.

AP: "What I claim is that theism is not a belief that can be affirmed rationally."

Affirmed rationally, or defended rationally? Are you saying all forms of theistic belief are necessarily irrational, illogical and incoherent? Surely, some things are rational to believe even if one couldn't rationally or empirically or historically defend the belief (e.g. your belief that your grandmother told you you're her favorite grandchild on your 10th birthday).

AP: You're within your epistemic rights to believe your grandmother said you were her favorite despite the fact that you can't prove it and despite the fact that your siblings and cousins reject your claim.


CN:  "Affirmed rationally, or defended rationally?"

Both.

"Are you saying all forms of theistic belief are necessarily irrational, illogical and incoherent?"

No.

"Surely, some things are rational to believe even if one couldn't rationally or empirically or historically defend the belief (e.g. your belief that your grandmother told you you're her favorite grandchild on your 10th birthday)."

Memory typically serves as sufficient evidence for high-prior proposals.

You might adopt some logical rules or rules of thought without evidence, but we wouldn't call this "rational" and, indeed, we could say pretty easily that it would be irrational to accept these rules *as ontologically weighty propositions* without going through some rational process to justify the ontological weight of those propositions.

CN:  Yeah, sorry, man. I'm about halfway through this, and I gotta stop. This debate is grating. Dan is doing a terrible job, and Paul is just reciting the typical presupp spiel, and not even doing a good job of it. He makes no points, does not argue against atheism in general or for Christianity in general. All he is doing is picking at isolated bits from Dan's book while the two of them bicker ineffectually back and forth about...nothing, basically.

I think if I engaged in the same debate with this guy, it would be obvious that he has nothing to contribute to the conversation. My guess is that he doesn't really understand most of what he is saying, so word-for-word typical is his spiel. He sounds like he's reading off of cue cards he downloaded from Turek's website.

AP: Fast forward to his rebuttal period.

I think Paul's rebuttal is at 39 minutes and 55 seconds.


CN:  I'm at 40:55. I guess I could keep listening, but, frankly, it just dropped dramatically in quality.

Paul was coming off as (at least sort of) polished when he was just reciting his script, and Dan has been a mess the whole time, but as soon as Paul actually started departing from the script to start making his own points, it became immediately obvious that he had no more intelligent contribution to offer than Dan did.

AP: Are you saying that your belief regarding your grandma's statement is non-rational or arational?

AP: I don't know if you're still listenin, but Paul's closing statement is at 1:00:00.


CN:  Well, I don't personally have any such belief.

If I did, it would depend on the details of my memory, and whatever evidence speaks to how generally reliable my memory is.

CN:  I'm not. I'll jump to 1:00:00 if you really think it's worth it, but I have no expectation at this point that it will be.

I'll bet it's just the same predictable script he started out with, completely ignoring whatever was said in response

HP: his assumption of Young Earth Creationism proves his emphatic ignorance. He must have failed geology

AP: Science on secular grounds cannot prove or disprove anything. Much less YEC.

Science has presuppositions or axioms which cannot themselves be proven scientifically but must be assumed in order for science to be done. Some of those presuppositions include:

(1) the existence of a theory-independent, external world;
(2) the orderly nature of the external world;
(3) the knowability of the external world;
(4) the existence of truth;
(5) the laws of logic;
(6) the [general] reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment;
(7) the adequacy of language to describe the world;
(8) the existence of values used in science (e.g., "test theories fairly and report test results honestly");
(9) the [presumed] uniformity of nature and [propriety of the use of the principle of] induction;
(10) the existence of numbers.
(11) causation

These make sense in theism, but the various atheistic worldviews have difficulty grounding such axioms. Most atheists live by "faith" (so to speak) when they operate with these working/operating assumptions.

Also, atheism has to overcome the problem of Eliminative Materialism which defended by even some atheists. Elminative Materialism holds that human consciousness, thoughts, desires, beliefs, deliberations, decisions and acts of will aren't real. If you can't overcome the problem of Eliminative Materialism then you have no business arguing against YEC.

AP: Generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Karl Popper wrote:

"First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it.... [W]e know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses.... [I]n science there is no "knowledge" in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.... Einstein declared that his theory was false: he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.... Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement;... our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural;... it consist of guesses, of hypotheses, rather than of final and certain truths."- Karl Popper

Popper went on to say: "It can even be shown that all [scientific] theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero."

The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.- Karl Popper

Basically, "science" on atheism reduces to conjectures (i.e. guesses) and alleged "refutations". But even the "refutations" aren't really true refutations since science, on secular grounds, cannot lead to any truth.

AP: Some secular books that destroy the possibility of science on secular grounds see the following books:

Mathematics: the Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume
The Scientific Outlook by Bertrand Russell
Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle's Metaphyics

Or read Christian philosopher Gordon Clark's book, "The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God" which I HIGHLY RECOMMEND. He's a Clarkian Presuppositionalist (I'm Van Tillian presupper). Nevertheless, his critique of science is devastating. Though, I'm not an empiric skeptic like he was.


