ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my library, where I collect information and present arguments developed by myself that lead, in my view, to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation for the origin of the physical world.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Worldviews: There are basically just two in regards of origins

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Otangelo


Admin

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. 

Worldviews: There are basically just two  in regards of origins Sem_tz17

Worldviews: There are basically just two  in regards of origins Cascad14

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



Last edited by Otangelo on Wed 2 Aug 2023 - 18:58; edited 68 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

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.



Last edited by Admin on Sun 3 Feb 2019 - 23:23; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

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."

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

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.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

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.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

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.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

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.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Many modern scientists are explicitly not materialists. I am not just speaking about the many Christian scientists and Nobel laureates, but, for example, cosmologist Max Tegmark (2008, 2014), who suggests that all that exists is mathematics and that matter does not even exist, or Nobel laureate Roger Penrose (Murphy 2020), who is one of the many Platonists who think that there is a separate realm of math and forms additional to the material universe, or eminent quantum physicists like Anton Zeilinger (NZZ 2008) who reject materialism and endorse some version of idealism instead. Actually, the growing consensus in modern physics (endorsed by world class physicists like Sean Carroll, Brian Greene, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Leonard Susskind, Max Tegmark, and Erik Verlinde) — that spacetime (and thus also matter and energy) is not fundamental but emergent from an immaterial and atemporal realm of entangled quantum information — has thoroughly debunked materialism as an obsolete 19th-century paradigm. New results from modern experimental physics inspire headlines like “Quantum physics says goodbye to reality” (Physics World 2007), “Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, quantum experiment confirms” (MacDonald 2015), and “A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality” (MIT 2019). Many more findings that refute naïve materialism — such as the experimental violations of the inequalities of Bell, Leggett, and Leggett & Garg, as well as the experimental confirmation of the Kochen-Specker theorem — are cited in my article on quantum idealism, for those who are interested and can read German (Raatz & Bechly 2019). Even if some may still disagree with certain interpretations of these results, they at least prove that modern science by no means entails materialism. Quite the contrary! 
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/yawn-atheist-youtuber-professor-dave-rants-about-intelligent-design/?fbclid=IwAR2tfrhIzMRb_wtp-VD_dFUjdaDajFtyoCWnCgFfi_kD8bVZY36Qys2uBgI

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

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.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

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.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

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.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

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.

Worldviews: There are basically just two  in regards of origins 339509228_543361157695754_7153920094803535322_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=c42490&_nc_eui2=AeE7UXHA0-OiLZL7sh9gHbmy8Gp2ggJEhEfwanaCAkSERzkwYCrbnJ68BWssge4VzFKRc0mY7Cp6aXEy3ObZykbb&_nc_ohc=7BuwGJSkzuoAX9KYbYW&_nc_ht=scontent.faju2-1

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

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

Worldviews: There are basically just two  in regards of origins Asfaas10

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.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond Empiricism in Understanding Origins and Reality

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

Bayesian Probability and Science

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Atheists repeatedly claim that a solid view or position, to be acceptable and valid, must be capable in principle of being empirically verified. The inadequacy of this epistemological approach led to the complete collapse of philosophers of science during the second half of the twentieth century, helping to spark a revival of interest in Metaphysics. Today’s Flew’s sort of challenge, which loomed so large in mid-century discussions, is scarcely a blip on the philosophical radar screen. Asking for 100 percent,  to truly know what occurred in the past is unrealistic. We believe lots of things with confidence even though we do not have absolute certainty. It is up to logic and the factors of different lines of evidence to determine what causes best to explain our origins.  Every worldview, without exception, is a faith-based belief system, consisting of a set of statements the holder adopts as being true. Starting from this view, we can dispense with the foolish notion of "proof," as some are so quick to require. Instead of "proof" in the absolute sense, we proceed with examining the available evidence, which should point with confidence to the worldview that best accounts for that evidence.

Science provides us with evidence. Based on it, we can make post-dictions regarding the past.  Historical sciences cannot go back with a time machine and observe what happened back in the past. As such, abiogenesis, and macroevolution ( primary speciation ) cannot be demonstrated in as much as ID/creationism. This is not a dispute between religion and science, but good interpretations of the scientific evidence, and inadequate interpretations, which do eventually not fit well the data.

