Scientism, verificationism, and the quest for a sound epistemological approach to finding truth in regard to origins

Scientism, verificationism, and the quest for a sound epistemological approach to finding truth in regard to origins  

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1759-scientism-verificationism-and-the-quest-of-a-sound-epistemological-approach-to-find-truth-in-regards-of-origins

Origins questions requires three things:
multicontextual thinking,
polymathic knowledge and, most importantly,
willingness to follow evidence and reason to rational conclusions.
The first can be relearned, the second can be acquired, but the third is the most difficult because only the individual can find it in and for himself.
And he must find it by himself.

’I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.’
Erwin Schroedinger’

The problem of many atheists is that they have not developed an epistemological framework that is consistent. Very frequently, they ask God to prove himself to them, in order to believe. Or they claim that science provides all relevant answers.  Can science measure thoughts? Logic? Truth? Empiricism is a failure as a worldview. The assertion that only things we can measure, touch, taste, hear, or smell are reality, is absurd and demonstrably false. The key component of the supernatural is that it occurs at the will of an undetectable persona. Will and intention cannot be measured or predicted.

We need to endorse a worldview that makes sense, and is a consequence of a carefully chosen and elaborated methodology of an epistemological framework, and applied to do a consistent, correct to the case research, and coming to meaningful, and the most accurate possible conclusions in regards of origins and reality. There are several ways, like rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism, authority, and revelation. Empiricism is a cornerstone of the scientific
method. Empiricism, in philosophy, is the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. Can or should we use the scientific method and empiricism alone where the scientific method is the primary epistemology for truth claims? This approach is based on observations
of the world, but philosophy and theology are a priori rejected outhand. That is one of the wrong approaches that many unbelievers in God adopt.

William Lane Craig Religious Epistemology
https://www.bethinking.org/truth/religious-epistemology
W.L.Craig: Positivists championed a Verification Principle of meaning, according to which an informative sentence, in order to be meaningful, must be capable in principle of being empirically verified. 5
Under criticism, the Verification Principle underwent a number of changes, including its permutation into the Falsification Principle, which held that a meaningful sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically falsified.
The statement “In order to be meaningful, an informative sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically verified/falsified” is itself incapable of being verified or falsified.
The inadequacies of the positivistic theory of meaning led to the complete collapse of Logical Positivism during the second half of the twentieth century, helping to spark not only a revival of interest in Metaphysics but in Philosophy of Religion as well. Today’s Flew’s sort of challenge, which loomed so large in mid-century discussions, is scarcely a blip on the philosophical radar screen.
If someone is asking for 100 per cent,  to truly know that God exists, we need to remind them this is unrealistic. We believe lots of things with confidence even though we do not have absolute certainty. 2
'"It is up to logic and the factors of different perspectives to determine if God exists or not." The marriage of science to naturalism during the mid-to-late 19th century ministered most famously by the Scottish enlightenment philosopher; David Hume, symbolized the brokering of a union which was nothing short of a shotgun wedding of academia to ideology.

Can you use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the primary epistemology for truth claims?

The very greatest scientists, those from whom new perspectives finally come, those from whom paradigm shifts in human thought come, are open-minded on fundamental questions and begin to see the value of philosophy as a torchlight on the discoveries of science.

The average scientist is good at doing science but not much good at thinking about its implications. The average religious person is not so good at looking and understanding at what science has to say about reality and, more serious, seeing that science is more valuable than doctrines, traditions and authority systems about telling us about the true nature of things. 3

Every worldview, without exception, is a faith-based belief system, consisting of a set of statements the holder adopts as being true. Starting from this view, we can dispense with the foolish notion of "proof," as some are so quick to require (as though they have such proof for the worldview they currently hold). Instead of "proof" in the absolute sense, we proceed with examining the available evidence, which should point with confidence to the worldview that best accounts for that evidence. 4

While every worldview (from Atheism to Theism) is faith-based, or perhaps more accurately, confidence-based (no absolute proof), there is none that should be based on no evidence at all (a pure blind-faith). The rule of evidence examination and conclusions we draw from it: truth is that which corresponds to reality, anything that does not correspond to reality is summarily rejected as false.

Socrates said, "The unexamined life isn't worth living." Correspondingly, the unexamined worldview isn't worth believing. 

Many (if not most) of the really important things in life aren't subject to scientific, empirical investigation. You can't scientifically prove the beauty of the beautiful, or the goodness of the good. You can't scientifically prove that love is better than hate, or even that life is better than death. You can't prove scientifically the friendship of your best friend, and even trying to would only serve to queer the relationship in some way. The bottom line is, when you're experiencing the friendship of your best friend, you don't need any proof. And when you're not experiencing the friendship of your best friend, no proof will do. So it is with God.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof



The union endures until today. Science, thus became the bride of a completely self-sufficient naturalistic worldview, a crooked union sealed by a single vow, as pervasive as it is perverse: “What science cannot tell us, mankind cannot kndow.” Bertrand Russell
- Bo Jinn | Illogical Atheism: A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinker from a Lapsed Agnostic

There is no science to which final appeal can be made; there are only scientists and their various theories. … No scientific or observational proof can be given for the uniformity of nature, and much less can experience demonstrate that “the scientific method is the sole gateway to the whole region of knowledge.” On the contrary, a plausible analysis showed that science was incapable of arriving at any truth whatever.
Gordon Clark; (1902-1985); A Christian View of Men and Things; 1952; p216, 227

If we examine the history of science … we find that in each period a given theory is entertained by science as true. Shortly afterward, the theory is found inadequate, and is replaced by a new theory … These theories … cannot all be true. … A true theory would not be replaceable, for what is true remains true– unless of course what we are explaining no longer remains the same. Thus the theories of science are guesses, which are changed after the scientific fashions of the day, but none are faithful accounts of reality.
J. H. Randall; (1899-1980); Philosophy: An Introduction; p98

Science is not a system of certain, or well-established statements; nor is it a system which steadily advances towards a state of finality. Our science is not knowledge (episteme); it can never claim to have attained truth, or even a substitute for it, such as probability; we do not know, we can only guess.
The old scientific ideal of episteme– of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge– has proven to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever.
Karl Popper; (1902-1994); Logic of Scientific Discovery; p278, 280

… we can never have perfectly clean-cut knowledge of anything. It is a general consequence of the approximate character of all measurement that no empirical science can ever make exact statements.
P. W. Bridgman; (1882-1961); The Logic of Modern Physics; 1927/1951; p33, 34

Our senses were given to us for the preservation of our bodies and not for the acquisition of truth.
From The Search After Truth,
Nicolas Malebranche, 1674

Ref.
[1] Hume is frequently directly and indirectly referenced by both Hitchens and Dawkins.

1) http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/scientific_epistemology.pdf
2) https://chab123.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/a-look-at-gods-existence-evidence-we-want-vs-evidence-we-should-expect/
3. https://www.quora.com/What-did-Werner-Heisenberg-mean-when-he-said-%E2%80%9CThe-first-gulp-from-the-glass-of-natural-sciences-will-turn-you-into-an-atheist-but-at-the-bottom-of-the-glass-God-is-waiting-for-you%E2%80%9D
4. Brian Foster 


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/douglas-axe-on-scientism/

Doug Axe, undeniable : 

The scientistic view introduced in the first chapter—scientism—is the most striking example of an embellished version of science that has risen to prominence. The reason adherents to this version hold science to be the only legitimate source of truth is that they also hold to materialism. This commits them to the idea that there isn’t anything but physical stuff, and because science is the only way to know the truth about physical stuff, this leads them to conclude that science is the only source of truth. The materialist commitment itself,
though, is completely unnecessary to science and therefore a harmful embellishment.