CN:  Well, most of that is pretty obvious nonsense, of course. We can construct a logical and rigorous theory of science without most of those assumptions, as Jaynes proved in "probability theory, the logic of science."

Moreover, theism does no better a job grounding any of those assumptions than any number of comparable atheistic worldviews.

JP: James wrote: "secular books that destroy the possibility of science on secular grounds"

Destroy? I honestly don't think there's much merit in those things you list. Not because they don't carry any merit in their own right, but because of how you're using them here.

Of course science doesn't "disprove" solipsism. :)
And, sure, most epistemic endeavors suppose the 1st law, self-identity, for example; I'm not sure why you think that's somehow an argument against science. By all means, try to toss that out, and give it some thought; there isn't anything in particular that's itself, including this statement, no individuation either.
What of causation then? Science has demarcated seemingly acausal events, and come up with coherent models thereof.

If "the ground" of existence is something else, then "it" does not exist.

Science is model ==> evidence convergence. Empirical, self-critical, bias-minimizing. The convergence methodologies are commonly inductive. Obviously you can't change the evidence (observations, facts, experimental results, etc), hence the models converge on that. That's roughly scientific justification standards, and science remains the single most successful epistemic endeavor in all of human history, no contest (medicine, physics, you name it). And you may take that as evidence of self-justification, science meets it's own criteria.

Au contraire. It's kind of telling that critique has been pushed into such corners. But, I for one, do indeed want to see objections. Why on Earth would they come from theism, though?

MJR:  Basal assumptions: the universe exists (we aren't just a brain in the vat)

We can learn something about the universe.

Models with predictive capabilities are more likely true that models without.

Presupps make all of these assumptions and more. This makes their position inferior. It makes extra unnecessary assumptions.

P.S. science most definitely can demonstrate that the earth is much much older than 6k years.

AP: "And, sure, most epistemic endeavors suppose the 1st law, self-identity, "

While some atheists are not materialists (e.g. some are Platonists), most atheists are materialists. Given materialism, there's nothing material you can point to that's unchanging. The logical law "A is A" doesn't apply to anything physical because everything physical is contingent and changing. Moreover, such atheists still have to surmount many of the issues I brought up earlier. For example, the problems and implications of Eliminative Materialism, justify their assumption of the uniformity of nature, make sense of their use of induction, the assumption of the general reliability of their sensory and cognitive faculties etc. Most forms of atheism are like boats littered with holes. It's not enough to plug one hole. One needs to plug most or all holes simultaneously and in a non-contradictory fashion. Some solutions atheists offer for one problem contradict or undermine their solutions for other problems and vice versa.

" I'm not sure why you think that's somehow an argument against science."

What I'm against is a secular foundation for science. I'm not against science. As a Christian I believe that God made the world to be investigatable and discoverable. Also, that our cognitive and sensory faculties are, by design, adapted to our environment. While EAAN might not be sound, it does show the difficulties rationally affirming naturalism. Also, there are problems with Evolutionary Reliabilism.

The Evolutionary Basis of Self-Deception
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78fS_Vf9Y1iRUtwdVJsOTVuOTQ/view

Two Senses of 'Reliability' in Evolutionary Epistemology
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78fS_Vf9Y1iZE5VUlNycFVoSU0/view

The Circularity of Evolutionary Reliabilism
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78fS_Vf9Y1iMnhOUXVPZ2RhUTQ/view


"What of causation then? Science has demarcated seemingly acausal events, and come up with coherent models thereof."

Secular science has never proven either causation or acausal events. Regarding the former, David Hume has demonstrated that. Regarding the latter, just because something doesn't seem caused doesn't mean it wasn't caused. You'd have to be omniscient to rule out all causal factors. Just because you can't detect a cause doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"The convergence methodologies are commonly inductive."

Induction, on secular grounds, can never lead to truth or certain knowledge, as Popper said in the quotes I gave. That's because no amount of induction can tell us anything final. For all you know, any future discovery could controvert absolutely everything one once held as certain or provisional. Secular science must and can only ever be provisional. At best most atheistic worldviews can only lead to an operationalist or instrumentalist view of science. It's only pragmatic, and can never lead to apodictic truth.

"Obviously you can't change the evidence (observations, facts, experimental results, etc), hence the models converge on that. "

That assumes that the universe is uniform. For all you know, the fabric of spacetime along with it laws and constants are constantly changing from metaphorical cotton, to gold weave, to polyester, to clay but you never realize it. Just like in those time travel movies where people don't realize the world has changed (e.g. Time Cop). For all you know the laws of nature are different in other galaxies. No earthbound scientists has proven universal uniformity. Universal both in in time and space.

"...and science remains the single most successful epistemic endeavor in all of human history, no contest (medicine, physics, you name it)."

Theories can work which are nevertheless false. For example Newtonian physics can get men on the moon and back even though most acknowledge it's false. There is no such attraction between bodies as Newton postulated. Examples could be multiplied.

"And you may take that as evidence of self-justification, science meets it's own criteria."

No, you haven't show how secular science isn't just stipulating things and playing games with made up baseless rules.

