Worldviews: There are basically just two in regards of origins

Comparing worldviews - there are basically just two

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2793-worldviews-there-are-basically-just-two-in-regards-of-origins

Either

1. Life just coalesced from atomic building blocks through a random fluke collision of disorderly pieces, emerging by  “dumb, blind” mechanical processes, a fortuitous accident, spontaneously through self-organization by unguided, non-designed, unintended stochastic coincidence, natural events that turned into self-organization in an orderly manner without external direction, chemical non-biological, purely physico-dynamic kinetic processes and reactions influenced by environmental parameters, or
2. through the direct intervention, direction-giving creative force, and design activity of an intelligent cognitive agency, a powerful conscious creator with intentions, inventive power,  will, foreseeing goals and foresight, able to instantiate and create successful solutions in a planned manner.  

There are really only 2 options: 1) God did it or 2) Nothing did it. 2 is not possible. That leaves only 1 option. The problem isn't that science presents any other option. The problem is that atheists have been blinded to the truth.

Either nature is the product of pointless stupidity 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 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.”

- Multiverse
- Steady-state universe
- Oscillating universes
- Virtual particles
- Big Bang
- Accretion theory
- Abiogenesis
- Common ancestry
- Evolution
- Monism

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.  


Theism:

- 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.

Norman Geisler:
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.
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/04/why-the-universe-itself-cant-be-the-most-fundamental-thing/

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.

http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0102.pdf

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


1. https://carm.org/dictionary-dichotomy
2. http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3874098?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
3. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
5. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4542/d031989c1526736c9c1375c0aa92434a7a66.pdf
6. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/148349256.pdf
7. https://web.archive.org/web/20170614142752/http://www.biosemiosis.org/index.php/why-is-this-important

Paul Ernst The origin of the cosmos is more of an effect of a worldview. A better starting point is what you believe is the ultimate ground of reality : God, matter or a pantheistic principle (impersonal spirit). What you believe is ultimately real (Ontology) determines why you think its true (epistemology). This ends up being circular in some sense. What you believe is tied to how you know it. The naturalist has only one big gun, sense experience. He "sees" the material world. A worldview come with a ethical principle. For naturalism, it is pleasure/ pain (hedonism) even if its dressed up as human flourishing. The real problem with Nat. is man is finite and cant get a view from outside the box. "Man is an insufficient integration point for himself"- JP Sartre. The answer to this problem is Revelation: God, not being confined to the box (or defined AS the box as in PanT) Can give true information in various ways (Scripture, Nature, Christ) I know this sounds like a hoot to an atheist. I know, I was one. But its' mans only answer to the question of man and ultimate things like value, purpose and death. Christian revelation can be tested a points in the historical record. That is unique among world religions. It is , in some sense, empirical. People saw it. The rest is reporting accuracy and that's the job of the apologist.

The God of Einstein and Spinoza is an impersonal pantheistic principle. Clearly option 2. Worldviews are on the basis of three.  Naturalism, pantheism and Theism. But Naturalism and pantheism collapse the world into one impersonal thing, they just call it by different names and neither can account for a beginning.

The aseity of God is His attribute of independent self-existence. God is the uncaused Cause, the uncreated Creator. He is the source of all things, the One who originated everything and who sustains everything that exists. The aseity of God means that He is the One in whom all other things find their source, existence, and continuance. He is the ever-present Power that sustains all life. There is no other source of life and none other like Him: “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me” (Isaiah 46:9).

The aseity of God is expressed in Exodus 3:14. When Moses asked the Lord about His name, God replied, “I AM WHO I AM.” God is the eternally self-existent Being who always was and always will be. The aseity of God is related to His complete independence. God has no need. He is complete in and of Himself and always has been. God did not create man because He was lonely or because He needed to create. He is and always has been complete and self-sufficient in and of Himself.

God’s name I AM embodies the concept of God’s eternality and immutability, both of which are linked to His aseity. God is eternal (Psalm 90:2). He did not have a beginning. He has always been. God is unchangeable (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17), always the same yesterday, today, and forever. He will be what He is forever. All of God’s attributes—His love, power, wisdom, etc.—are eternal and unchanging. They are as they have always been and will never be any different.

God’s aseity assures us that His autonomy is absolute. He alone decides what to do, and nothing can ever thwart His purpose to keep His promises. What He promises to do, He will do. What He predicts will come to pass. When God says, “My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:10), He is emphasizing His aseity and sovereignty.

Jesus Christ, being God in flesh, shares the aseity of God with the Father. Jesus claimed the name I AM for Himself (John 8:58; 18:6). Speaking of Jesus, Paul declares, “In him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16–17). Jesus is not a created being. He came to earth as God in flesh and after His resurrection ascended back into heaven to take His rightful place as Creator of the universe. In the Old Testament, God declared to the Israelites that He is “the First and the Last” (Isaiah 44:6b). Jesus made the same declaration about Himself in Revelation 1:17.

Because of the aseity of God, we can depend upon Him as the independent One who is able to deliver, protect, and keep those who trust in Him. Those whom God has purposed for salvation will come to Christ, and nothing can hinder them: “All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37). If we understand the biblical doctrine of the aseity of God, we will be kept from the error of thinking that God is finite, that He grows weary, or that He will ever be insufficient to meet our needs (see Psalm 23:1).

Multiple gods isn't possible. If God is defined as completely actually with no potential, there cannot be another with the same maximally actual characteristics. Otherwise, there would be no differentiation and thus, no possibility of more than one essence which has the fully actualized characteristics of that which is traditionally known as "God."

Comparing worldviews - there are basically just two

Norman Geisler:
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,  its about reasonable faith, versus unreasonable faith.

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 maximises the robustness of one’s position relative to accepting any other available explanatory hypothesis.
2. It is reasonable to maximise 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.

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

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.

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 560 proteins x 400 amino acids  =  224.000 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 40^224.000 possibilities !! 


Theism:

- Ontological Arguments
- Cosmological Arguments
- Teleological Arguments
- Theological Arguments
- Moral Arguments
- Transcendental Arguments

- 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 special creation, upon his own image
- Theology and philosophy: Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral Creator.

The Christian faith based on the Bible:

- The Bible: The Old Testament is a catalogue 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 occuring 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 live as a Christian.

There are 4 possibilities we are faced with regarding the beginning of the universe:

1. The universe is an illusion and none of this exists
2. The universe is "self-created"
3. The universe is "self-existent/eternal"
4. The universe was created by someone who is "self-existent/eternal"

I am not aware of any other possibilities that wouldn't somehow fit into these four possibilities.
We must reject option 1 because (a) if it is an illusion, then something must be self-created, self-existent, or caused by someone self-existent to be able to have an illusion, and (b) if the illusion is absolute, then nothing actually exists and we cannot be having this conversation to begin with.

We must reject option 2 because self-creation is a rational and logical impossibility. It is formally FALSE. In order for something to create itself, it would have to exist before it was created. It must BE before it IS. So when scientists say the "universe created itself," (i'll even eliminate the "out of nothing" part that's normally given there as well), it is a nonsense statement. It can be believed, but it cannot be argued reasonably.

So what we're left with is either everything in the universe itself is either self-existent or created by something that is self-existent. The concept of a "self-existent" thing is a logical necessity in order to explain why there is ANYTHING in this world. Many look at Christians and accuse them of just saying that "God did it" and that is simply a crutch for ignorance, but the very nature of our universe requires something that at the very least contains this characteristic of "self-existence" or there would be nothing at all.

RC Sproul sums the necessity of a self-existent being up nicely when he says:
"A self-existent being is both logically and ontologically necessary. It is in its purest sense ens necessarium, “necessary being.” We have labored the logical necessity of such being [i.e. something can not be "self-created"]. Yet it is also necessary ontologically. An ontologically necessary being is a being who cannot not be. It is proven by the law of the impossibility of the contrary. A self-existent being, by its very nature, must be eternal. It has no antecedent cause, or else it would not be self-existent. It would be contingent."
So if something exists (which I hope we all can at least agree on), then somewhere, something is somehow self-existent. The only alternative is self-creation, which is self-refuting on the grounds of logic.

The difference between options 3 and 4 are whether or not you ascribe reality as the result of a being or to perhaps some part of the universe that has the same attribute of "self-existence." You are correct that we can't see past the singularity, so perhaps the universe is fluctuating back and forth and has undergone multiple BB, but the problem of a necessary being isn't eliminated. Something must have existed at a higher level of reality to the one we're currently in to account for the existence of anything. Theologians argue that God is at an ontological higher status than the rest of the universe and transcends it by His virtue of "self-existence." Indeed, the very notion of "self-existence" is certainly beyond any characteristic of anything we as humans have observed. Everything we see had a beginning. But God has the essence of BEING as part of His nature. He has always been.

