Is Theism irrational because God's existence cannot be empirically proven ?
on atheism, evidence does not matter, and proves nothing since you are a moist robot who evolved predetermined to follow chemical/electrical causal effects back to the beginning of time, thus you are not reasoning, but reacting in a brain where perception is reality. Additionally, in a randomly produced universe, there is no good reason to think that anything follows an ordered pattern, so evidence is futile, since nothing would be reliable. Additionally, if you came from nothing for no reason at all and you will descend to the same, then existence is utterly futile, so even if truth could be known, which it wouldn't, then it is trivially unimportant. So you insistence on having evidence for anything betrays atheism, but would only be applicable on theism. But on theism there are only 3 major religions, all of which in part or fully rely on the Bible in some way, which gives you a problem. Since atheism can't be true since the universe shows evidence of true design (qualities consistent with design, evidence of purpose, planning, interrelated parts that harmonize to produce some effect not consistent with chance and so forth) and since the universe had a true beginning, which needs a transcendent cause, then naturalism, a presupposition of atheism is false, making atheism false. Pantheism and polytheism suffer from some similar maladies and deism is non sequitur and illogical, making theism the only logical option to comprehensively explain the sum or our existence. Christianity then by default, is very much in the running for being true, since it is 1 of the main 3 on theism. With this strong historical evidence for Jesus and the resurrection, we have enough evidence to justify its validity. Text by Steven Guzzi
One of the most common seen arguments to justify unbelief in deities by atheists is the claim that theists must prove Gods existence empirically in order for them to believe. It goes usually as follows:
Argument: There is no empirical proof for Gods existence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on the theist's side. If they claim God exists, they have to prove it.
Answer: This is a silly epistemological approach and demonstrates the lack of understanding on the unbeliever's side how to get sound conclusions on origins. There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is. To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides. Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason.
The seeker must also be willing to permit the evidence to lead wherever it is. He needs to be willing to put all his prejudices and bias aside as much as possible, and permit an entirely and exclusively rational approach, based on scientific reasoning and logic, that is, doing the observation, elaborating a hypothesis, testing when possible, and getting well-based and rationally justifiable conclusions. When dealing with the observation of the natural world, the question is, what mechanism explains best the origin of X. That is not the same as to ask, how something works, which is what empirical science deals with. That helps and advances the question of how something came to be when its mechanistic ( physicochemical ) working is known, and what contributes to that. Back in Darwins time, 150 years ago, there was no knowledge about the complexity of the biochemical reality, intracellular action and molecular world. Today, we have advanced understanding on that, and every day that passes, that knowledge adds up.
The first question to answer is not which God, but what cause and mechanism best explains our existence. There are basically just two options. Either a creative conscious intelligent supernatural powerful creative agency above the natural world acted and was involved, or not. That's it. All answers can be divided in this two basic options and categories. While the atheist affirms, no God was required, the theist claims, God is necessary. Some atheists have argued that the can be many explanations, we just do not know them yet. I disagree. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
The next step a seeker needs to elucidate is: What signs point to design, rather than non-design? What can be clearly attributed to the action of a conscious intelligent agency? ( or agencies - plural ? ) Then he has to move forward to actually understand how our natural world works. The better understanding and education, the better. Unfortunately, this is a huge hurdle, and many are too lazy to spend time to actually understand the natural world and prefer to see what fits best what they want, and then search for who provides the answers they want to be true ( bias is a big factor contributing to self-delusion ). That is a common approach by atheists. They prefer to rely on the claims of the four horsemen of atheism, Dawkins, Dennet, Shermer and Harris, and the pope of all, Darwin, rather than spending time and looking into the evidence by themselves. All they do, behaving in that manner, is disrespecting themselves, putting their souls at risk to be deluded by their own wishes and faulty approach, and if they are wrong, losing their eternity with God.
A smart epistemological approach about origins of our existence goes as this:
1. Asking: what is ? what exists? Answer: X
2. Asking: what are the possible mechanisms to explain the origin of X? Answer: Y and Z ( and eventually, other causes )
3. Is X better explained by Y or Z?
4. Concluding Y or Z, depending on where the evidence leads to.
5. Moving forward, and trying to identify as accurately as possible the precise identity of the cause, if it is an intelligent agent.