Many scientific studies can’t be replicated. That’s a problem.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/27/trouble-in-science-massive-effort-to-reproduce-100-experimental-results-succeeds-only-36-times/

Most Scientific Findings Are Wrong or Useless
http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/most-scientific-results-are-wrong-or-use

Is Most Published Research Wrong?
https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q

AP: "Basal assumptions: the universe exists (we aren't just a brain in the vat)"

You'd need to explain what you mean by "ex-ists". Its etymology means to be "out of being". As R.C. Sproul said, "Now the idea of existence says to exist is to stand out of something. And the idea meant to stand out of being. So that something that exists is something that has one foot in being, and the other foot in becoming, or in non-being. Unless it’s connected somehow to being, it couldn’t be. We wouldn’t be human beings, we would be human becomings. And if it had both feet in being, it couldn’t be a creature. Well the point I’m saying is that we don’t want to think of God like this."

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/rc-sproul-proves-god-does-not-exist/

Stipulating we aren't brains in a vat isn't an argument. For all you know you are Hilary Putnam's brain in a vat. Being manipulated by an Ungerian Mad Scientist. With no other real brains to keep you company. Or maybe you're dreaming, or being tricked by a Cartesian Daemon. In fact, for all you know, divine idealism or divine occasionalism might be the case.

"We can learn something about the universe."

Another unargued assumption.

"Models with predictive capabilities are more likely true that models without."

That assumes that there is no Cartesian Demon who's trying to trip you up intellectually. And even granting that slogan, so what? Theories believed to be false sometimes work better than theories believed to be true. False theories sometimes work.

"Presupps make all of these assumptions and more. This makes their position inferior. It makes extra unnecessary assumptions."

I don't know which assumptions you're referring to. The ones I mentioned, or the ones you just mentioned. Either way, such assumptions make better sense given theism than atheism. Christian theism can ground them, while the various atheistic worldviews either can't or have much more difficulty doing so. Nor have you addressed the problems I outlined above in my previous posts.

"P.S. science most definitely can demonstrate that the earth is much much older than 6k years."

I'm an Old Earth Creationist who believes the universe is billions of years old. But given atheism, there's no way one could really tell us the age of the earth. In fact, given atheism, maybe the B theory of time and Minkowski's block universe is true. Which means eternalism is true. In which case, the earth has no age.

P.S. Christianity is compatible with either the A or B theory of time.


MJR: They are the Base assumptions we all make. You don't argue for assumptions. They're assumptions. And you can't escape them anymore than I can.

MJR: You have to start with the same assumptions I just mentioned. It doesn't make any more sense to add god to your assumptions then make some assinine remark that they make more sense under theism. Considering I make fewer assumptions, sticking to the bare minimum of what's necessary, I'm not seeing any evidence for any sort of god.

AP: Some assumptions cohere more and better in some worldview than in others. Also, Christianity is all for faith assumptions. Atheists usually berate theists for their "faith" assumptions. Yet, they themselves have unargued for assumptions which they exempt by labeling them "working/operating assumptions". But it begs the question to assume they're 1. true, and 2. actually work.

You stipulate the the universe exists and can know things about it. You haven't given us a plausible worldview that can make sense of that. How do you know you can know anything about the universe, and what do you think you know about it? Do you know enough to know that God isn't necessary metaphysically or epistemologically?

Occam's Razor isn't an infallible principle. It doesn't tell us what is necessarily true, only what is to be preferred. Scientists sometimes count elegance in a theory as a greater guide than simplicity in telling them which theory is more likely true. So, sometimes a more complex theory is preferred if it provides greater explanatory power and scope.

Moreover, I showed you how atheism often undermines or at least seriously calls into question those assumptions, given atheism. You haven't actually addressed my points above which I posted to to you or to others in this thread.


AP: Given Christian theism, we were meant to have such working assumptions because we were to infer them from General Revelation and Special Revelation. However, given atheism, the universe didn't guide the evolution of our sensory and cognitive faculties to be truth acquiring and producing. For all you know, you never learn anything really true about the universe. You're like the slave in Plato's Cave who never sees things for/as what they really are. Like a color blind dog who'll never know about the blue sky.

The philosopher William James once said, “We may be in the world as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all.”Read more:
www.reasonablefaith.org/emotions-and-deciding-whether-christianity-is-true

Given theism, humans are more like Newton when he said, "I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."- Isaac Newton

Science first truly flourished in Christian Europe because Christianity instilled an expectation of discover in the world from it's wise, rational and intelligent Creator.


MJR: They're necessary to function. That doesn't make them a "faith" assumption. We all make them. I just keep my assumptions limited to the bare minimum, and infer from there.

AP:  Given atheism, maybe CHAOS rules the world. As Aristophanes put it:

Whirl is King, having driven out Zeus-Aristophanes

Alternatively translated:
No, a thousand times no! The ruler of the world is the Whirlwind, that has unseated Zeus.

"There is not, no; for Vortex reigns having expelled Jupiter."

Vortex is king, and has deposed Zeus.