P. W. Bridgman; (1882-1961)… we can never have perfectly clean-cut knowledge of anything. It is a general consequence of the approximate character of all measurements that no empirical science can ever make exact statements. 3

Bayesian inference utilizes Bayes' theorem to refine the likelihood of a hypothesis with the addition of new evidence or information. This approach is a cornerstone of statistical analysis, particularly in the realm of mathematical statistics, playing a crucial role in the ongoing analysis of data sets. Its applications span various fields such as science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sports, and law, extending even to historical sciences like intelligent design theory, which seeks to determine the most probable explanations for past events. This method bears similarities to abductive reasoning, a logical process that starts with an observation and seeks the simplest and most plausible theory to explain it. Unlike deductive reasoning, where conclusions are definitively drawn from premises, abductive reasoning involves forming the most logical inference without ensuring certainty, often described as making an "educated guess" towards the most sensible explanation.

A common epistemological challenge faced by atheists is understanding how to establish a proper methodology for uncovering truths about origins and reality. There's a tendency to believe that ongoing scientific inquiry will eventually uncover absolute truths about historical events. However, science inherently deals with varying degrees of likelihood rather than certainties. It's misguided to demand that theists provide definitive proof of a deity's existence, as science itself does not deal in absolutes but evaluates competing theories based on their simplicity, coherence, scope, and alignment with empirical data. Science is about observing the universe, gathering evidence, and making educated guesses about past, present, and future phenomena, acknowledging that current scientific understanding is often limited and subject to change. The esteemed evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson once highlighted this aspect in the renowned textbook, "Life: An Introduction to Biology," by emphasizing that science operates within the realms of "acceptance," "confidence," and "probability," rather than providing incontrovertible proof, as the pursuit of unalterable truth is not within the scope of natural sciences.

In recent years, Bayesian methods have significantly transformed how theories are tested in the physical sciences. Bayesian inference employs Bayes' theorem to refine the likelihood of a hypothesis with the incorporation of new data or evidence. This approach is a key tool in statistics and mathematical statistics, playing a crucial role in the sequential analysis of data sets. The versatility of Bayesian inference extends across numerous fields such as science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sports, law, and even historical sciences like intelligent design theory, which seeks to ascertain the most plausible explanations for past events. This process bears resemblance to abductive reasoning, which involves forming a hypothesis to best explain observed phenomena. Unlike deductive reasoning, where conclusions are definitively drawn from premises, abductive reasoning involves making the most logical inference without ensuring certainty, often described as making an "educated guess" towards the most reasonable explanation.

The notion that the design hypothesis is definitively incorrect is beyond the realm of absolute certainty. Given the limitations of our absolute knowledge, it is reasonable to entertain the possibility, however slight, that the design hypothesis might hold some truth. Acknowledging this possibility is a crucial step for anyone committed to intellectual honesty. This acknowledgment shifts the debate from whether Intelligent Design (ID) qualifies as science to whether it is fair to exclude a potentially valid hypothesis from the quest for understanding the natural world. Since we cannot directly witness the distant past, the study of origins essentially involves piecing together historical narratives based on the most convincing explanations supported by available evidence. Prematurely excluding certain explanations based on materialism compromises the abductive approach, which seeks the best inference from observational data. Methodological naturalism, which demands adherence to natural explanations within scientific inquiry, serves as a safeguard against the pitfalls of attributing phenomena to supernatural causes. This stance helps avoid unproductive research avenues and "God of the gaps" arguments by focusing on causes that are observable, measurable, and analyzable within the natural world. It's important to differentiate between the methodologies of historical and scientific investigations. Historical hypotheses, unlike scientific ones, are not derived from deductive reasoning or experimental verification but are supported by probabilistic evidence and reasoned inferences. This distinction underscores the inherent differences between the disciplines of science and history, emphasizing that they should not be conflated.

The core challenge with Darwinian theory lies in its nature as a comprehensive historical proposition. It attempts to trace the lineage of all life forms back to their origins by interpreting present-day organisms and fossil records, making it difficult to conduct direct empirical tests on concepts like common ancestry and macroevolution. The crux of the debate centers on whether natural evolutionary processes or an intelligent cause better explains the complexity and diversity of life as we observe it today. This involves extensive interpretation and extrapolation from existing data, raising questions about the proximity of these theories to the hard evidence. The most robust scientific theories are those that remain closely aligned with empirical data, offering explanations that require minimal speculation. As more data accumulates, it becomes possible for the scientific method to evaluate the validity of naturalistic accounts for the origins of life and biodiversity. However, there's a growing consensus that Darwinian explanations are increasingly insufficient, struggling to account for a burgeoning body of data. The argument that Darwinism prevails by default, excluding supernatural explanations such as divine creation, is flawed. Historical sciences, including those outside biology like cosmology, forensics, and archaeology, also rely on extrapolating from existing evidence and are inherently non-repeatable. This is a fundamental limitation of historical scientific inquiry, contrasting with fields like chemistry, where experiments are replicable and theories can be directly tested against data. Thus, the validity of historical theories, including Darwinism, must be assessed with an understanding of their inherent distance from empirical evidence and the unique challenges they face.