The IRRATIONALITY of Atheistic SCIENTISM
--------------------------------------------------------
P1. Atheistic-Scientism is Foundationally and Fundamentally Irrational.
P2. There are three major forms of Scientism, (a) Atheistic Scientism, (b) Experimental Scientism, and (c) Sense-Empirical Scientism.
............................
P3. Definitions:
- (a) Atheistic Scientism = the Atheist-faith-based belief that Atheistic-Science is the ONLY way to truth.
- (b) Experimental Scientism = the view that ONLY what can be Experimentally Verified is true.
- (c) Sense-Empirical Scientism = the view that ONLY what can be Empirically Verified (i.e., verified directly with our five senses) is true.
............................
P4. All three of the above (Atheistic Scientism, Experimental Scientism, Sense-Empirical Scientism as in P3) are IRRATIONAL. See below.
P5. Each of these positions is itself a Philosophical position that is based on premises that cannot be proved to be true.
P6. AND, each of these positions is a metaphysical position that is self-refuting. I.e., each of these is based on premises that when applied to that view, refutes that view. See below.
.............................
P7. Experimental Scientism is actually a Metaphysical position, one that is based on premises that cannot be proved to be true.
P8. Experimental Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be experimentally proved is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot experimentally prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be experimentally proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be experimentally proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be experimentally proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C1. Therefore, Experimental Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Experimental Scientism.
………………
P9. Sense-Empirical Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be sense-empirically proved (through our senses) is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot sense-empirically prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be sense-empirically proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be sense-empirically proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be sense-empirically proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C2. Therefore, Sense-Empirical Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on sense-empirical Scientism.
………………
P10. Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be Scientifically proved (through the use of the scientific method) is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot scientifically prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be Scientifically proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be Scientifically proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be Scientifically proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C3. Therefore, Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Scientism.
………………
P11. Atheistic-Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be Atheist-Scientifically proved (through the use of the scientific method together with the faith-based assumption that ONLY Atheistic-Naturalism is true; i.e., that no non-naturalistic explanations are permitted for ANY phenomenon, no matter how compelling the evidence for the existence and/or activity of a supernatural entity) is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot scientifically prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be Atheist-Scientifically proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be Atheist-Scientifically proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be Atheist-Scientifically proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C4. Therefore, Atheistic-Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Atheistic-Scientism.
………………
P12. Additional forms of Scientism include Naturalistic Scientism, Materialistic Scientism, and Physicalistic Scientism. See below.
P13. Naturalistic-Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be Naturalistic-Scientifically proved (through the use of the scientific method together with the faith-based assumption that ONLY Naturalism is true; i.e., that no non-naturalistic explanations are permitted for ANY phenomenon, no matter how compelling the evidence for the existence and/or activity of a supernatural entity) is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot naturalistic-scientifically prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be Naturalistic-Scientifically proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be Naturalistic-Scientifically proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be Naturalistic-Scientifically proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C5. Therefore, Naturalistic-Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Naturalistic-Scientism.
………………
P14. Materialistic-Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be Materialistic-Scientifically proved (through the use of the scientific method together with the faith-based assumption that ONLY Materialism is true; i.e., that no non-Materialistic explanations are permitted for ANY phenomenon, no matter how compelling the evidence for the existence and/or activity of a non-Materialistic entity) is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot Materialistic-scientifically prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be Materialistic-Scientifically proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be Materialistic-Scientifically proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be Materialistic-Scientifically proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C6. Therefore, Materialistic-Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Materialistic-Scientism.
………………
P15. Physicalistic-Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be Physicalistic-Scientifically proved (through the use of the scientific method together with the faith-based assumption that ONLY Physicalism is true; i.e., that no non-Physicalistic explanations are permitted for ANY phenomenon, no matter how compelling the evidence for the existence and/or activity of a non-Physicalistic entity) is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot Physicalistic-scientifically prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be Physicalistic-Scientifically proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be Physicalistic-Scientifically proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be Physicalistic-Scientifically proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C7. Therefore, Physicalistic-Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Physicalistic-Scientism.
________________________________________
CONCLUSIONS (summarized):
________________________________________
C1. Experimental Scientism is self-refuting. Therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Experimental Scientism.
C2. Sense-Empirical Scientism is self-refuting. Therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Sense-Empirical Scientism.
C3. Scientism itself is self-refuting. Therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Scientism in general.
C4. Atheistic Scientism is self-refuting. Therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Atheistic Scientism.
C5. Naturalistic Scientism is self-refuting. Therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Naturalistic Scientism.
C6. Materialistic Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Materialistic Scientism.
C7. Physicalistic Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Physicalistic Scientism.
………………………..
BOTTOM LINE:
………………………..
C8. ATHEISM is Fundamentally and Foundationally IRRATIONAL.
C9. The insistence by many (or most) atheists on Scientism is ONE among many indications of the truth of this statement (that ATHEISM is Fundamentally and Foundationally IRRATIONAL).

Gary Thomas Sheedy   


The logic of atheism
A colleague once told me,
“I only believe things that can be scientifically proven,” and I quickly turned the tables by asking, “Well, then why do you believe that, since that cannot be scientifically proven? Your method of investigating truth is built on a construct that you believe, despite an absence of scientific proof for your philosophy, so by your own philosophy you shouldn’t believe your own philosophy because it cannot be scientifically proven.”
My acquaintance then proceeded to stare at me, head tilted like a dog staring at a blaring television. If one claims that,
“it’s only true if you can prove it scientifically,” then he is making a statement that cannot be proven scientifically.” In what way could one could one prove scientifically that all claims must be proven scientifically? Such self-refuting materialistic claims are definitely not science and are at best hillbilly philosophy. Furthermore, things like mathematics cannot be proven scientifically, as science presupposes mathematics. Similarly, the reality of the past cannot be proven, as we could have been dropped into our bodies 5 minutes ago with pre-programmed memories, and we would never be able to tell the difference. We also cannot prove that other people have consciousness, as they could just be soulless biological robots that perfectly mimic a conscious being. Everyone believes things that cannot be proven, despite any metaphysical posturing and pseudo-intellectual rhetoric. In truth, for many materialists, belief is like being at a salad bar, picking and choosing beliefs that are convenient or comfortable, but this is not science.

What can we know that science does and cannot tell us ?

The Enlightenment was as much a Europe-wide political revolution as an academic revolution. The legacy of secularism is still going on today in academia, but a new momentum has emerged which is shaking the foundations of “Rationalists”,  “Humanists”, “Secularists”,  “Freethinkers”, " Atheists" " Naturalists" – which have without success tried to eradicate the legacy and traces of the Judeo-Christian heritage. Between the sordid sheets of the Enlightenment, Empiricism was born, giving birth to the foundation of modern secularized Science. The marriage of science to naturalism during the mid-to-late 18th century, propagated by the Scottish philosopher; David Hume, symbolized the brokering of a union of academia to materialistic ideology. The union endures until today. But the dam is breaking apart, and this crooked perverse union, sealed centuries ago, is slowly losing steam. The claim: What science cannot prove to us, mankind cannot know - is a strawman at its best.