It is wholly irrational to hold any other position than that of Christianity. Christianity alone does not slay reason on the altar of 'chance.' - Van Til


 MJR: Atheism isn't threatened by the bare minimum assumptions unless there were actually evidence for god.

MJR:  I would say given the evidence, Christianity is almost certainly false.

AP:  I've listed some evidences in my comments at this thread:
[I've created a blog based on those comments HERE]

I've also collected some in my various blogs. For example here:

http://misclane.blogspot.com/

I need to begin my day and so have to leave the conversation for now. I'll be back tonight. Thanks for the chat.


MJR: Great, but if you're using evidence and arguments for god, that can only possibly follow after the base assumptions. Though I still find the logic trying to demonstrate gods existence is seriously flawed.

CN:  " Some assumptions cohere more and better in some worldview than in others."

Note that this isn't quite right. Coherence is binary. There is no such thing as cohering "more" or cohering "better." There is only "coherence" or "incoherence."

JP: James wrote: «[...] there's nothing material you can point to that's unchanging. The logical law "A is A" doesn't apply to anything physical because everything physical is contingent and changing»

I don't think you quite understand the 1st law. :D The processes that occur are the processes that occur - ontological self-identity. At any one time, an object is the object - ontological self-identity. Tautologies are true - propositional self-identity.

James wrote: «Secular science has never proven [...]»

Since my background is over in mathematics, I can't help but notice the haphazard use of the word "proof". Technically, proofs are deductive, whereas by far most epistemics go by justification. And justification come in various forms, not just deductive.

That aside, why on Earth have you inserted "Secular" in front of "science"? As briefly mentioned above, science is largely methodological. I know you'd like to hijack science for religious apologetics, but you might as well write "Yellow science".

James wrote: «Induction, on secular grounds, can never lead to truth or certain knowledge»

Ah, certainty. So, by "knowledge" you mean "certainty" (in your various posts here)? To know p (some proposition), you then also have to know that you know p. Ad infinitum. Sorry, that's not how it works. And then there's the diallelus. By inserting your variety of theism you've just added more to your burden.

James wrote: «That assumes that the universe is uniform»

Suppose there are no regularities. This would make it impossible for us to learn. We find both.

James  wrote: «playing games with made up baseless rules»

:D

Your demand for others to disprove solipsism (and brains in vats and all that) is misplaced. By all means, go right ahead and disprove solipsism; take it as a challenge.

That aside, how do you think you ever learned anything, from the time you were born? By interacting with the world. In absence of non-deductive learning we get exactly nowhere.

JP: MJR wrote: wrote: "I would say given the evidence, Christianity is almost certainly false."

Not just Christianity. Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism, ... It's all fantastic speculation, that has become ritualized ignorance. Contemporary theology is the fossilized remains of superstition acquired by non-teleological evolution. And then theists start deferring to ontologized abstracts, making their "otherworldly" entities sterile and inert. Go figure. :)

AP:  I've been busy and I've already devoted a lot of time to this thread. Thanks for the chat everyone. Here are my final comments:

"I don't think you quite understand the 1st law. :D The processes that occur are the processes that occur - ontological self-identity. At any one time, an object is the object - ontological self-identity."

The very reason Plato denied knowledge was possible in this contingent world was because its changing. For example, Apples can turn into humans, humans into sharks by the process of digestion. A is never A because there never is an unchanging "A". Only in the unchanging realm of forms did Plato think knowledge was possible.

"Great, but if you're using evidence and arguments for god, that can only possibly follow after the base assumptions. Though I still find the logic trying to demonstrate gods existence is seriously flawed."

Your base assumptions float in nowhere. I would argue you don't have enough axioms [much less justifiable ones] to make sense of the world or develop a viable worldview.

"That aside, why on Earth have you inserted "Secular" in front of "science"? As briefly mentioned above, science is largely methodological. I know you'd like to hijack science for religious apologetics, but you might as well write "Yellow science"."

I already explained that. One can attempt to do science with a secular or atheistic worldview(s). Whether one postively and explicitly holds to metaphysical naturalism or one takes the more modest position of methodological naturalism. IF, hypothetically speaking, Christianity is true [as I believe, rightly or wrongly], then only science done with Christian presuppositions would count as true knowledge from God's, and therefore as well man's, perspective. Fortunately, non-Christians borrow enough from the Christian worldview that much of secular science is useful. I'm hesitant to say "leads to scientific truth" since, I'm not sure it does. I lean toward scientific anti-realism.

"Ah, certainty. So, by "knowledge" you mean "certainty" (in your various posts here)? To know p (some proposition), you then also have to know that you know p. Ad infinitum. Sorry, that's not how it works. And then there's the diallelus. By inserting your variety of theism you've just added more to your burden."

Yes, the regress problem is real. I anchor my knowledge to the ontology of God's existence and the epistemology of God's revelation. Non-theists cannot make that move. I don't claim an internalist and infallibilist epistemology. It seems to me that it's incumbent on non-theists 1. to claim, 2. to actually possess and 3. to fulll an internalist and infallibilist constraint on knowledge. Otherwise, they really don't know anything (as I claimed above). Like they say, there are no free lunches in philosophy.