An additional complexity arises from the observation that the same physical universe we study also bears traces of what some interpret as supernatural influences. This challenges the notion that the natural world operates entirely separate from any form of supernatural involvement. For instance, many Christians point to specific content within the Bible that seems to transcend naturalistic explanations, such as precociously accurate scientific or medical knowledge, prophetic insights that have been verified, and historical details corroborated by archaeological findings. Moreover, the life of Jesus Christ, a central figure in Christianity, intersects directly with the realm of observable history and the natural world, further complicating the divide between natural and supernatural. His life, teachings, and reported miracles are documented within the context of known historical timelines and locations, supported by eyewitness accounts. While science traditionally adheres to a framework of philosophical and methodological naturalism, dismissing supernatural accounts, this stance does not negate the existence of historical records that suggest supernatural occurrences. To use an analogy, if we consider the universe as a canvas, the suggestion is that divine interventions have left behind distinct 'fingerprints' that coexist with the physical and informational aspects we typically classify as 'natural.' The crux of scientific inquiry is not the linguistic labels we assign but the tangible data itself, which demands consideration regardless of its conventional categorization.

Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

R. C. Lewontin (1997): Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, despite its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, despite the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. 5

Lewontin who is a well-known geneticist and an evolutionist from Harvard University claims that he is first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist. He confesses; “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”(Lewontin 1997)

Leonard Susskind (2006):  Nevertheless, the general attitude of theoretical physicists to Weinberg’s work was to ignore it. Traditional theoretical physicists wanted no part of the Anthropic Principle. Part of this negative attitude stemmed from lack of any agreement about what the principle meant. To some, it smacked of creationism and the need for a supernatural agent to fine-tune the laws of nature for man’s benefit: a threatening, antiscientific idea. But even more, theorists’ discomfort with the idea had to do with their hopes for a unique consistent system of physical laws in which every constant of nature, including the cosmological constant, was predictable from some elegant mathematical principle. 6

Todd, S.C. (1999): ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’ Materialism regards itself as scientific and indeed is often called “scientific materialism,” even by its opponents, but it has no legitimate claim to be part of science. It is, rather, a school of philosophy, one defined by the belief that nothing exists except matter, or, as Democritus put it, “atoms and the void.” 7

Commentary: The quotes highlight a significant philosophical debate within the scientific community regarding the role of materialism and naturalism in shaping scientific inquiry and interpretation. Lewontin explicitly acknowledges a commitment to materialism that precedes and frames scientific methodology, suggesting that this commitment influences the development of scientific apparatus and concepts, potentially at the expense of alternative explanations that might include the supernatural. This perspective underlines a deliberate exclusion of non-materialistic explanations to maintain the integrity of a purely materialistic science. Susskind's reflection on the reception of Weinberg's work and the Anthropic Principle among theoretical physicists points to a tension between the desire for a unified, elegant system of physical laws and the implications of principles that might suggest a fine-tuning of the universe, which could be interpreted as hinting at a supernatural or intelligent design. This discomfort highlights the challenges faced by theories that even remotely suggest non-naturalistic explanations. Todd criticizes the conflation of materialism with science, arguing that materialism is a philosophical stance rather than an empirical one and that its dominance in scientific discourse unjustly excludes hypotheses that might involve intelligent design or other non-materialistic components. This critique points to a broader debate about the scope of scientific inquiry and whether it should be open to all empirical evidence, regardless of its implications for materialism. Collectively, these comments underscore a fundamental philosophical dilemma within science: whether to adhere strictly to a materialistic framework or to allow for the possibility of supernatural or non-materialistic explanations in the face of certain empirical data. This debate touches on the very nature of scientific inquiry, the limits of scientific explanation, and the role of personal and collective beliefs in shaping scientific paradigms.

The secularization of modern culture

The secularization of modern culture is a complex phenomenon with deep roots. It can be traced back to a gradual shift in worldview, where the once predominant Christian foundation was gradually replaced by a secular, humanistic perspective that exalts autonomous human reason over divine revelation. 