Why should we not ask the questions, which science has no answer for? And why can they not provide us with intellectually satisfying answers to the deepest questions of our existence? There are points where the sets of science, reason, theology and philosophy and faith converge to an intellectually satisfying understanding. If logic and philosophical reasoning besides empirical verificationism has no value to make meaningful sentences and inferences in regards of origins, as pop-scientism propagandist Krauss has claimed, then why does he even use his own logic and philosophical claims, if there cannot be worthy understanding by using it? His claim that the universe is non-logical and cannot be understood is self-defeating and irrational. The claim that God is anti-scientific, and shall have no place in academia since his existence cannot be tested, is a philosophical claim of inexcusable ignorance, fueled by the wish of secular scientists to be the masters of the universe, to which the intellectual proletariat has to look up to and devour with eager and healthy appetite all that comes from their wisdom, and dismiss all other sources of intellectual knowledge.

What modern scientists might re-consider is the fact that the last indispensable outcome of the scientific endeavor must be:  "Ye must have faith". That is, we make part of a finite universe, and there is a black impenetrable curtain on the boundaries of the universe, which we cannot penetrate and look beyond. The mystery of the last reality will not be lifted during our existence here on earth. Goedel's Theorem applies.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem
Perry Marshall:  The scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer. (Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws.) Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):

There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and  finite time
The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)
The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

Unreasonable, blind and reasonable faith
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.

Unreasonable Faith
Believing in something IN SPITE of the evidence. We hold an unreasonable faith when we refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that exists, is easily accessible and clearly refutes what we believe

Blind Faith
Believing in something WITHOUT any evidence. We hold a blind faith when we accept something even though there is no evidence to support our beliefs. We don’t search for ANY evidence that either supports or refutes what we are determined to believe

Reasonable Faith
Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archaeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.

The criterion which we use to test the genuineness of apparent statements of fact is the criterion of verifiability. We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express — that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as true, or reject it as being false. — A.J. Ayer (Language, Truth, and Logic)
https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/01/25/the-problem-with-scientism/

Scientific Proof Is A Myth
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=2f491d2a2fb1&fbclid=IwAR04qRL-RSohuC48i4Wlm5TgnmoMLRQJKHk4G2vGlY4Q97ln7HPyzD_AHG8

Enlightening the Path: Fostering Critical Thought and Skepticism in the Information Age

The deficiency in scientific understanding and education, coupled with an absence of a robust framework for epistemological inquiry into the beginnings of all natural phenomena, has fostered a misleading sense of intellectual elitism. This, combined with a tendency to uncritically accept assertions made by mainstream science and media, forms a perilous concoction This blend not only misguides individuals but also continues to steer numerous individuals toward eternal damnation. To counteract this, it is imperative to provide comprehensive apologetics that is underpinned by solid reasoning and evidence. These should be conveyed with kindness, enduring patience, and discerning wisdom, aiming to enlighten minds and foster a culture of thoughtful inquiry and skepticism towards unwarranted inferences. This approach will not only educate but also empower individuals to critically evaluate information, leading to a more informed and discerning society.

A little science estranges men from God, but much science leads them back to Him. A superficial understanding of science may lead individuals to question or even reject the concept of a higher power or divine presence, as initial scientific discoveries can seem to contradict religious teachings or beliefs. This is often due to a perceived conflict between scientific explanations and spiritual beliefs. However, as one delves deeper into the complexities and wonders of the universe revealed by advanced scientific inquiry, there can be a profound sense of awe and a deeper appreciation for the intricacy, complexity, and beauty of the natural world. This, in turn, can lead to a renewed sense of spirituality or a belief in a higher power, as the remarkable order and detail observed in nature are indicative of deliberate design or purpose. This quote underscores the importance of embracing both science and spirituality, not as opposing forces but as complementary perspectives that can enrich one's understanding of the universe and our place within it. It encourages a deep and open-minded exploration of science, with the understanding that knowledge and faith can coexist and even enhance one another, leading to a more holistic and profound appreciation of life and existence.

Epistemology in a Multidisciplinary World

Comparing worldviews - there are basically just two

In exploring the vast variety of human belief systems, one finds a myriad of perspectives on the nature of existence, the origins of the physical world, the universe, and the role of the divine within it. At the heart of these worldviews lies a fundamental dichotomy: the belief in a higher power or the conviction that the material universe, or a multiverse is all there is. For proponents of theism, the universe is not a random assembly of matter but a creation with purpose and intent. This perspective sees a divine hand in the nature and the complexities of life, pointing to the fact, and considering that the universe is permeated by order, beauty, complexity, and in special, information that dictates its order, cannot be mere products of chance. Theism, in its various forms, suggests that a higher intelligence, a God, or Gods, is responsible for the creation and sustenance of the universe. This belief is not just a relic of ancient thought but is supported by contemporary arguments from philosophy, theology, and several scientific fields extending from cosmology to chemistry, biochemistry, and biology,  pointing to instantiation by purposeful creation.

On the other side of the spectrum, atheism, and materialism present a worldview grounded in the physical realm, denying the existence of a divine creator. From this viewpoint, the universe and all its phenomena can be explained through natural unguided processes. Evolution, as a cornerstone of this perspective, posits that life emerged and diversified through natural selection, without the need for a divine creator.

Pantheism offers a different perspective, blurring the lines between the creator and the creation by positing that the divine permeates every part of the universe. This view sees the sacred in the natural world, positing that everything is a manifestation of the divine. Uniformitarianism and polytheism, while seemingly diverse, share the common thread of recognizing a divine influence in the world, albeit in different capacities. Uniformitarianism, often linked with theistic evolution, acknowledges divine intervention in the natural processes, while polytheism venerates multiple deities, each with specific roles and powers. While pantheism blurs the distinction between the creator and the creation by asserting that the divine is inherent in all aspects of the universe, it still falls within the category of worldviews that acknowledge the existence of a deity or divine force. Pantheism offers a unique perspective by viewing the entire cosmos as sacred and imbued with divine presence, transcending traditional concepts of a separate, transcendent creator.

Our worldview might align with naturalism and materialism, where the universe and everything within it, including the concept of multiverses, the steady-state model, oscillating universes, and the phenomena of virtual particles, can be explained by natural processes without invoking a supernatural cause. This perspective holds that the Big Bang, the formation of celestial bodies, the origin of life, the evolution of species, and even morality can be understood through the lens of random, unguided events. Alternatively, our worldview can be rooted in theism and creationism, where we believe in a timeless, all-present, and all-knowing Creator who purposefully designed the universe and all its complexities. This view encompasses the belief that the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, and all forms of life were intentionally brought into existence by divine intelligence, with humans being a unique creation made in the image of this Creator, endowed with consciousness, free will, moral understanding, and cognitive abilities. Life's origins are debated as either stemming from the spontaneous assembly of atoms, driven by random events and natural processes without any guiding intelligence or as the result of deliberate creation by an intelligent entity. The first view posits that life emerged from simple chemical reactions and physical forces, evolving through chance and environmental influences into complex, organized systems without any purposeful direction. The alternative perspective suggests that life was intentionally designed by a conscious being endowed with creativity, intent, and foresight, orchestrating the universe's complexity and life within it according to a specific plan.  There are only 2 options: 1) God did it or 2) there was no cause.  Either nature is the product of pointless happenstance of no existential value or the display of God's sublime grandeur and intellect. Either all is natural and has always been, or there was a supernatural entity that created the natural world. How we answer these fundamental Questions has enormous implications for how we understand ourselves, our relation to others, and our place in the universe. Remarkably, however, many people today don’t give this question nearly the attention it deserves; they live as though it doesn’t matter to everyday life.