As Christian apologist Cornelius Van Til wrote regarding knowledge, "My unity is that of a child who walks with its father through the woods." Elsewhere, he wrote, "Man can rejoice in the mystery that surrounds himself because he believes that no mystery surrounds God. If mystery should be thought of as surrounding God, then nothing would remain for man but utter despair. A child who knows that his father is a millionaire does not need to have more than a dollar in his hand."

The consistent Christian unashamedly/unabashedly acknowledges he's walking by faith in God's revelation. Whereas various non-Christians who lean toward rationalism, when pushed can't given rational arguments to ground their rationalism. The non-Christians who lean toward empiricism can't rationally or empirically ground their empiricism. While irrationalists are self-contradictory in speech and behavior.

"Suppose there are no regularities. This would make it impossible for us to learn. We find both."

No, you're asserting and begging the question of both. Just because it appears to you, or you think you are learning or that there are regularities in the world doesn't mean you are or there is. Given, Christianity, I agree both are true. But given atheism, I'd like to know how such is possible ontologically and epistemologically.

"Your demand for others to disprove solipsism (and brains in vats and all that) is misplaced. By all means, go right ahead and disprove solipsism; take it as a challenge."

I was challenging non-theistic (specifically non-Christian) epistemologies which begin with man as the source and measure (homo mensura). I begin with God (deus mensura), God as the measure of all things. Mine is a revelational epistemology. I was looking for how non-theists can claim to have any knowledge at all. I haven't see any good arguments.

"That aside, how do you think you ever learned anything, from the time you were born? By interacting with the world. In absence of non-deductive learning we get exactly nowhere."

Christianity allows for the use of deduction, induction, abduction, reduction, innoduction etc. It's because I live in a world created by an orderly God that there are such things as kinds, categories, species, universals. Why I can have confidence in the general reliability of my sense perceptions and rational faculties etc. Why I can assume things like causation, regularity, order, induction, general uniformity etc. Why I can think in terms of laws of logic, laws of nature and laws of morality.


 MJR:  //Your base assumptions float in nowhere. I would argue you don't have enough axioms [much less justifiable ones] to make sense of the world or develop a viable worldview.//

And yet due to your own subjective lens, you're stuck in the exact same boat I am. You make the exact same assumptions and then make more. I would argue that your additional assumptions are unwarranted.

CN:  Note that axioms are allowed to '"float in nowhere," so to speak. They do not need to be grounded in prior ontological assumptions.

AP: "Note that axioms are allowed to '"float in nowhere," so to speak. They do not need to be grounded in prior ontological assumptions."

Technically, that's true given some systems and mathematics. When it comes worldviews, that's a weakness since such axioms could be completely arbitrary and ad hoc. The difference is that in "Omni" types of theism (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam) some axioms or presuppositions are revealed from by an omniscient and omnisapient all powerful providential God.


to MJR:

" You make the exact same assumptions and then make more. I would argue that your additional assumptions are unwarranted."

Our common assumptions fit with the remainder of my worldview, while yours often do not. I say often since there are different types of atheistic worldviews and I don't know which one you hold to. For example, most forms of atheism are materialistic and so have to overcome the hurdles of Eliminative Materialism. Given my worldview, my presuppositions are warranted and non-arbitrary. Most forms of atheism undermine (or seriously call into question) our common assumptions.

AP: The overarching point is that theism (like that in Christianity) can in principle consistently claim knowledge and truth. Whereas in atheism, one cannot, even in principle, claim knowledge and truth. At best atheists can attempt to argue for what works/pragmatism (though, even that's questionable).


MJR:  I'm sorry but that just looks like word salad to me. You make the same base assumptions I make. I try to keep my assumptions limited to the bare minimum. I'm not assuming materialism or naturalism or whatever you want to call it, I believe that's where the evidence points.

MJR: Christianity doesn't give you any special powers of knowledge that I don't already possess.

AP: Tell me one substantial thing you know given your epistemology and ontology. Not something like, "I know I'm not omniscient." Something really positive.

MJR:  I don't even know what your actually asking for?

MJR:  Are you suggesting that because I can't know with certainty that I'm not a brain in a vat that I can't really know anything?

Great. But we're all in that boat.

AP: Christianity, gives us the framework in which to make sense of the world, as well as making sense of making sense of the world. As C.S. Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."
Given your atheism, you can't know that the sun has risen, nor can you make sense of your your knowledge that it does rise. As a Christian, I believe you do know things, but you can't explain your knowledge given your non-Christian worldview. If you were consistent with your worldview, you'd admit you don't know anything of consequence. But, because you're made in God's image and live in God's created world, you actually do know things.

AP: So, you admit that you can't really know anything? Good. I agree. I disagree that we're in the same epistemological boat.


MJR: Christianity doesn't give you any extra special power to know with certainty anymore that I could.

MJR: You haven't shown that your not. you've basically just said that you were because Christianity blah blah blah, but the reality reality is your stuck behind your own subjective lens just as I am behind mine.

