Why it`s an irrational demand to ask for proof of his existence
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2717-godwhy-its-an-irrational-demand-to-ask-proofs-of-his-existence
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. The Scientific method nor any other will never 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 would be 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 that hate God would be unable to fully live according to their wishes; much like a criminal would find it intolerable living in 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 covenantial 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 by 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.
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2717-godwhy-its-an-irrational-demand-to-ask-proofs-of-his-existence
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 of recreating 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 mentioned as a reason for unbelief until the burden of proof is met. All which 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...No 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 measure 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 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.
Unbelievers are skeptical that God exists beyond and above this space-time continuum, based on lack of empirical proofs, but endorses 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 being, and the cause of the universe must have been a creator.
Professor Ulrich Becker** (High energy particle physics, MIT):
"How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any answer ever given."
Why does God not simply show himself to us ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1422-show-why-does-god-not-simply-show-himself-to-us
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2717-godwhy-its-an-irrational-demand-to-ask-proofs-of-his-existence
Can you demonstrate that your mental state of affairs really 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, and memory, reasoning, and thoughts, imagination, recognition, and 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: “Granted that Reason is prior to 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 inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless 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 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.
“To find the metaphysical beliefs…governing scientific research…it would have been enough to speak of one belief, the belief in a personal rational Creator. It was this belief, as cultivated especially within a Christian matrix, which supported the [scientific] view for which the world was an objective and orderly entity investigable by the mind because the mind too was an orderly and objective product of the same rational, that is, perfectly consistent Creator.
Dr. Stanley Jaki, Templeton Prize winner, Distinguished Professor of physics, Seton Hall University
Being cannot come from non-being.
Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another.
Since the universe had a beginning, a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence.
That being is God.
Being cannot come from non-being. Contingent existence is evidence of a necessary Creator. But not everybody ( is willing ) to see it.
Romans 1.19 - 23 What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Asking for proofs of Gods existence 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 probability of God is not to be dismissed. Nobody can prove with reason anything except potentialities, probabilities and possibilities. Reason is not the science of reality when it ventures beyond the scope of physical. It can only imply.
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
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god
A cumulative case for the God of the bible
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-the-god-of-the-bible
" There is no evidence for God " Really ??!!
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1440-there-is-no-evidence-for-god
Empirical evidence, alone, cannot confirm that there exists:
1) laws of logic-- but we use them very day.
2) laws of science-- but scientist used the constantly
3) "cause and effect" but we "think" we experience it all the time.
Some claim that this is true: "Seeing is believing."
However, if one believes that, then did this person actually:
1) "SEE" this truth, or
2) "FEel" it by stumbling over this truth in the dark, or
3) SMELL this alleged truth in the air, or 4) 4) TASTE this truth in the dinner meal, or 5) 5) HEAR this truth in the middle of the night.
If NOT, then the truism "Seeing is believing" can't be proven to actually be true BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN EMPIRICALY! (Dr. Bahnsen).
So, empirical proof has its great problems and is not always the best proof!
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2717-godwhy-its-an-irrational-demand-to-ask-proofs-of-his-existence
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. The Scientific method nor any other will never 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 would be 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 that hate God would be unable to fully live according to their wishes; much like a criminal would find it intolerable living in 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 covenantial 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 by 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.
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2717-godwhy-its-an-irrational-demand-to-ask-proofs-of-his-existence
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 of recreating 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 mentioned as a reason for unbelief until the burden of proof is met. All which 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...No 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 measure 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 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.
Unbelievers are skeptical that God exists beyond and above this space-time continuum, based on lack of empirical proofs, but endorses 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 being, and the cause of the universe must have been a creator.
Professor Ulrich Becker** (High energy particle physics, MIT):
"How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any answer ever given."
Why does God not simply show himself to us ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1422-show-why-does-god-not-simply-show-himself-to-us
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2717-godwhy-its-an-irrational-demand-to-ask-proofs-of-his-existence
Can you demonstrate that your mental state of affairs really 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, and memory, reasoning, and thoughts, imagination, recognition, and 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: “Granted that Reason is prior to 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 inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless 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 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.
“To find the metaphysical beliefs…governing scientific research…it would have been enough to speak of one belief, the belief in a personal rational Creator. It was this belief, as cultivated especially within a Christian matrix, which supported the [scientific] view for which the world was an objective and orderly entity investigable by the mind because the mind too was an orderly and objective product of the same rational, that is, perfectly consistent Creator.
Dr. Stanley Jaki, Templeton Prize winner, Distinguished Professor of physics, Seton Hall University
Being cannot come from non-being.
Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another.
Since the universe had a beginning, a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence.
That being is God.
Being cannot come from non-being. Contingent existence is evidence of a necessary Creator. But not everybody ( is willing ) to see it.
Romans 1.19 - 23 What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Asking for proofs of Gods existence 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 probability of God is not to be dismissed. Nobody can prove with reason anything except potentialities, probabilities and possibilities. Reason is not the science of reality when it ventures beyond the scope of physical. It can only imply.
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
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god
A cumulative case for the God of the bible
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-the-god-of-the-bible
" There is no evidence for God " Really ??!!
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1440-there-is-no-evidence-for-god
Empirical evidence, alone, cannot confirm that there exists:
1) laws of logic-- but we use them very day.
2) laws of science-- but scientist used the constantly
3) "cause and effect" but we "think" we experience it all the time.
Some claim that this is true: "Seeing is believing."
However, if one believes that, then did this person actually:
1) "SEE" this truth, or
2) "FEel" it by stumbling over this truth in the dark, or
3) SMELL this alleged truth in the air, or 4) 4) TASTE this truth in the dinner meal, or 5) 5) HEAR this truth in the middle of the night.
If NOT, then the truism "Seeing is believing" can't be proven to actually be true BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN EMPIRICALY! (Dr. Bahnsen).
So, empirical proof has its great problems and is not always the best proof!
Last edited by Otangelo on Sat Aug 12, 2023 5:53 am; edited 58 times in total