6. Number 1 and 2 is a continuing exercise of science, philosophy, and theology. Upon the advance of understanding, the conclusion is eventually re-evaluated, and changed, if sufficient reasons exist.
Upon my understanding, intelligent design/creationism tops naturalism - materialism as best case-adequate answer in regards to origins:
125 reasons to believe in God
A cumulative case for the God of the bible
" There is no evidence for God " Really ??!!
In our search for God, where we start will often determine where we end. If you search for God only to show yourself that He is not there, then you will not find Him. But if you seek him like a starving man seeks for bread or a thirsting man seeks for water, then the Bible is filled to the brim with promises that you will find Him. Or more correctly, that He will find you.
"For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." - Luke 11:10
Why does the universe exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘fine tuning’? How did life originate? Why does biology exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘design’? How did human consciousness come into being? Where does ‘free will’ come from? Why are humans so contradictory in nature? Why do transcendent moral truths exist? Why do we believe human life to be precious? Why do pain, evil and injustice exist in our world?these questions ARE in my view best explained through creations and ARE therefore evidence for creationism, and intelligent design. There are just personal preferences of explanations and world views for all that exists. So rather than say, there is no evidence for God, you should say: Intelligent design and creationism and theism are not my preferred explanations, for whatever reasons.
We could ask the question "Is there evidence that God exists?" and we could mean "Is it reasonable to think that God exists?" 2In other words, are there pieces of evidence from which I could reasonably conclude that God exists even if the evidence is not completely conclusive and utterly compelling?
You're not actually talking about evidence, you're talking about an interpretation of the evidence. As in, there is no evolutionary interpretation of the evidence which supports creation. This equivocation is used to deny any interpretation of the evidence which does not support evolution, which is exactly what a creation interpretation of the evidence does.
So, to remove the interpretation, let's look at the first claim in the Bible: that God created the earth and the universe. Surely you would agree the earth and the universe exist. Therefore there certainly is evidence outside of the Bible. Of course, your response will be that it's only a claim in the Bible that God did it. That's fine, but it's beside the point. The point is that the existence of the earth is the actual evidence. How the earth came to be, whether through special creation or through stellar evolution, is a matter of interpretation of the evidence.
There is no evidence for God’s existence. 2
There is at least one major problem with this line as it is typically presented.
One often hears, “there is no evidence for God, therefore Christians believe in fairytales,” (or something to that effect) when what is actually meant is more like, “there is no physical proof of God’s being in the physical world, therefore Christians believe in fairytales (since all ‘real’ things are physical).”
The fact that Christians have never claimed to believe in a physical God – as merely one more physical being among all other physical beings in the universe – does not stop these sorts of atheists from thinking they have laid waste to 40 centuries of religious thought, experience, and refinement with the mere mention of this evidentiary boogieman. It rarely occurs to them that such physical proof would actually run 100% counter to Judeo-Christian theistic claims. Their argument against a physical God is actually applauded and defended by Christians.
This fact is not, of course, proof that the Christian claim is true, but merely proof that with such attacks the atheist has not even begun to swing in the direction of Christianity.
However, if what they mean is something more like, “There is no logical evidence of God’s existence…” then the straw man suddenly becomes a brick wall. The logical arguments for God are vast and time tested against some of the greatest minds of all time working tirelessly against them. They are well-known arguments and can be easily found online or in print, but let me give one quick example. I recently read someone who claimed that I conceded the atheist’s argument that God is not real since the faith teaches He is not physical. Let me help those who might struggle with this idea using a quote from David Bentley Hart: “Why can’t there be a physical explanation of existence? Because anything physical is, by definition, something that exists. So there cannot be a physical cause of existence.” The faith claims this non-physical, yet real, the entity is God. His absolute “existence” is more real than physical existence by order of priority.
But besides logical arguments, an additional reason why atheists often fail with this approach is because they run up against Christians with living experiences with God. There is no amount of speculative babbling from the uninitiated that can oppose the one whose faith is built on a living subjectivity to the presence of God. On these matters Kierkegaard had it right – in objectivity, there is no truth for the single individual; the truth is subjectivity.
Last edited by Admin on Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:17 am; edited 27 times in total