AP: The power is not in me. I agree we're the same. The power is in God and in His General Revelation (which reaches everyone) and Special Revelation (which reaches some). That coupled with the inner witness of the Holy Spirit provides a basis for genuine knowledge (even if not apodictic or infallible).

MJR: Which could all be part of the program feeding into your brain.

MJR:  I have no general revelation of any such god. So that doesn't reach everyone

AP: I admit I'm fallible. I"m glad you admit that given atheism, no true knowledge is possible and that everything of consequence is provisional. Hence, you can't say that Christianity is false. Only that I might possible be wrong about Christianity. I'm content with that. Especially since there are many other lines of converging evidence that suggest Christianity is true.

AP: The topic of General Revelation is discussed in my books on Christian apologetics. This isn't the medium to describe it in full and defend the concept.

AP: oops, not ***MY*** books on apologetics. I mean in books by Christian apologists.


MJR: If by "true knowledge" you mean 100% certainty, then I would argue that no world view at all can offer you that. So I'm not really sure what your issue is?

AP: I"m not talking about psychological certainty. That comes and goes for even false beliefs. I'm talking about knowledge. In fact, it's possible to have knowledge with a low degree of certainty, while another person can have a high degree of certainty of something that's actually false. IF Christianity is true, then I can have knowledge because the Revelations of the Christian God are from a God who is all knowing, all powerful, all controlling [providentially], and all truthful God.

MJR: Sorry but "if" isn't a very convincing argument. Further I've seen no reason to believe a god is giving us any sort of revelation much less exist.

MJR:  I recognize that I can't prove the external world exists. But I can at least learn about the reality I inhabit. And we all do that regardless of God's existence.

Also, I'm still not even sure what you mean by true knowledge? You seem to agree that we could all be wrong, which only puts you back in the same boat I'm in.

CN:  James: it's not really a weakness in world-views at all.

You assume that God exists and then deduce from that that inference works.

I just assume that inference works.

Your grounding for inference is precisely as shaky as mine, mine just cuts out an unnecessary and unhelpful extravagance that yours includes.

AP:  The IF wasn't an argument for the truth of Christianity. I asked you to see things from the perspective within the Christian worldview.

MJR:  I still don't see what you mean by "true knowledge"? If Christianity is true god gives you revelation? So what? I've seen no reason to think Christianity is true.

MJR: And a lot of reasons to think it's false.

AP: CN, why assume that inference works in light of the problems Eliminative Materialism gives you along with the problems of Evolutionary Reliabilism? Along with the fact that if there is no God, then maybe acausal things happen all the time and you're not aware of it such that the reasoning of your brain isn't reliable. The fabric of the universe and its laws might be continually changing analogous to the timeline of a time travel movies.

AP: It's refreshingly honest of well known atheist and debunker John Loftus to admit for years (and on multiple occasions) that 1. Christianity has not been absolutely refuted/disproved (i.e. proven false); and 2. despite all that he knows and all the arguments against Christianity, it's still possible that Christianity is true. He thinks the likelihood is less than 1%. Nevertheless, no one can say that their rejection of Christianity is based on the positive evidence against Christianity.

AP: MJR, If you like, you can tell me what you think is the THE GREATEST "proof" or evidence that disproves Christianity. If I can show why it isn't really a good reason, then maybe that would go a long way in making room for Christianity in your mind.

MJR: James, I said I've seen plenty of reasons to think it's false. I've also been repeatedly admitting that I agree 100% certainty is impossible. So why should him giving it a less than 1% chance of being true be any different than anything I've been saying here?

MJR:  // Along with the fact that if there is no God, then maybe acausal things happen all the time and you're not aware of it such that the reasoning of your brain isn't reliable. The fabric of the universe and its laws might be continually changing analogous to the timeline of a time travel movies.//

You realize that this could still be the case even if God exists?

AP: Because, Loftus' arguments against Christianity are terrible. See the book review links I've collected in my blogpost here:
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/09/book-reviews-of-recent-atheist-authors.html

AP: "You realize that this could still be the case even if God exists?"

Not the Christian God.


MJR: Only if you assume the Christian god actually is exactly how it's described. But I've seen little reason to think it exists, much less exactly as described.

AP: That's an external critique, not an internal critique of Christianity. Either way, I'm not aware of a good argument against Christianity. Or even one that would undermine any of his claimed attributes in Scripture.

MJR:  I've been doing this long enough to know your just making a general statement. I'm sure you don't find them convincing else you would drop it. I'm afraid I do find them very convincing.

MJR: I'm not interested in arguing whether it's internally consistent. Lots of things can be internally consistent and still be wrong. Internal consistency isn't a measure of if it's true.

AP: Name your best example of an argument or an evidence that seriously undermines the truth of Christianity.

CN:  "eliminator materialism" has nothing to do with my position.

There is no problem of "evolutionary reliabilism."

More to the point, you are *missing* the point. Why assume that there is a god?

Because, according to you, this affords you the grounding you need for functional epistemology.