But if you're going to argue that SOMETHING in some PLACE in the universe has the ontological stature to be able to create lesser levels of existent reality (i.e. finite, non-self-existent things like galaxies, planets, and organisms), then you're describing something with the attributes of what those throughout time have called "God" - a rose by any other name.

Bahnsen: Presuppositional apologetics

What is justifiably believed and true? A true proposition asserts a certain state of affairs to be the case when in fact that is the state of affairs. Justification is conferred on certain types of reasons (or warrants) because of the relatively high degree of success they have in engendering true belief. . Because God has clearly revealed Himself to all men by means of nature, man’s own constitution, and Scripture, men do not begin with a mere guess about reality.

All men as creatures of God have the same true metaphysical information and moorings, as well as justification for them (i.e., revelation from God Himself). So their intellectual endeavors do not begin with a “leap,” but rather they begin either in submissive obedience or rebellious disobedience. . That men suppress and mishandle the revelation of God, thereby denying to themselves in one stroke the true metaphysic (beginning with the God of creation) and valid epistemology (resting upon divine revelation), fails to alter the fact that intellectual endeavors do not begin from a blank position of neutrality and make their first move by means of a guess. All men begin with genuine knowledge—true belief about the state of affairs and justification for that belief—and then proceed to use or misuse it. The beginning of philosophy is not a subjectivist guessing game but a matter of ethics.

The word theist comes from the Greek word theos (meaning God), and when you put an 'a' before the word, the 'a' means no. therefore an "atheist" says there is (NO) God. which is an absolute claim. an absolute claim requires absolute knowledge. the best, latest, and modern scientific estimations state that we know less than 1 billionth of 1% of everything that there is to know (IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE). this means that there is no absolute knowledge to back up that absolute claim.. this is what is called scientifically impossible. they are agnostics. a=no gnostic=knowledge. (conclusion) atheism is a belief system, not supported by science, and therefore religion.

In a naturalistic worldview, everything starts with death and ends with death.
In the Christian worldview, life is what grounds everything and is eternal. Christ is the alpha and the omega. The first and the last. Since he is life, it all starts and ends with life.
So we have clear opposites here.
In a naturalistic worldview, life starts from nonlife. Nonlive somehow evolves during long periods of time and becomes alive.
The first life evolves, and becomes more complex over a long period of time, to arrive where we are, with a man as the most complex living being in the universe.
In a Biblical worldview, God created everything from scratch. There is interdependence all over. Cells are interdependent. It is like a great circle. An interplay of matter, energy, and information that has to be instantiated all at once.
And there is a higher ecological order, that is also formed by cycles. Energy cycles. Microorganisms and plants are essential to forming the energy cycles. But the energy cycles are necessary to have life. So life and the energy cycles also had to emerge all at once. They are interdependent.
It is the dispute between the proposition: Time and evolution, and the proposition: God created interdependent systems.
In the Biblical worldview, God is what instantiates and sustains everything. In the naturalistic worldview, nothing grounds everything, and everything here is the product of stochastic non-designed accidents.
Which makes more sense? You decide.

There are those who question God's existence,
Demanding proof, a tangible insistence.
But there are just two worldviews to compare,
One that God exists, the other, nothing is there.

Some say that life emerged by chance,
From atomic building blocks, a haphazard dance.
Mechanical processes without any design,
No guiding force, no intelligence divine.

But others say that an intelligent Creator,
Gave direction to life, a purposeful instigator.
A conscious force with goals and plans,
Creating a world with a divine hand.

The implications of this question are great,
It shapes our lives, our morals, our fate.
And while we may not know with absolute surety,
Abductive reasoning points to the best explanation with clarity.

It's not necessary to demonstrate God's existence,
When abductive reasoning yields the best inference.
We must accept the explanation that's most robust,
And let our worldviews be shaped by rational trust.

Theism vs. (strong) atheism

The question of whether or not an intelligent, powerful, eternal creator exists is one of the oldest and most debated in human history. This division —between theists (who believe in one or more deities) and atheists (who do not believe in any deities)—leads to distinct worldviews that can inform one's perception of the universe, morality, purpose, and more.

Belief in an Intelligent, Powerful, Eternal Creator (Theism)

Meaning and Purpose: Many theists derive meaning and purpose in life from the belief that they are created by a deity for a particular reason. This purpose might be detailed in religious scriptures or might be personally derived through prayer, meditation, or spiritual experiences.
Morality: Theistic beliefs often come with moral codes believed to be ordained by the deity. For many, this can offer a concrete foundation for right and wrong.
Afterlife: Many religious theists hold beliefs about the afterlife, such as heaven, hell, reincarnation, or spiritual realms. This can deeply affect one's actions in the present, based on anticipated future consequences.
Coping with the Unknown: Belief in a deity can offer comfort when faced with the unknown or uncontrollable, as one might trust that there is a larger plan or that divine intervention can occur.

Non-belief in an Intelligent, Powerful, Eternal Creator (Atheism)


Meaning and Purpose: Atheists often believe that individuals create their own purpose in life. For some, this results in a focus on the here and now, emphasizing personal growth, societal progress, or existential exploration.
Morality: Atheists might derive moral codes from secular philosophy, empathy, and societal norms. While some argue this offers a more flexible and evolving moral code, others say it lacks a fixed foundation.
Afterlife: Most atheists do not believe in an afterlife, emphasizing the importance of our current existence. This can lead to a focus on making the most out of the limited time one has and leaving a lasting legacy.
Coping with the Unknown: Atheists might find comfort in science, reasoning, and empirical evidence to navigate uncertainties. Acceptance of the unknown and a focus on things one can control can also be characteristic.

Broader Implications
Worldview: Theists might view the universe as purposefully created and guided, while atheists might see it as a product of natural processes, possibly without inherent meaning.
Cultural and Societal Influences: Religion, driven by theism, has historically played a significant role in shaping cultures, laws, and societal norms. Atheistic views might lead to secularism in governance and society.
Interpersonal Relations: While many people of different beliefs coexist peacefully, differences in fundamental worldviews can lead to misunderstandings or conflicts.
Existential Concerns: Questions about the nature of existence, life's purpose, and the fear of death are processed differently based on these beliefs. For some, belief in a deity offers comfort regarding these existential concerns, while for others, secular philosophies provide guidance.

From the theistic perspective, complexity, order, and the existence of the universe and life point to the necessity of a designer or a prime mover. This is encapsulated in arguments such as the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the argument from morality.

Arguments Suggesting a Creator: Cosmological Argument: This posits that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore, it must have a cause. That cause, according to proponents, is God.
Teleological Argument (Argument from Design): This argument states that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by the existence of a purposeful creator. The fine-tuning of the universe, the way constants in physics seem tailored for life, and the complexity of biological organisms are cited as evidence.
Moral Argument: This suggests that objective moral values exist, and they can only be grounded if there's a higher moral being (God) that provides a foundation.

Atheistic/Scientific Responses: Cosmic Origins: The Big Bang Theory posits that the universe began from an infinitely small, hot, and dense point roughly 13.8 billion years ago. However, what caused the Big Bang or what was "before" it is still a subject of scientific inquiry and debate. Some hypotheses suggest quantum fluctuations or multiverse theories, where our universe is just one among many.
Life's Origins: Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. While the exact mechanisms of how life began on Earth are not fully understood, several hypotheses exist, such as the RNA world hypothesis.
Evolution by Natural Selection: The complexity of life is claimed to be explained by Darwinian evolution, a process where simple organisms evolve into more complex ones over time due to environmental pressures.
Moral Naturalism: Some atheists argue that morality can be grounded in naturalistic explanations, such as evolutionary processes that favor altruistic behavior because it benefits the species. Others argue that morality is a social construct developed to aid in societal cohesion.
Non-Purposeful Complexity: Many scientists point out that complexity does not necessarily mean designed. Snowflakes, sand dunes, and stalactites are examples of complex structures formed by natural processes. 
Philosophical Responses: Infinite Regression: If everything must have a cause, then what caused God? Some theists respond that God is a necessary being and does not require a cause, but this opens a philosophical debate about why the universe itself couldn't be the necessary entity.
Occam's Razor: This philosophical principle suggests that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. If the universe can be explained without invoking God, then God becomes an unnecessary assumption.
Anthropic Principle: This is the idea that we observe the universe in a way that allows for our existence. In other words, if the universe weren't suitable for life, we wouldn't be here to notice it.

Argument from the Impossibility of an Actual Infinite

Ancient and medieval philosophers, including Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, have discussed the concept of infinity and its implications.
Core Idea: The argument holds that an actual infinite cannot exist in reality. While we can conceive of an infinite set mathematically (e.g., the set of all natural numbers), trying to apply this kind of infinity to real-world sequences or events results in paradoxes and contradictions.

The universe had a beginning and, therefore, cannot be eternal in its past. 

Big Bang Cosmology:  The Big Bang Theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe. Here's a basic overview and its implication for the "beginning" of the universe:
Observational Evidence: Observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation, redshift of distant galaxies (indicating an expanding universe), and the abundance of light elements all support the Big Bang model.
Implication for a Beginning: The Big Bang Theory suggests that the universe expanded from a singularity, a point of infinite density and temperature, approximately 13.8 billion years ago. If we extrapolate backwards, it seems the universe converges to this beginning point.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in any energy transfer or transformation, the total entropy (or disorder) of a closed system will increase over time, tending towards a maximum value.
Implication for an Eternal Universe: If the universe were eternal and had existed forever, then it should have reached a state of maximum entropy by now, often referred to as "heat death." But we observe that the universe has not reached this state, suggesting it has not existed forever and must have had a beginning.

Implication for an Eternal Universe: If the past were infinite, then we would have "completed" an infinite sequence of events to arrive at the present moment, which is seen as a logical impossibility. Hence, the universe must have a beginning.

Argument from Temporal Progression: If the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time, then any conceivable event or milestone would have already happened.
Implication: It becomes difficult, if not impossible, to explain the progression of events and the apparent "newness" of phenomena if the universe has been around forever. The sequence of causes and effects would be blurred in an eternal past.

Kalam Cosmological Argument: This argument has roots in medieval Islamic philosophy and has been more recently popularized by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.
Core Idea: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist (as we've also established from cosmological evidence), therefore, the universe has a cause. This argument is presented to suggest a "first cause" or "uncaused cause" that brought the universe into existence. The universe cannot be infinite in the past and must have had a beginning.

Philosophical and Theological Implications

These scientific observations have prompted significant discussions among philosophers, theologians, and scientists:

Cause and Effect: If the universe had a beginning, it leads to the philosophical argument about causality: What caused the universe to begin? This line of thought can lead to the Cosmological Argument for the existence of a "first cause" or "prime mover," often identified with God.
Limitations of Current Understanding: Some physicists and cosmologists caution against drawing absolute conclusions about the "beginning" of the universe. Our understanding of the singularity, for instance, is limited. The laws of physics as we know them break down at that point, indicating that our current theories are incomplete.
Alternatives and Further Speculations: Some models in cosmology suggest scenarios like a cyclic universe (which expands and then contracts in a never-ending cycle), or the multiverse hypothesis, where our universe is just one bubble among many in a vast cosmic foam. While these models are speculative and not conclusively supported by empirical evidence, they challenge the notion of a single, definitive beginning.
Metaphysical Questions: Even if one accepts that the universe had a beginning, there's a philosophical debate about what this implies. Does it necessarily point to a divine creator? Could there be naturalistic explanations we haven't yet discovered? These questions are as much metaphysical as they are empirical.

In the beginning, there was God, Eternally living, He created life, But sin entered the world and marred The perfection of His design, causing strife.
Humanity was doomed to eternal death, But God in His mercy, had a plan, He sent His Son to take our place, And die on the cross, to save sinful man.
He redeemed us, making us just, Forgiving us of our every wrong, And giving us eternal life, we can trust, To be with Him in heaven, forever long.
So the Christian faith is about life, Starting with God, the giver of all, And ending with the promise of eternal life, For those who answer His redeeming call.
But if atheism is true, then all we see, Is a cold and lifeless universe, Where everything returns to eternal death, And existence is just a fleeting curse.
So let us hold on to the hope we have, In the life-giving God above, And reject the cult of death, that is naturalism, Embracing the love and life of the One we love.

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.

Claim: 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 that 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 " 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 waste its time trying to study what came before the Big Bang and the creation of the universe (based on the first law of 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, and 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 us 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 it is their intelligence that leads them 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 evidence). 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.

Claim: 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 is often inclined towards loving sin over God, thus revealing Himself overtly would likely destroy that world.

Claim: 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.