One of the primary driving forces behind this cultural transformation has been the widespread acceptance of evolutionary naturalism and the belief in billions of years of Earth's history. This started with Thomas Huxley and the X Club, which actively, in the period of about 20 years, brought philosophical naturalism into academia and science, practically removing a creator as a legitimate scientific explanation for natural phenomena in the world, and consequently, the biblical narrative.  Thomas Huxley, a close friend and ardent defender of Charles Darwin, played a pivotal role in promoting and disseminating the ideas of evolutionary theory and naturalism. Along with a group of like-minded scientists and intellectuals known as the X Club, Huxley actively campaigned to establish naturalism as the dominant worldview within the scientific community and academia.

The X Club's efforts were strategic and sustained over approximately two decades following the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. Through their collective influence and relentless advocacy, they succeeded in marginalizing the concept of a creator as a viable scientific explanation for the natural world, effectively removing it from serious consideration within the scientific discourse. By embracing philosophical naturalism, which asserts that only natural causes and laws can account for natural phenomena, the X Club effectively excluded the possibility of divine intervention or intelligent design as explanations for the observed complexity and diversity of life on Earth. This naturalistic worldview was then systematically woven into the fabric of scientific education, research, and discourse, effectively supplanting the biblical narrative as a legitimate framework for understanding the origins and development of the natural world. The widespread acceptance of evolutionary theory and the belief in billions of years of Earth's history, promoted by Huxley and the X Club, provided a foundation for rejecting the biblical account of creation as literal historical truth. This shift in perspective had far-reaching implications, eroding the authority of Scripture and paving the way for a more secular worldview that relied solely on human reason and empirical observation to make sense of the world.

As generations of scientists, educators, and students were indoctrinated into this naturalistic paradigm, it became deeply entrenched in the collective consciousness, shaping not only scientific endeavors but also permeating various aspects of culture, education, and societal norms. The once predominant Christian foundation, which had previously permeated Western culture, was gradually supplanted by a secular, humanistic perspective that exalted autonomous human reason over divine revelation. As generations were indoctrinated with these ideas, it sowed seeds of doubt and disbelief in the reliability and authority of the Bible, particularly its historical accounts in the early chapters of Genesis.

As people began to reject the Bible's historicity, they inadvertently built a secular worldview based on moral relativism. This shift in worldview permeated various spheres of society, including education, government, legal systems, and media. Individuals holding these secular humanist views increasingly occupied influential positions, shaping laws, curricula, moral choices, and societal norms. The solution to this cultural shift lies not primarily in government or legislative action but in the transformative power of God's Word and the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. As individuals repent, are converted to Christ, and consistently build their thinking on the foundation of Scripture, they can become agents of change, impacting their spheres of influence as "salt and light" (Matthew 5:13-14).

The way back is to uphold the authority of God's Word by providing answers to skeptical questions that cause people to doubt the Bible's historicity. In particular, it focuses on defending the historical accounts in the early chapters of Genesis, which are often the most attacked and misunderstood parts of the Bible. By helping people understand that they can trust the history recorded in Genesis, this book aims to remove barriers that hinder a proper understanding and acceptance of the gospel message, which is rooted in that same historical narrative. Ultimately, the goal is not merely to change the culture but to see lives transformed by the power of the gospel, one person at a time. As these transformed individuals take their Christian worldview into various spheres of society, they can become catalysts for cultural renewal, impacting the world for the glory of Christ.

Worldviews: There are basically just two  in regards of origins Sem_t215
The X Club was a distinguished dining club of nine influential men who championed the theories of natural selection and academic liberalism in late 19th-century England (1870s & 1880s). Back then these prominent scientists and intellectuals wielded considerable influence over scientific thought. The "esteemed" members of the X Club:

1. Thomas Henry Huxley: The initiator of the X Club, Huxley was a prominent biologist and a fervent supporter of Charles Darwin’s theories. His dedication to science and intellectual freedom was the driving force behind the club’s formation.
2. Joseph Dalton Hooker: Revered as one of the most respected botanists of his time, Hooker was a close friend of Charles Darwin. His contributions to plant taxonomy and exploration were significant.
3. John Tyndall: A physicist and mountaineer, Tyndall made groundbreaking discoveries in the field of heat radiation and atmospheric science. His work on the absorption of infrared radiation by gases was pivotal.
4. Herbert Spencer: A philosopher and sociologist, Spencer is known for coining the phrase “survival of the fittest.” His ideas influenced both scientific and social thought during the Victorian era.
5. Francis Galton: A polymath, Galton made significant contributions to fields such as statistics, psychology, and genetics. He coined the term “eugenics” and pioneered the study of heredity.
6. Edward Frankland: A chemist, Frankland’s work focused on organic chemistry and valence theory. He was a key figure in advancing chemical knowledge during the 19th century.
7. George Busk: An anatomist and paleontologist, Busk contributed to our understanding of fossil mammals and marine life. His expertise extended to comparative anatomy.
8. William Spottiswoode: A mathematician and physicist, Spottiswoode served as the club’s treasurer. His contributions to mathematics and scientific publishing were noteworthy.
9. Thomas Archer Hirst: A mathematician and physicist, Hirst’s work spanned areas such as elasticity theory and mathematical physics. His insights enriched scientific discourse.