But, of course, assuming the functionality of some Epistemology accomplishes the exact same thing. I have exactly the same reason for assuming the functionality of some logic as an inferential and Epistemology all framework as you have for assuming that God exists, and there simply aren't any significant problems that follow from this approach.

MJR: //MJR, Name your best example of an argument or an evidence that seriously undermines the truth of Christianity.//

while I think there's several, I think asking for this is just just a distraction.

AP: I'm not sure it's true, but it's been said by William Lane Craig that most philosophers now generally agree that the deductive problem of evil (PoE) fails, such that philosophers now focus on (or resort to) the inductive/probabilistic PoE based on gratuitous evil. But then the skeptic has to argue for gratuity.

Which version of PoE are you presenting/putting forth as a good argument against Christianity?


MJR: James, I really think that's just a distraction from the actual conversation. I know there's a bunch of cop-out answers to the objections, but I just don't find them even slightly persuasive.

CN:  The more important issue is that there is nothing which undermines the assumption that the logic of of probability theory actually grounds a functional epistemically and inferential methodology.

Even if I just made this assumption as my basal assumption, I would have neatly escaped the entire force of your argument, here, James.

AP: "But, of course, assuming the functionality of some Epistemology accomplishes the exact same thing. I have exactly the same reason for assuming the functionality of some logic as an inferential and Epistemology all framework as you have for assuming that God exists, and there simply aren't any significant problems that follow from this approach."

Don't you find your approach completely ad hoc and arbitrary? I mean, given atheism, it would be just as plausible (if not more so) that nihilism and global skepticism are the natural position to take.

Take for example the laws of logic as abstract entities. Abstract entities makes sense in my non-materialistic worldview. Do, they make sense in your atheistic worldview? Are you a materialist? If so, do you think the laws of logic are material? Or are you an atheistic Platonist? If the later, on what basis do you believe in Platonic forms?

Or given materialism, why assume you can actually deliberate and reason? Presumably you know about the EAAN. I acknowledge that it isn't sound, but at least it should give atheists a reason to question whether they are reasoning.

Given cosmic impersonalism, why assume that reasoning is possible. Whereas, given cosmic personalism (i.e. theism), it only makes sense that some creatures would reason and be rational like their Creator.

I'm not sure, but I think even atheist Sam Harris is doubtful that emergentism can account for consciousness.

Atheist Thomas Nagel himself was strongly criticized by his fellow atheists when he doubted the presently offered naturalistic explanations of consciousness (cf. his book [I believe "Mind and Cosmos"].


AP:  Is Consciousness an Illusion? by Thomas Nagel
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03/09/is-consciousness-an-illusion-dennett-evolution/

The Case Against Reality
http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/05/the-case-against-reality/

Evolution May Obscure Reality, Says a Cognitive Scientist and Evolutionist
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/05/evolution_may_o/

The Hard Problem of Consciousness
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

Problems of Consciousness
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#ProCon

Eliminative Materialism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/


CN:  My assumption is no more ad hoc than yours, and atheism is a conclusion which follows from applying my assumption rigorously to the task of learning about the world--not a further assumption that I also make.

So, no, this just isn't an issue.

Also, I'm not a materialist (not that this would be a problem, either.)

AP: There is a difference. Mine is a revealed worldview (or at least a claimed one). Yours admittedly, is not. Given your worldview, maybe ultimate reality or just plain reality is beyond your ability to know. You're dislike of that possibility doesn't make it any less possible or ("probable" given the problems that consciousness has in a world without God).

CN: The mistake you're making here is in your interpretation of the ordering of my beliefs.


"Given cosmic impersonalism, why assume that reasoning is possible?"

I don't.

I assume reasoning is possible, then use that reasoning to conclude that cosmic impersonalism is probably true. Does this undermine my assumption that reasoning is possible? No. Because cosmic impersonalism is not inconsistent with reasoning being possible. That I could not go the other direction (assume cosmic impersonalism, then use that to justify a belief that reasoning is possible) simply isn't relevant at all.

AP:  As the philosopher William James once said, “We may be in the world as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all.”

CN, you might be like that dog. Never really understanding even basic reality.

AP: Why assume reasoning is possible?

CN: Why assume God exists?

CN: James: you might also be like that dog, never really understanding even basic reality.

AP:  Determinism doesn't *necessarily* preclude the possibility of reality of reasoning. Whether of materialistic/naturalistic determinism, or theistic determinism (I do hold the latter). However, determinism is compatible with undermining reasoning. Given atheism, maybe, the laws of nature, biology, chemistry (etc.) interfere with man's reasoning capacity. You're not really deliberating, you're just coming to conclusions which are forced upon you deterministically by physical laws.

CN, I'm glad you're not a dogmatic materialist.

AP:  "Why assume God exists?"

Because God has revealed Himself in nature, in Scripture, through the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. Because there are historical reasons, textual reasons, inductive reasons (like scientific), philosophical reasons, deductive and and abductive reasons. Because of supernatural reasons (e.g. answered prayer and miracles). Because of existential reasons. Because of moral reasons. etc. etc.


MJR: That's not an assumption if true. But I've seen no reason to think it's true.

CN:  You're not answering the question: all of those are alleged reasons for concluding that God exists, but recall that you assume God basally, a priori. None of those can be reasons for the a priori assumption of God's existence.

After all, you rest the reliability of your reasoning in your assumption that God exists. You can't then turn around and justify that assumption by the very reasoning you assume it in order to ground.

So, again: why do you assume, as a basal assumption on which you ground your confidence in reason, that God exists?

AP: Read for example Craig Keener's two volume book on Miracles. If you've already read atheist christopher hallquist's review of the book, read the book for yourself. Instead of depending on a secondary source who's got a clear ax to grind. He's not the most objective critique. See for example the fact that Jeffrey J. Lowder disagree with him when he (Hallquist) claims William Lane Craig is totally dishonest.

MJR: Why? What does that have to do with what's being discussed?

AP: CN, "After all, you rest the reliability of your reasoning in your assumption that God exists. You can't then turn around and justify that assumption by the very reasoning you assume it in order to ground."

Presumably you've listened to the Greg Bahnsen (Christian) vs. Gordon Stein (atheist) debate. Stein asked the same question. Bahnsen said that it's no inconsistent to both presuppose God's existence as well as to believe (and argue) that God's existence is evidenced in the world. I totally agree. That's not contradictory at all. Otherwise, it would be illegitimate to argue for the laws of logic using logic. Of course it's legitimate to argue for the laws of logic, and to use them to argue for them.

AP: Why? What does that have to do with what's being discussed?"

Keener's book is just one line of evidence that supernatural event happen. Or if you want a non-Christian evidences for the supernatural or something like the supernatural, listen to the podcasts at http://skeptiko.com/.

AP:  For those who haven't listened to it, Here's the famous Bahnsen vs. Stein debate:
https://youtu.be/anGAazNCfdY

AP:  I'm done for tonight. Thanks for the discussion MRJ and CN. Good night. :)


CN:  James: I haven't, it's just an obvious flaw in your response.

There is no inconsistency in both assuming God's existence and concluding that the evidence points to his existence, but you still can't say that your reason for accepting his existence is the evidence when you ground your inferential methodology on the assumption that he exists.

Why do you make the assumption that he exists in the first place?

CN: Also, it *is* illegitimate to argue for a logic from within the system defined by that logic.

JP:  Whoa. This sub-thread became busy. :)

James  wrote: «The very reason Plato denied knowledge was possible in this contingent world was because its changing. For example, Apples can turn into humans, humans into sharks by the process of digestion. A is never A because there never is an unchanging "A". Only in the unchanging realm of forms did Plato think knowledge was possible.»

I'm guessing you're referring to Heraclitus. Yet, that's still not the same as the law of self-identity. Even process-philosophers don't just toss out identity.

James  wrote: «Fortunately, non-Christians borrow enough from the Christian worldview that much of secular science is useful.»

As mentioned, science is methodological, doesn't matter what you believe, your medical doctor is still your best bet if your kids fall ill. But, what exactly is borrowed here...?

James  wrote: «I anchor my knowledge to the ontology of God's existence and the epistemology of God's revelation.»

Really? Why? Should we all just make things up as we go along?

James  wrote: «Whereas various non-Christians who lean toward rationalism, when pushed can't given rational arguments to ground their rationalism. The non-Christians who lean toward empiricism can't rationally or empirically ground their empiricism.»

Reasoning and evidence are two of a pair; thinking otherwise is just a false dichotomy. I don't think a whole of people aren't eclectic.

But what "ground" would you want? Logic is internally consistent, that's all. Existence (expressed as "truth" linguistically) is already the ground. As mentioned, if "the ground" of existence is something else, then "it" does not exist.

James  wrote: «No, you're asserting and begging the question of both. Just because it appears to you, or you think you are learning or that there are regularities in the world doesn't mean you are or there is. Given, Christianity, I agree both are true. But given atheism, I'd like to know how such is possible ontologically and epistemologically.»

No, not begging the question at all, just following the evidence. It's not related to a/theism either. If there were no regularities, then these posts wouldn't have come about. And strict determinism isn't required either, rather we've found certain phenomena comes through as non-deterministic (and can be modeled and understood as such). I have no particular reason to think otherwise.

James  wrote: «I was challenging non-theistic (specifically non-Christian) epistemologies which begin with man as the source and measure (homo mensura). I begin with God (deus mensura), God as the measure of all things. Mine is a revelational epistemology. I was looking for how non-theists can claim to have any knowledge at all. I haven't see any good arguments.»

You keep mentioning this "God" character. :) You also appear to reject anything non-Christian. How odd. Protagoras aside, don't confuse the measurer (us) and the measured (whatever). Simply supposing Christianity is not epistemology.

Going back to the list you posted on May 15th, I still don't see much of consequence to a/theism. You can presuppose anything you like, even solipsism if you prefer, but that doesn't make it so.

Let me ask: How do you determine /what/ something is (quiddity)?

https://www.facebook.com/notes/XXXXXXXXXXXXXX