How you answer the God Question has enormous implications for how you understand yourself, your relation to others, and your place in the universe. Remarkably, however, many people in the West today don’t give this question nearly the attention it deserves; they live as though it doesn’t really matter to everyday life.
Either your worldview is based on believing in naturalism & materialism, which means that the physical world had no causal agency that instantiated a Multiverse - or a Steady-state universe - or oscillating universes - or virtual particles - that caused the Big bang - Accretion theory - Abiogenesis - Common ancestry - Evolution - Monism - subjective morality
Or your worldview is based on theism & creationism, and you believe in an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal, and moral Creator which created the universe and stretched it out, created the Galaxies, Stars, Planets, the earth, and the moon- life in all its variants and forms, human male and female as a special creation, upon his own image and gave us, humans, as made upon his image, a mind, consciousness, free will, moral values, thinking skills, etc.
Any worldview is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, theology, and philosophy. After careful examination, all we can do is come to instant-deduction to the best explanation.
1. Accepting the best explanation maximizes the robustness of one’s position relative to accepting any other available explanatory hypothesis.
2. It is reasonable to maximize the robustness of one’s position.
3. One of the explanatory hypotheses should be accepted.
4. Thus: It is reasonable to accept the best explanation. 6
Either there is a God-creator and causal agency of the universe, or not. God either exists or he doesn’t. These are the only two possible explanations. The law of excluded middle is given the name of law for a reason it's called the law of excluded middle so when we say something is either a or it is not a there's no middle there no third option it is one of the fundamental laws of logic. It's a true dichotomy it's either God or not God.
Naturalism & materialism:
“the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.”
Materialism is an atheistic worldview that sees all reality as the result of accidental collisions and combinations of elementary particles governed by a mysteriously fortuitous set of laws that control how matter interacts. It’s a worldview devoid of higher meaning and purpose.
“the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.”
- Steady-state universe
- Oscillating universes
- Virtual particles
- Big Bang
- Accretion theory
- Common ancestry
In regards of the origin of the universe, it was either eternal or had a beginning, in that case, the proponent of naturalism would have to give an explanation of the cause of the universe, and/or explain how it could exist eternally, without a beginning. The universe is finely tuned, so then he has the option of multiverses, where one would be life-permitting ( ours ). In regards to abiogenesis, he has random chance, and afterwards, evolution. He has to provide good reasons why these alternatives have more/better explanatory power than design.
Intelligent design theory is like a sword with two edges
Intelligent design wins using eliminative induction based on the fact that its competitors are false. Materialism explains basically nothing consistently in regards to origins but is based on unwarranted consensus and scientific materialism, a philosophical framework, that should never have been applied to historical sciences. Evidence should be permitted to lead wherever it is. Also, eventually, to an intelligent agency as the best explanation of origins.
And intelligent design wins based on abductive reasoning, using inference to the best explanation, relying on positive evidence, on the fact that basically all-natural phenomena demonstrate the imprints and signature of intelligent input and setup. We see an unfolding plan, a universe governed by laws, that follows mathematical principles, finely adjusted on all levels, from the Big Bang, to the earth, to permit life, which is governed by instructional complex information stored in genes and epigenetically, encoding, transmitting and decoding information, used to build, control and maintain molecular machines ( proteins ) that are build based on integrated functional complex parts ( primary to quaternary polypeptide strands and active centers ), which are literally nanorobots with internal communication systems, fully automated manufacturing production lines, transport carriers, turbines, transistors, computers, and factory parks, employed to give rise to a wide range, millions of species, of unimaginably complex multicellular organisms.
The chance to get a universe with stars is 10^229
If we sum up the total number of amino acids for a minimal Cell, there would have to be 1300 proteins x 400 amino acids = 520.000 amino acids, which would have to be bonded in the right sequence, choosing for each position amongst 20 different amino acids, and selecting only the left-handed, while sorting out the right-handed ones. That means each position would have to be selected correctly from 40 variants !! that is 1 right selection out of 40^722.000 possibilities !! Obviously, a gigantic number far above any realistic probability to occur by unguided events. Even a trillion universes, each hosting a trillion planets, and each shuffling a trillion times in a trillionth of a second, continuously for a trillion years, would not be enough. Such astronomically unimaginably gigantic odds are in the realm of the utmost extremely impossible.
- Ontological Arguments
- Cosmological Arguments
- Teleological Arguments
- Theological Arguments
- Moral Arguments
- Transcendental Arguments
- Eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral 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 special creation, upon his own image
- Gave us, humans, as made upon his image, a mind, consciousness, free will, moral values, thinking skills , etc.
The Christian faith based on the Bible:
- 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 really 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 weight of the Christian worldview is making sense above 50 % compared to atheism, or any different religion, then it is rational to believe in Christ, and commit living as a Christian.
2. Christianity has at least a 50 % chance of being true.
3. Therefore, it is rational to commit to living as a Christian.
“Naturalism” (or materialism) views matter and energy and the laws of nature as the prime realities. “Pantheism” asserts an impersonal deity present in matter and energy as the prime reality. “Theism” affirms a personal, intelligent, transcendent God who also acts within the creation. Atheism holds that matter and energy constitute the prime realities.
Claim: So we are presented with what I see as a very clear choice between the natural and the supernatural. The natural we all know exists, while the supernatural is only believed to actually exist by some who have no rational reason why they believe it exists.
Reply: There are only two possibilities: The natural world came about either by natural means or by an eternal creator. Given that these are mutually exclusive, evidence for one is against the other. Likewise, absence of evidence for one is evidence of the other.
Atheists apply too often a double standard. They are hyper skeptical and critical of God claims. But endorse the No-God hypothesis blindly and as an unwarranted belief by default, without scrutinizing if that proposition is evidence based. In other words, they do not weight both worldviews against each other. They turn a blind eye towards materialism, and endorse that position without analyzing it. Inferring that because of the fact that we have observable evidence of the existence of the natural world, therefore all reality is just natural, is a logical fallacy. The evidence points to two possible outcomes. Either the natural world is all there is and has ever been, or there is a necessary being, a creator above and beyond space-time and matter, which created all contingent beings for his own purposes. Either there is a God, a conscious intelligent mind at the bottom of all reality, or not.
Based on Plato's principle of Contradiction and Excluded Middle: either that proposition is true or its negation is true, and contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time. The dichotomy that either there is a God, or there is not a God, are jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.
It must be remembered here that every major branch of the sciences (from physics to cosmology to quantum mechanics) has been founded and practiced throughout its history alongside the uncomplicated notion that science simply cannot answer the great questions of ultimate reality. It is only the materialists of the late 20th century who have decided that they can indeed answer these questions through science. And without actually demonstrating that their ideas are true, they've sought to delegitimize all competing ideas. This is a powerful sociopolitical response, but not a scientific one. 7
Only one worldview can be true. If the various worldviews have mutually exclusive truth claims, only one can be true. A true system of thought must be comprehensive of thought and life. It must possess consistency and coherence in its overall claims. But most importantly, the system must correspond to reality, past, present, and future, natural and supernatural. And all major systems of thought contain key truth claims which are contrary to those of all other systems. A worldview must be consistent and explain the evidence, phenomena, and observations in the natural world adequately.
The creation-evolution debate is not religion versus science or the Bible versus science, it's about good science versus bad science. Likewise, it's not faith versus reason, it's about reasonable faith, versus unreasonable faith.
The deepest intellectual battle is not between science and religion (which, as we have seen, can operate with a great deal of accord), but between naturalism and theism—two broad philosophical (or metaphysical) ways of looking at the world. Neither view is a scientific view; neither view is based on or inferable from empirical data. Metaphysics, like numbers and the laws of logic,
lies outside the realm of human sense experience. So the issue of naturalism versus theism must be decided on philosophical grounds
Metaphysical naturalism is the view that nothing exists but matter/energy in space-time. Naturalism denies the existence of anything beyond nature. The naturalist rejects God, and also such spooky entities as souls, angels, and demons. Metaphysical naturalism entails that there is no ultimate purpose or design in nature because there is no Purposer or Designer. On the other hand, theism is the view that the universe is created by and owes its sustained existence to a Supreme Being that exists outside the universe. These two views, by definition, contradict each other.
Claim: you are OBVIOUSLY making a false dichotomy - that is, you are considering ONLY TWO options - namely, random chance, or a god. Have you considered that there may be OTHER explanations?
Reply: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the claim is that other worldviews exist, the claimer must be able to back up the claim, otherwise, it can be dismissed without evidence.
Michael Egnor Why the Universe Itself Can’t Be the Most Fundamental Thing April 19, 2021
Natural theology is the branch of science that demonstrates the existence of God according to evidence in nature. It has deep roots going back at least to Aristotle. It is different from divine revelation, which is another way of understanding God.
There are basically just two worldviews
(a) time, chance, and the natural properties of matter; or
(b) design, creation, and the undeniable properties of organization and mind.
Either the order was imposed upon matter, or it naturally resides within matter.
Either God is or He isn’t. God either exists or He doesn’t.
There are two possible answers: the universe and life and its diversity—natural phenomena—are the product of 1) a combination of only natural laws and chance (the “naturalistic hypothesis)”; or 2) a combination of law, chance, and design—the activity of a mind or some form of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy (the “design hypothesis”). The latter produces purpose, the former does not. 5
Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent, as opposed to that which is merely imaginary. The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence. In physical terms, reality is the totality of the universe, known and unknown. Reality is the totality of all things, structures (actual and conceptual), events (past and present) and phenomena, whether observable or not. It is what a world view (whether it be based on individual or shared human experience) ultimately attempts to describe or map. 4 Reality is all that ontologically exists. If there is a reality beyond the physical universe, then that reality is ontologically included. We set reality as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Now in that state of things that englobes everything that is actual and real, there is a God creator - necessary being, or there is none. This is a true dichotomy, which withstands scrutiny until someone can come up with a trichotomy, a third option.
We can presume that the universe and our existence is real, and if we presume that our cognitive faculties are apt of making sense of the world we live in, then we can resume the possible worldviews into two categories, two obvious and possible alternatives, which is some natural process versus some intentional intelligent action. That’s it. Everything happens by natural processes or was at least set in motion by the necessity of intelligent action.
One option includes 1. an intelligent creator(s), and the other 2. the absence of an intelligent creator.
In the first worldview there is a necessary powerful creator(s), which can be described as limitless, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, transcendent, intelligent and personal, and in the
second worldview there is no creator, where we are the result either of a universe which spontaneously popped up out of absolutely nothing, or the universe had no beginning, and the Singularity and initial expansion are due a prior universe of some sort ( oscillating, multiverse etc.). or a quantum field of virtual particles ( which is not nothing ).
A dichotomy is the presentation of two parts, usually of statements. A true dichotomy would be, for example, “There either is a god or gods, or there is not a god or gods.” A proper dichotomy occurs when there is a statement and the negation of the statement as the only two possibilities. 1
The two parts together are comprehensive; the two parts separately do not overlap. The dichotomy does not posit the straightforward division "A and not A, but " Insofar as the pair operates as a dichotomy, the meaning presumes "A or not A," . The dichotomy acts as a powerful device that structures the starting point, the direction, the character, and the limits of the inquiry. 2
This claim is refuted when somebody can demonstrate an option which does not necessarily fall into these two categories.
Objection: Farting pixies could be in both a universe with and without a god, it's literally a third option of possible worlds.
Answer: Either they would have properties, like physical bodies, which would make them contingent or they would not distinguish themselves from God, and therefore, be God. In both cases, they would exist in a world where there is a God. And as such, belong to one of the two categories, not a third. They could not exist in a reality without God, as they would be a contingent being, depending on a necessary God with attributes of Aseity creating them. Since they are described of having a physical body and existing in time, they would have a beginning, therefore a cause. So they could ONLY exist in option one in a reality with God. If the claim goes that they have the same nature of an eternal God, then they would be indistinguishable from God, and as such, be God. There are only two options. One: A worldview where there is a limitless, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent and personal creator, which brought space, time, matter into being, or two: not.
A false dilemma (also known as a false dichotomy) is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones.
In other words, there are two ways in which one can commit a false dilemma. First, one can assume that there are only two (or three, though in that case, it is, strictly speaking, a “false trilemma”) options when there really are many more. Second, one can take the options to be mutually exclusive when they really are not. 3
As shown, the dichotomy of either there being a God, or not, is not a false dilemma. These are the two logical possible options to choose from.
Atheism. There is a God
Pantheism. God is distinguishable
Evolution. God created
Uniformism. God intervenes
Polytheism. One True God
Materialism. Matter had a beginning
Humanism. God, not humans
Last edited by Otangelo on Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:37 am; edited 60 times in total