Historical sciences, and methodological naturalism

Andreas Sommer (2018):  About 150 years ago Thomas Huxley and members of a group called the “X Club” effectively hijacked science into a vehicle to promote materialism (the philosophy that everything we see is purely the result of natural processes apart from the action of any kind of god and hence, science can only allow natural explanations). Huxley was a personal friend of Charles Darwin, who was more introverted and aggressively fought the battle for him. Wikipedia has an interesting article worth reading titled, “X Club.” It reveals a lot about the attitudes, beliefs, and goals of this group. Huxley said that it was a waste of time to dialogue with creationists. The discussions always went nowhere. His approach was to attack the person, not the argument. He never discussed their evidence in an open manner. Establishing public understanding that science and God were incompatible was his major goal. To discuss anything in an open venue with those looking at science from a religious perspective would only give them credibility. Huxley and the X-club members had exclusive control of the British Royal Society presidency for thirteen consecutive years, from 1873 to 1885. Their goal was to convert society into a vehicle to promote materialism. They succeeded in this even to this day. As such, they were actually pseudo-scientists, placing personal philosophical preferences above honest scientific analysis.

Modern evolutionary science has come to follow this example. If something challenges materialism, it is rejected as false science regardless of its strength. As a “sales tactic,” this approach has been effective. Materialists discuss all of the well-known advances and understandings from legitimate science and then claim that they also apply to the results of evolutionary dogma. To challenge evolutionary dogma in any manner is to go against the understanding of the vast majority of scientists across many fields of study. Therefore, evolutionary science is understood to be fact and it is false science even to acknowledge that challengers have anything legitimate to say. Hence, my article is outright rejected, even though it does not mention God, because it clearly indicates that materialism is inadequate. This challenges the true heart of this philosophy that has hijacked science for the past 150 years and continues to this day. By contrast to the above approach, one proper subject matter of investigation is to determine the scope of a task to be accomplished. Another is to determine the scope of the natural processes available for the task. However, because of the materialistic bias of modern science, it is forbidden on the one hand to talk simultaneously about the biochemical and genomic information requirements to implement a natural origin of life and on the other hand the scientifically observed capabilities of natural processes to meet these needs. The chasm is virtually infinite. This is obvious to anyone who looks at it without bias. But, since the goal is to support materialism at any cost, this discussion is forbidden. If the article Dr. Matzko and I authored were to be published in a standard journal, it would open the door for discussion of all of the weaknesses of evolutionary theory. This possibility terrifies materialists because they know the scope of the unexplained difficulties they are facing and that they do not want to be known publicly.

Incidentally, I have written a collection of five articles discussing these issues.  Article 4 is an 18-page discussion of how Huxley and the X Club turned evolutionary science into a vehicle to promote materialism at the expense of honest scientific investigation. I believe that almost everyone reading this article will be shocked at the deception materialists use by design in their tactics. To them, this is warfare. The easiest way to win a war is for your enemy to be ignorant of your tactics and agenda. So, they disguise their agenda of materialism to make people equate it with science. They have been successful in this. It challenges anyone who disagrees with anything presented in the Five Articles to explain their basis. In general, I expect very few legitimate challenges. So far, there have been none. 150 years ago Huxley established a policy of refusing to discuss science with creationists in a venue not under his control (i.e., he could attack but they weren’t allowed to respond). Huxley would then viciously attack the creationists personally to get attention off of their comments. Materialists today still follow Huxley’s approach. Notice the difference: I welcome open discussion. The major science journals run from it. 4

Operational science asks a fundamentally different question: How do things work/operate in the natural world? Historical science asks: How did things come to be/emerge/develop in the past? These are distinct and different questions. In "classical" experimental science, experiments serve multiple purposes beyond merely testing hypotheses, although a significant chunk of experimental activity focuses on hypothesis testing in controlled lab environments.  In contrast, historical science involves examining the remnants or effects of events that occurred in the distant past. Researchers develop hypotheses to make sense of these remnants by suggesting a common cause or origin for them. This approach in historical science is distinct from that of classical experimental science because it deals with specific instances of events rather than patterns or regularities among types of events. As a result, historical explanations often resemble narratives that, due to their lack of connection to broad generalizations, appear to be inherently unverifiable.