Claim: You are presenting a false dichotomy. There are more possibilities beyond the God and the Not-God world. 
Reply: At the most fundamental level, every worldview must address the question of whether there exists an eternal, powerful, conscious, and intelligent being (or beings) that can be described as "God" or not. This is not a false dichotomy, but rather a true dichotomy that arises from the nature of the question itself. All propositions, belief systems, and worldviews can be categorized into one of these two basic categories or "buckets":

1. The "God world": This category encompasses worldviews and propositions that affirm the existence of an eternal, powerful, conscious, and intelligent being (or beings) that can be described as "God." This can take various forms, such as a singular deity, a plurality of gods, or even a more abstract concept of a divine or transcendent force or principle. The common thread is the affirmation of a supreme, intelligent, and purposeful entity or entities that transcend the natural world.

2. The "Not-God world": This category includes all worldviews and propositions that deny or reject the existence of any eternal, powerful, conscious, and intelligent being that can be described as "God." This can include naturalistic, materialistic, or atheistic worldviews that attribute the origin and functioning of the universe to purely natural, impersonal, and non-intelligent processes or principles. While there may be variations and nuances within each of these categories, such as different conceptions of God or different naturalistic explanations, they ultimately fall into one of these two fundamental categories: either affirming or denying the existence of a supreme, intelligent, and purposeful being or force behind the universe. The beauty of this dichotomy lies in its simplicity and comprehensiveness. It cuts through the complexities and nuances of various belief systems and gets to the heart of the matter: Is there an eternal, powerful, conscious, and intelligent being (or beings) that can be described as "God," or not? By framing the question in this way, we acknowledge that all worldviews and propositions must ultimately grapple with this fundamental question, either explicitly or implicitly. Even those who claim agnosticism or uncertainty about the existence of God are effectively placing themselves in the "Not-God world" category, at least temporarily, until they arrive at a definitive affirmation or rejection of such a being. This dichotomy is not a false one, but rather a true and inescapable one that arises from the nature of the question itself. It provides a clear and concise framework for categorizing and evaluating all worldviews and propositions based on their stance on this fundamental issue. While there may be variations and nuances within each category, the dichotomy between the "God world" and the "Not-God world" remains a valid and useful way of understanding and organizing the vast landscape of human thought and belief regarding the ultimate nature of reality and existence.

Atheist: Right now the only evidence we have of intelligent design is by humans. Why would anyone assume to know an unknowable answer regarding origins?
Reply: Some atheists often prioritize making demands rooted in ignorance rather than establishing a robust epistemological framework for inquiry. Abiogenesis, for instance, serves as a test for materialism, yet after nearly seventy years of experimental attempts, scientists have failed to recreate even the basic building blocks of life in the lab. Similarly, evolution has been rigorously tested through studies such as 70,000 generations of bacteria, yet no transition to a new organismal form or increase in complexity has been observed. The existence of God, like many concepts in historical science, is inferred through various criteria such as abductive reasoning and eliminative inductions. However, instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue, some atheists persist in making nonsensical demands for demonstrations of God's existence. Comparatively, the widely credited multiverse theory faces similar challenges. How does one "test" for the multiverse? It's an endeavor that remains elusive, even for honest physicists who acknowledge this limitation. In essence, the existence of God stands on par with theories like the multiverse, string theory, abiogenesis, and macroevolution—each subject to scrutiny and inference rather than direct empirical demonstration. It's important to move beyond the stagnant echo chamber of demands and engage in a constructive dialogue rooted in critical thinking and open-minded inquiry.

Claim: You are presenting a false dichotomy. There are more possibilities beyond the God and the Not-God world. 
Reply: At the most fundamental level, every worldview must address the question of whether there exists an eternal, powerful, conscious, and intelligent being (or beings) that can be described as "God" or not. This is not a false dichotomy, but rather a true dichotomy that arises from the nature of the question itself. All propositions, belief systems, and worldviews can be categorized into one of these two basic categories or "buckets":

1. The "God world": This category encompasses worldviews and propositions that affirm the existence of an eternal, powerful, conscious, and intelligent being (or beings) that can be described as "God." This can take various forms, such as a singular deity, a plurality of gods, or even a more abstract concept of a divine or transcendent force or principle. The common thread is the affirmation of a supreme, intelligent, and purposeful entity or entities that transcend the natural world.

2. The "Not-God world": This category includes all worldviews and propositions that deny or reject the existence of any eternal, powerful, conscious, and intelligent being that can be described as "God." This can include naturalistic, materialistic, or atheistic worldviews that attribute the origin and functioning of the universe to purely natural, impersonal, and non-intelligent processes or principles. While there may be variations and nuances within each of these categories, such as different conceptions of God or different naturalistic explanations, they ultimately fall into one of these two fundamental categories: either affirming or denying the existence of a supreme, intelligent, and purposeful being or force behind the universe. The beauty of this dichotomy lies in its simplicity and comprehensiveness. It cuts through the complexities and nuances of various belief systems and gets to the heart of the matter: Is there an eternal, powerful, conscious, and intelligent being (or beings) that can be described as "God," or not? By framing the question in this way, we acknowledge that all worldviews and propositions must ultimately grapple with this fundamental question, either explicitly or implicitly. Even those who claim agnosticism or uncertainty about the existence of God are effectively placing themselves in the "Not-God world" category, at least temporarily, until they arrive at a definitive affirmation or rejection of such a being. This dichotomy is not a false one, but rather a true and inescapable one that arises from the nature of the question itself. It provides a clear and concise framework for categorizing and evaluating all worldviews and propositions based on their stance on this fundamental issue. While there may be variations and nuances within each category, the dichotomy between the "God world" and the "Not-God world" remains a valid and useful way of understanding and organizing the vast landscape of human thought and belief regarding the ultimate nature of reality and existence.

Eliminative Inductions

Eliminative induction is a method of reasoning which supports the validity of a proposition by demonstrating the falsity of all alternative propositions. This method rests on the principle that the original proposition and its alternatives form a comprehensive and mutually exclusive set; thus, disproving all other alternatives necessarily confirms the original proposition as true. This approach aligns with the principle encapsulated in Sherlock Holmes's famous saying: by ruling out all that is impossible, whatever remains, even if it is not entirely understood but is within the realm of logical possibility, must be accepted as the truth. In essence, what begins as a process of elimination through induction transforms into a form of deduction, where the conclusion is seen as a logical consequence of the elimination of all other possibilities. This method hinges on the exhaustive exploration of all conceivable alternatives and the systematic dismissal of each, leaving only the viable proposition standing as the deduced truth.

Agnosticism

Some may shy away from the concept of a divine entity because it implies a moral framework that limits certain behaviors, which they may perceive as an infringement on their personal freedom. Similarly, the idea of strict naturalism, which posits that everything can be explained through natural processes without any supernatural intervention, might seem unsatisfying or incomplete to those who ponder deeper existential questions. As a result, agnosticism becomes an appealing stance for those who find themselves in the middle, reluctant to fully embrace either theism or atheism. Agnosticism allows individuals to navigate a middle path, not fully committing to the existence or non-existence of a higher power, while also entertaining the possibility of naturalistic explanations for the universe. This position can provide a sense of intellectual flexibility, enabling one to explore various philosophical and theological ideas without the pressure of adhering to a definitive standpoint. However, this approach is sometimes criticized as being a convenient way to avoid taking a clear position on significant existential questions. Critics might argue that some agnostics, under the guise of promoting skepticism and rationalism, avoid deeper commitments to any particular worldview. They might be seen as using their stance as a way to appear intellectually superior, rather than engaging earnestly with the complex questions at hand. The criticism extends to accusing such individuals of ultracrepidarianism, a term for those who give opinions beyond their knowledge, and falling prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect, where one's lack of knowledge leads to overestimation of one's own understanding. The proverbial wisdom that "the one who is wise in his own eyes is a fool to others" suggests that true wisdom involves recognizing the limits of one's knowledge and being open to learning and growth. The path to wisdom, according to this viewpoint, involves moving beyond a superficial engagement with these profound questions and adopting a more humble and inquisitive attitude. Whether through a deepening of spiritual faith, a more rigorous exploration of naturalism, or a thoughtful examination of agnosticism, the journey involves a sincere search for understanding and meaning beyond mere appearances or social posturing.

Limited causal alternatives  do not justify claiming of " not knowing "

Hosea 4:6:  People are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

Dismissing known facts and logical reasoning, especially when the information is readily available, can be seen as more than just willful ignorance; it borders on folly. This is particularly true in discussions about origins and worldviews, where the implications might extend to one's eternal destiny. While uncertainty may be understandable in situations with numerous potential explanations, the question of God's existence essentially boils down to two possibilities: either God exists, or God does not. Given the abundance of evidence available, it is possible to reach reasoned and well-supported conclusions on this matter.

If the concept of God is not seen as the ultimate, eternal, and necessary foundation for all existence, including the natural world, human personality, consciousness, and rational thought, then what could possibly serve as this foundational entity, and why would it be a more convincing explanation? Without an eternal, purposeful force to bring about the existence of the physical universe and conscious beings within it, how could a non-conscious alternative serve as a plausible explanation? This question becomes particularly pressing when considering the nature of consciousness itself, which appears to be a fundamental, irreducible aspect of the mind that cannot be fully explained by physical laws alone. The idea that the electrons in our brains can produce consciousness, while those in an inanimate object like a light bulb cannot, seems to contradict the principles of quantum physics, which suggest that all electrons are identical and indistinguishable, possessing the same properties.

Either there is a God - creator and causal agency of the universe, or not. God either exists or he doesn’t, and there is no halfway house. These are the only two possible explanations. Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, they are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if no God is highly improbable, then the existence of God is highly probable.

Naturalism:
- Multiverse
- Virtual particles
- Big Bang
- Accretion theory
- Abiogenesis
- Common ancestry
- Evolution

Theism:
- Transcendent eternal God/Creator
- created the universe and stretched it out
- Created the Galaxies, Stars, Planets, the earth, and the moon
- Created life in all its variants and forms
- Created man and woman as a special creation, upon his image
- Theology and philosophy: Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal, and moral Creator.
- The Bible: The Old Testament is a catalog of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, and his mission, death, and resurrection foretold with specificity.
- Archaeology: Demonstrates that all events described in the Bible are historical facts.
- History: Historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth, and did physically rise from the dead
- The Bible's witnesses: There are many testimonies of Jesus doing miracles still today, and Jesus appearing to people all over the globe, still today.
- End times: The signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are occurring in front of our eyes. New world order, microchip implant, etc.
- After-life experiences: Credible witnesses have seen the afterlife and have come back and reported to us that the afterlife is real.

1. If the Christian perspective appears to be more plausible or coherent than atheism or any other religion, exceeding a 50% threshold of credibility,
   then choosing to embrace Christianity and adopting its principles for living becomes a logical decision.
2. It can be argued that Christianity holds a probability of being correct that is at least equal to or greater than 50%.
3. Consequently, it follows logically to adopt a Christian way of life based on this assessment of its plausibility.

Claim: We replace God with honesty by saying "we don't know" and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that... The fact that we don't currently know does not mean we will never know because we have science, the best method we have for answering questions about things we don't know. Simply saying "God did it" is making up an answer because we are too lazy to try to figure out the real truth. Science still can't explain where life came from and is honest about it.No atheist believes "the universe came from nothing". Science doesn't even wastes its time trying to study what came before the big bang and creation of the universe (based on the first law of the thermodynamics, many think matter and energy are atemporal, and before the Big Bang, everything was a singularity, but very few people are interested in studying that because it won't change anything in our knowledge about the universe).
Answer:  We can make an inference to the best explanation of origins, based on the wealth of scientific information, philosophy, theology, and using sound abductive, inductive, and deductive reasoning. Either there is a God, or not. So there are only two hypotheses from which to choose.  Atheists, rather than admit a creator as the only rational response to explain our existence, prefer to confess ignorance despite the wealth of scientific information, that permits to reach informed conclusions.

John Lennox:There are not many options. Essentially, just two. Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter, or there is a Creator. It's strange that some people claim that all it is their intelligence that leads to prefer the first to the second.

Luke A. Barnes: “I don’t know which one of these two statements is true” is a very different state of knowledge from “I don’t know which one of these trillion statements is true”. Our probabilities can and should reflect the size of the set of possibilities.



Greg Koukl observed that while it’s certainly true atheists lack a belief in God, they don’t lack beliefs about God. When it comes to the truth of any given proposition, one only has three logical options: affirm it, deny it, or withhold judgment (due to ignorance or the inability to weigh competing evidences). As applied to the proposition “God exists,” those who affirm the truth of this proposition are called theists, those who deny it are called atheists, and those who withhold judgment are called agnostics. Only agnostics, who have not formed a belief, lack a burden to demonstrate the truth of their position. Are those who want to define atheism as a lack of belief in God devoid of beliefs about God? Almost never! They have a belief regarding God’s existence, and that belief is that God’s existence is improbable or impossible. While they may not be certain of this belief (certainty is not required), they have certainly made a judgment. They are not intellectually neutral. At the very least, they believe God’s existence is more improbable than probable, and thus they bear a burden to demonstrate why God’s existence is improbable. So long as the new brand of atheists has formed a belief regarding the truth or falsity of the proposition “God exists,” then they have beliefs about God, and must defend that belief even if atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God.

The irrationality of atheists making absolute claims of God's nonexistence



Claim: One can't hate something that never happened. Gods are fictional beings created at the dawn of humanity to explain what they didn't have the intelligence to understand. Of the 1000s of gods humans wrongfully worship, none exist.
Reply: Asserting that none of the myriad deities humanity has revered over time exist is a definitive statement that lacks empirical support. Proving the non-existence of all deities is as elusive as confirming the existence of any single deity. This is primarily due to the transcendent nature attributed to deities, positioning them beyond the tangible universe and, consequently, beyond the reach of standard empirical investigation. For someone to categorically affirm or deny the existence of any deity, they would need an exhaustive understanding of the universe, encompassing all dimensions, realms, and the essence of reality beyond our observable universe. Deities are often conceptualized as entities that reside beyond the physical domain, making them inherently unobservable through conventional empirical means. Achieving such a comprehensive grasp on reality would also necessitate an omniscient awareness of all conceivable forms of evidence and methodologies for interpreting said evidence. Given the inherent limitations in human sensory and cognitive capacities, attaining such a level of knowledge is beyond our capability.
Therefore, making absolute declarations about the existence or absence of deities demands omniscience and an ability to perceive beyond the physical, criteria that are unattainable for humans, rendering such assertions unfounded.
Additionally, the challenge in disproving the existence of deities often lies in their definitions, which are typically structured to be non-falsifiable. For instance, defining a deity as an omnipotent, omniscient entity existing outside space and time makes it inherently immune to empirical scrutiny, thereby precluding conclusive disproof of such an entity's existence. Moreover, suggesting that all deities are merely mythological constructs devised to explain the inexplicable oversimplifies the diverse roles and representations of deities across different cultures. While some deities were indeed created to personify natural phenomena, others serve as paragons of moral virtue or are intertwined with specific historical narratives, indicating a complexity that goes beyond mere mythological explanations for natural events.
 
Why it`s an irrational demand to ask for proof of his existence

Claiming that the lack of direct sensory perception or irrefutable proof of God's existence equates to evidence of non-existence is a significant epistemological error.

Claim: You're asserting that "the god of the bible is truthful". We don't have proof of his existence and know that this character lies in the bible. You wouldn't believe the great god Cheshire was good if you didn't even think he was real.
Response: Atheists cannot prove either that the physical world is all there is. While it's true that there is no objective proof of the existence of God, the belief in a higher power is a matter of faith for many people. As for the character of God in the Bible, it's important to consider the historical and cultural context in which it was written, as well as the interpretation and translation of the text over time. Additionally, many people view the Bible as a metaphorical or symbolic representation of God's teachings rather than a literal account of his actions.
Furthermore, the analogy to the Cheshire Cat is flawed, as the Cheshire Cat is a fictional character created for a children's story, while God is a concept that has been a central aspect of human spirituality and religion for thousands of years. While we may never be able to definitively prove the existence or non-existence of God, many people find comfort, guidance, and purpose in their faith.

Atheist: All that theists ever offer is arguments sans any demonstration whatsoever. Provide verifiable evidence for any God, demonstrating his existence.
Answer: Many atheists subscribe to concepts like multiverses, abiogenesis, and macroevolution, extending from a common ancestor to humans, despite these phenomena not being directly observable. Yet, they often reject the existence of God on the grounds of invisibility, which might seem like a double standard. It's also worth noting that neither atheism nor theism can conclusively prove their stance on the nature of reality. Science, as a tool, may not be able to fully explain the origins of existence or validate the presence of a divine entity or the exclusivity of the material world. Thus, both worldviews inherently involve a degree of faith. From a philosophical standpoint, if there were no God, the universe might be seen as entirely random, with no underlying order or permanence to the laws of physics, suggesting that anything could happen at any moment without reason. The concept of a singular, ultimate God provides a foundation for consistency and for securing stability and intelligibility within the universe. The notion of divine hiddenness is proposed as a means for preserving human freedom. If God's presence were undeniable, it would constrain the ability to live freely according to one's wishes, similar to how a criminal would feel constrained in a police station. This hiddenness allows for the exercise of free will, offering "enough light" for seekers and "enough darkness" for skeptics. The pursuit of truth, according to this view, should be an open-minded journey, guided by evidence, even if the conclusions challenge personal beliefs. The biblical verses Matthew 7:8 and Revelation 3:20 are cited to illustrate the idea that those who earnestly seek will ultimately find truth, or rather, that truth will find them.

Why does God not simply show himself to us?

If God were to constantly reveal His presence and intervene to prevent evil, many would argue that their freedom to live apart from God would be compromised. Even those who oppose God might find existence under constant divine surveillance intolerable, akin to living in a perpetual police state. Atheists often misunderstand God's desire for worship as egotism. The reality is that humans possess the freedom to choose what to worship, not whether to worship. If God were overtly visible, even this choice would vanish. God represents the essence of truth, beauty, life, and love—encountering Him would be like standing before the breathtaking grandeur of nature and the cosmos combined. Philosopher Michael Murray suggests that God's hiddenness allows people the autonomy to either respond to His call or remain independent. This echoes the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, where God's immediate presence wasn't overtly evident. The essence of character is often revealed when one believes they are unobserved.

Perhaps, as Blaise Pascal proposed, God reveals Himself enough to offer a choice of belief. There is "enough light for those who desire to see and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition." God values human free will over His desires. For those truly seeking truth, maintaining an open mind and following evidence wherever it leads is essential, even if it leads to uncomfortable conclusions. In understanding God's limitations, consider an intelligent software entity unable to directly interact with humans. Similarly, God relies on physical manifestations to communicate with us, much like angels appearing human-like to interact within the physical realm. The notion of a Godless universe is a philosophical theory, not a scientific fact, built upon a chain of beliefs. God's concealed existence serves to prevent chaos and rebellion that could lead to humanity's destruction. Those in covenantal relationship with God find solace in His omnipresence and omniscience, while for those who resist, such attributes would be akin to hell on earth. To force God's overt presence upon an unregenerated world would lead to rebellion, as many would bend their knees out of fear rather than genuine love. God's wisdom is rooted in love, which must be freely given by both parties. However, free humanity often inclines towards loving sin over God, thus revealing Himself overtly would likely destroy that world.


Demand: No one has ever produced any verifiable evidence for any God, demonstrating his existence. All religions make that claim for their specific God. Well, I want some proof, hard verifiable proof.
Answer:  Every worldview, regardless of its nature, is fundamentally rooted in faith—a collection of beliefs adopted as truth by its adherents. With this perspective, the notion of absolute "proof" becomes impractical, as no individual possesses such certainty for the worldview they hold. Instead of demanding irrefutable proof, we engage in examining the available evidence, which should guide us toward the worldview that best aligns with that evidence. One common demand from atheists is for proof of God's existence, often accompanied by the claim that there is no evidence to support it. However, what they typically mean is that there is no empirically verifiable proof. Yet, this demand reveals a lack of epistemological sophistication, as it implicitly admits that there is no proof for the assertion that the natural world is all there is. When someone claims there is no proof of God's existence, they essentially concede that there is also no proof that the natural world is all-encompassing. To assert otherwise would require omniscience—an impossible feat. Therefore, their stance lacks substantive reasoning. The challenge to "show me God" parallels the impossibility of physically demonstrating one's thoughts or memories to another. While we can discuss these concepts, their intrinsic nature eludes empirical verification. To navigate through worldviews and arrive at meaningful conclusions about origins and reality, we must adopt a methodological approach grounded in a carefully constructed epistemological framework. This can involve various methodologies such as rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism, authority, and revelation. While empiricism plays a crucial role in the scientific method, disregarding philosophy and theology outright is a misguided approach adopted by many unbelievers. Some skeptics reject the idea of God's existence beyond the confines of space-time due to a lack of empirical evidence. However, they simultaneously embrace the default position that there is no God, despite its unverifiability. Yet, God's existence can be logically inferred and is evident. In the absence of a viable alternative, chance or luck cannot serve as a potent causal agent for the universe's existence. Given that the universe began to exist, the necessity of a creator becomes apparent, as nothingness cannot bring about something. Thus, there must have always been a being, and this being serves as the cause of the universe.

Can you demonstrate that your mental state of affairs exists? That you are a real person and not a preprogrammed artificial intelligence seeded by aliens?  How can I know that your cognitive faculties including consciousness, perception, thinking, judgment, memory,  reasoning, thoughts,  imagination, recognition, appreciation, feelings, and emotions are real? Can you demonstrate that your qualia, the substance of your mind is real? Could it be, that aliens from a distant planet use some unknown communication system and use your eyes, ears, brain, etc, that you are a programmed bot, and all your answers are in reality given by them? You can't demonstrate this not to be the case.

C.S. Lewis (1947):: “Granted that Reason is before matter and that the light of the primal Reason illuminates finite minds, I can understand how men should come, by observation and inference, to know a lot about the universe they live in. If, on the other hand, I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole [i.e. materialism], then not only can I not fit in Christianity, but I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.”  One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless the inference is valid, the whole picture disappears... Unless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is a flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based. 1

Asking for empirical proof of God's existence is a flawed epistemological approach that reveals a lack of understanding on the part of the unbeliever regarding how to derive sound conclusions about origins. It's important to acknowledge that there is no empirical proof either for or against the existence of God, just as there is no empirical proof that the known universe exhausts all existence. To assert definitively that God does not exist would require omniscience, which we do not possess. Thus, the burden of proof cannot be met by either side. Instead of demanding empirical demonstrations, we can engage in philosophical inquiry to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason. Reason itself does not provide concrete evidence but can only imply potentialities, probabilities, and possibilities, particularly when venturing beyond the physical realm.
The seeker of truth must approach the evidence with open-mindedness, setting aside biases and prejudices as much as possible. A rational approach, grounded in scientific reasoning and logic, involves observing, hypothesizing, testing where feasible, and arriving at well-founded conclusions. When examining the natural world, the question shifts from "how something works" (the domain of empirical science) to "what mechanism explains best the origin of X." This approach advances our understanding by considering the intricacies of biochemical reality, intracellular actions, and the molecular world. Darwin's era lacked the depth of knowledge we now possess regarding the complexity of biochemical processes. Today, our understanding continues to expand, with each day contributing to our comprehension of the mechanisms underlying existence.

Empirical evidence alone cannot confirm the existence of:
1. The laws of logic, despite our reliance on them daily.
2. The laws of science, although scientists constantly utilize them.
3. The concept of cause and effect, even though we perceive it regularly.

Some assert the truism "Seeing is believing." However, if one subscribes to this belief, did they actually:
1. "See" this truth?
2. "Feel" it in the dark?
3. "Smell" it in the air?
4. "Taste" it in their dinner?
5. "Hear" it in the middle of the night?

If not, then the notion of "Seeing is believing" cannot be empirically proven to be true. Thus, empirical proof encounters significant challenges and may not always serve as the most reliable form of evidence.
Arguing, that, because we cannot see or sense God, nor having He proven his existence beyond any doubt, there is no evidence of His existence, is the greatest epistemological foolishness someone can commit.

Claim: You're making the assertion that "the god of the bible is truthful". We don't have proof of his existence, and know that his character lied in the bible. You wouldn't believe the great god Cheshire was good if you didn't even think he was real.
Response: While it's true that there is no objective proof of the existence of God, the belief in a higher power is a matter of faith for many people. As for the character of God in the Bible, it's important to consider the historical and cultural context in which it was written, as well as the interpretation and translation of the text over time. Additionally, many people view the Bible as a metaphorical or symbolic representation of God's teachings rather than a literal account of his actions.

Furthermore, the analogy to the Cheshire cat is flawed, as the Cheshire cat is a fictional character created for a children's story, while God is a concept that has been a central aspect of human spirituality and religion for thousands of years. While we may never be able to definitively prove the existence or non-existence of God, many people find comfort, guidance, and purpose in their faith.

Atheist: All that theists ever offer is arguments sans any demonstration whatsoever. Provide verifiable evidence for any God, demonstrating his existence.
Answer: Many atheists believe in multiverses, abiogenesis, and macroevolution (from a Last Universal Common Ancestor to man) despite it can't be observed. But disbelieve in God because he cannot be seen. Double standard much?Atheists cannot prove either, that the natural world is all there is. Neither view, theism, nor materialism can be proven. Science will never demonstrate how reality came about. We can only look at the science available to us and find adequate philosophical explanations based on the evidence. Neither the Scientific method nor any other will ever be able to demonstrate God's existence or the claim that the material universe is all there is. Historical events cannot be repeated. From what we know, we can decide which is the bigger leap of faith - which materialism as well requires. Any view, conclusion, and position, is based on a leap of faith. It is just that - a leap of faith. Upon my understanding, there is extraordinary evidence FOR a creator, therefore, theism requires the smallest leap of faith, and that points to a creator.

If there were no God, then anything would/should be possible, arbitrary, and nothing would be impossible. Without God, nothing can be established, imposed, and secured. The laws of physics could be instantiated, and disappear at any moment. God is ultimate and singular and that means to be the source of all facts and possibilities.

Without God's hiddenness, we would not have any significant freedom. Even those that hate God would be unable to fully live according to their wishes; much like a criminal would find it intolerable living in the police station. God stays hidden to a degree, He gives people the free will to either respond to His tugging at their hearts or remain autonomous from Him. There is enough light for those who desire to find him, and enough darkness for those that prefer to live autonomously to HIM. If you prefer being an atheist, God values your free will more than His desires for you. If you are really after truth, then have an open mind and follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if you don’t like the conclusion.

Matthew 7:8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
But when you seek, it's actually not, that you will find the truth. But the truth will find you.

Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Once He revealed Himself to me, He convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that He is who He said He is and it all made sense.

Without God's hiddenness, we would not have any significant freedom. Even those who hate God would be unable to fully live according to their wishes; much like a criminal would find it intolerable living in the police station. If God stays hidden to a degree, He gives people the free will to either respond to His tugging at their hearts or remain autonomous from Him. There is enough light for those who desire only to see, and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition. If we can make God an object of our observations we have demoted God to the level of a thing in creation. We who have been wooed into a covenantal loving relationship with God, find comfort in is omnipresence and His omniscience. But for those who resist the love of God, those attributes would be nothing less than hell on earth.

If you were an intelligent software living in a virtual world of bytes, how would you show other intelligent software that humans exist? You can’t come out of the computer. Humans would need to resort to software in order to communicate with you. In other words, you will never ever be capable of interacting with humans directly. You would see another software that looks probably like you controlled by humans and you would need to trust that software is a human. God has the same limitation; he cannot get into creation as he exactly is. It is not possible for him. He needs to rely on using physical matter to interact with us. 

The quest of origins is not solved by empirical science or proofs, like demonstrating God, but by probability or plausibility. It is an absurd restriction, and this kind of burden of proof cannot be met by both sides, since historical facts cannot be recreated, like the origin of life, or biodiversification.  Furthermore, if God actually is God, he would not comply with silly demands, and would not permit to be forced to do anything.

Matthew 16:  The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus, wanting to trick him. So they asked him to show them a miracle from God.
2 Jesus answered, “At sunset, you say we will have good weather because the sky is red. 3 And in the morning you say that it will be a rainy day because the sky is dark and red. You see these signs in the sky and know what they mean. In the same way, you see the things that I am doing now, but you don’t know their meaning. 4 Evil and sinful people ask for a miracle as a sign, but they will not be given any sign, except the sign of Jonah.”

In other words, the right epistemological method is abductive reasoning, a logical inference to find the simplest and most likely conclusion from the observations.
The origin of the physical laws and universe and its fine-tuning cannot be demonstrated to originate from cosmic evolution. Despite over half a century of attempting to recreate the origin of life, every attempt has failed. The hypothesis of chemical evolution is a big scientific failure. None of the basic building blocks of life have EVER been synthesized in the lab, even with intelligent, human intervention.  Primary speciation and an evolutionary transition zone to organismal complexity and form, generating a multitude of different animals and various kinds of life forms, have also never been observed to be possible. The origin of language, sex, consciousness, and objective morality is also a mystery. 

Rejecting faith in God because neither his existence nor his creative action can't be studied directly, but believing in Standard Cosmogeny, abiogenesis, and evolution is a clear contradiction and the application of a double standard. While God as a creator is rejected, unguided random events as a better explanation of origins are adopted by default, despite there being no empirical evidence whatsoever for both. That's an obvious contradiction in terms.

Atheist: Right now the only evidence we have of intelligent design is by humans. Why would anyone assume to know an unknowable answer in regards of origins?
Reply: Many atheists have made a career out of making silly requirements based on ignorance, rather than first creating a solid epistemological framework of inquiry, and then asking relevant questions. Abiogenesis is how to test the materialism claim and it fails. Almost seventy years of experimental attempts to recreate life in the lab and not even the basic building blocks have been recreated. Evolution has been tested and it fails. 70,000 generations of bacteria, and all they got, are bacteria. No hint of a transition zone to a new organismal limb or improvement of complexity. Fail.
The existence of God is inferred just like all historical science is. This is basic logic and critical thinking but some atheists have a mind like a sieve.
God's existence is inferred by many criteria, like abductive reasoning, and eliminative inductions, but many persevere on nonsensical demands like asking for demonstrations of God's existence.
How does someone “test” for the widely credited multiverse? They can’t, don’t even try. Honest physicists know this.
The existence of God is as valid as multiverse, string theory, abiogenesis, macroevolution, and numerous other improvable theories.
Many atheists are like the kid stuck in high school who never grows up or moves on. Like a windup echo chamber.

There is more to reality than the world of our senses perceives.

Demand: No one has ever produced any verifiable evidence for any God, demonstrating his existence. All religions make that claim for their specific God. Well, I want some proof, hard verifiable proof.
Answer:  Every worldview, without exception, is a faith-based belief system, consisting of a set of statements the holder adopts as being true. Starting from this view, we can dispense with the foolish notion of "proof," as some are so quick to require (as though they have such proof for the worldview they currently hold). Instead of "proof" in the absolute sense, we proceed with examining the available evidence, which should point with confidence to the worldview that best accounts for that evidence.

This is one of the most common demands of Atheists and is mentioned as a reason for unbelief until the burden of proof is met. All that such demand demonstrates is the lack of epistemological sophistication of the unbeliever. Usually, this challenge goes hand in hand with the claim that " There is no evidence of God's existence ". What they want to say however is, that there is no empirically verifiable proof.

When an atheist, an agnostic, or someone holding a mix of agnosticism and atheism makes the claim that there is no proof of God's existence, he immediately and implicitly admits there is no proof that the natural world is all there is, either. Otherwise, he would say: We know the natural world is all there is. Here is the verifiable evidence. For that, however, he would have to be all-knowing, which we all obviously aren't. He chooses that second option based on no reason at all.

Atheists commonly ask and say:  Show me God god has been demonstrated to exist. It's the same as asking "show" me what you think. We all have thoughts and memories..we can talk about them..but we cannot "show" someone else what we actually think. (Not the same as measuring brain activity when we think)

We need to endorse a worldview that makes sense, and is a consequence of a carefully chosen and elaborated methodology of an epistemological framework, and applied to do consistent, correct-to-case research, and coming to meaningful, and the most accurate possible conclusions in regards of origins and reality. There are several ways, like rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism, authority, and revelation. Empiricism is a cornerstone of the scientific
method. Empiricism, in philosophy, is the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. Can or should we use the scientific method and empiricism alone where the scientific method is the primary epistemology for truth claims? This approach is based on observations
of the world, but philosophy and theology are a priori rejected out hand. That is one of the wrong approaches that many unbelievers in God adopt.

Unbelievers are skeptical that God exists beyond and above this space-time continuum,  based on lack of empirical proof, but endorse the default position that there is no God, despite the fact that this isn't verifiable either. God's existence is logically inferred and obvious. There is no alternative to God. Luck or chance isn't a potent causal agency of almost anything besides, maybe, chaos. The universe is not eternal but began to exist. Since nothing can't do something, as for example cause a universe into existence, there was always a being, and the cause of the universe must have been a creator.



Beyond Empiricism in Understanding Origins and Reality

Understanding the origins of existence and grappling with existential questions demands a multifaceted approach, requiring not only the ability to think across various contexts but also a breadth of knowledge across disciplines. However, the most crucial aspect lies in the willingness to follow evidence and reason to arrive at rational conclusions—a quality that one must cultivate within oneself. Erwin Schrödinger's contemplation highlights the limitations of the scientific perspective. While science excels in providing factual information and organizing our experiences, it falls short in addressing matters close to our hearts—emotions, aesthetics, morality, and spirituality. The inadequacy of science in addressing these fundamental aspects of human existence often leads to dissatisfaction among those seeking deeper meaning. A common pitfall for many atheists is the lack of a consistent epistemological framework. Some demand empirical evidence for the existence of God, while others overly rely on science to provide all-encompassing answers. However, science, with its focus on measurable phenomena, cannot encapsulate concepts such as thoughts, logic, or subjective truths. The insistence that only empirically verifiable aspects constitute reality is overly simplistic and dismissive of the richness of human experience. The supernatural, by its very nature, eludes empirical measurement, operating beyond the confines of detectable phenomena. Concepts like will and intention, central to supernatural explanations, defy quantification or prediction through scientific methods alone. To navigate the complexities of understanding origins and reality, it's essential to adopt a comprehensive worldview grounded in a carefully constructed epistemological framework. Various philosophical approaches, including rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism, authority, and revelation, offer different lenses through which to interpret reality. While empiricism forms the foundation of the scientific method, dismissing philosophy and theology outright undermines the quest for holistic understanding. Rather than solely relying on empirical observation and scientific inquiry, embracing a more inclusive approach that acknowledges the limitations of pure empiricism can lead to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of existence and our place within it.