Claim: The fabled scientific consensus does not regard the term "Operational science" or the creationist understanding of "Historical science" as valid scientific terminology, and these heresies primarily appear in arguments presented by creationists about whether ideas such as the Big Bang, geologic timeline, abiogenesis, evolution and nebular hypothesis Wikipedia are scientific.
Reply: Methodological naturalism underpins the practice of operational science, guiding empirical investigations to understand and explain the functioning of natural phenomena. In contrast, historical science focuses on uncovering the sequence of past events, relying on historical records rather than experimental methods. While it's reasonable for operational science to adhere strictly to naturalistic explanations, given the consistent natural operation of phenomena without supernatural interference, this constraint doesn't necessarily apply to the study of origins. The origins of the universe and life within it could be attributed to either random natural processes or intelligent design. This dichotomy presents two possibilities: the universe and everything in it could have originated from fortuitous, self-organizing events without any guiding force, purely through natural processes, or it could have been the result of deliberate creation by an intelligent entity. Dismissing either possibility from the outset can lead to flawed conclusions and poor scientific practice. For instance, when encountering a bicycle for the first time, questions about its operation and purpose yield different insights than inquiries into its creation and assembly. Given that intelligent causation is a recognized phenomenon, it's entirely valid for science to consider it as a potential explanatory factor. This is especially pertinent in cases like the cellular machinery responsible for translating DNA, where intelligent agency stands as a compelling explanation for the complex information processing observed.


Bibliography

1. Miracles: a preliminary study by Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples), 1898-1963 Link
2. Religious Epistemology William Lane Craig Link
3. The Logic of Modern Physics; 1927/1951; p33, 34 Link
4. Andreas Sommer July 19, 2018:  Materialism vs. Supernaturalism? “Scientific Naturalism” in Context Link
5. Cited by Neil Thomas, "Taking Leave of Darwin", p97. Link
6. Leonard Susskind (2006): The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design 2006, page 176 Link
7. Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999. Link

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Worldviews: There are basically just two  in regards of origins Prof_u10

Professor Ulrich Becker** (High energy particle physics, MIT): "How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any answer ever given."

The question posed by Professor Ulrich Becker touches on one of the most profound and enduring mysteries in both science and philosophy: the origins of existence itself. This inquiry touches on the very fabric of reality, questioning how consciousness, life, and the universe came into existence. It's a question that has echoed through the ages, from ancient philosophical debates to cutting-edge discussions today.  Beckers's statement underscores a fundamental intuition that the complexity, order, and beauty observed in the natural world and in the conscious experience itself point beyond mere chance or unguided processes.  High-energy particle physics, the field in which Becker specialized, reveals layers of order and symmetry that point to a mind with intentions, rather than the random interplay of particles and forces. This viewpoint leans on the principle of causality, a cornerstone of both science and rational thought, which posits that every effect must have an adequate cause. The existence of the universe, with its finely tuned laws and parameters allowing for life, leads to the conclusion that there must be a first cause, an uncaused cause, that is outside the physical realm of space and time. This cause is most plausibly an intelligent, purposeful agent—what many would call God. Moreover, the existence of consciousness and subjective experience presents a profound puzzle, referred to as the "hard problem" of consciousness. How can physical processes alone give rise to subjective experience, to the richness of thought, emotion, and awareness? The most satisfactory explanation is that consciousness reflects something fundamental about the nature of reality itself, pointing to a reality infused with mind or purpose from its inception. This line of reasoning finds a home in various cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of a creator. These arguments infer that the universe, in its law-bound and purpose-driven aspects, more likely than not, is the product of a deliberate creative act. The fine-tuning of the universe for life, the emergence of life from non-life, and the rise of consciousness are not as happy accidents but clues to a deeper reality underpinned by a mind of unfathomable scope and intentionality. Becker's reflection on the necessity of a creator encapsulates a broader contemplation shared by many who see in the complexity of the universe and the mystery of consciousness indications of purposeful design. This perspective invites a continuous and open-minded exploration of the natural world, not as a mere artifact of chance but as a creation imbued with meaning and intention.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum