....
It is commonsense that science is not the only means by which we can discover truth. What evidence do I have to back up this statement? It’s simple; the idea that science is the only source of truth is an unscientific truth claim itself. No scientific method tested this assumption and therefore it must be false - according to itself! My point here is this, truth can be arrived at via philosophy (an example is the use of logic) as well as science (which itself requires philosophical assumptions in order to discover truth). Science can only discover truth if:
1. We assume that truth is knowable (incidentally, assuming the opposite is self-contradictory).
2. We assume various philosophical precepts such as (the Law of Causality, Logic etc)
• This is a mixing of different definitions of ‘truth,’ which is actually a pretty useless word. Science uses observation, deduction, analysis. There is no such thing as philosophical ‘truth’ – only values and beliefs strongly held.
Philosophical Evidence for God
Moral
Every single human society has operated on the notions of good and bad, right and wrong. While these various societies have not always believed exactly the same thing, what is important is that each did believe in some idea of moral duty. Where is the natural, atheistic explanation for this? Why ought I to behave in one way as opposed to another? Why is a beneficial thing preferable to a detrimental one? Why should I do the right thing and not the wrong thing? Why is there any distinction drawn between good and bad things? Where does the concept of value or worth come from if there isn’t really any objective meaning for anything?
I have read a number of books detailing the copy book atheistic answer to these questions so I am fully aware of the common response to my questions. What do you think are the reasons for, and perimeters constructing, the ideas of good and bad? Allow me to hazard a couple of guesses at what may be ticking through your head right now (if I am wrong correct me).
1. Good is ....
There is no rational basis for morality in atheism. If we weren't the product of a personal, moral God why would we have any concept of good or bad. The logical end of atheism is Nihilism – a belief in the total absence of meaning, value, and worth in everything. However, I wonder if you have ever tried to think nihilistically? It doesn’t work. To ‘convert’ to nihilism one must have decided that nihilism is correct and therefore ‘better’ or ‘preferential’ to non-nihilism. That itself is a value based judgment. Furthermore, the only place to go from nihilism is insanity.
• There are so many absurdities in this argument it is hard to know where to begin. Are you looking for an explanation for altruistic behavior? Just the fact that we have a developed brain, cognition, and capability of abstraction makes it possible for humans to do things which are arbitrary, maladaptive, or purposeless.
The words ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are the primary problem with this whole argument. And the whole premise is flawed: “Every single human society has operated on the notions of good and bad, right and wrong.” Not really.
Many would argue that there is no rational basis for morality in a theistic viewpoint, either.
Ontological
This ontological argument for the existence of God goes like this.
1. Various things exist independently or in spite of what we see in the universe.
2. Therefore there must be another place where they are fulfilled and/or exist.
An example of this would be the concept of justice. I’m sure you would agree that the world has a lot of injustice, right? The problem for the atheist arises when one considers that there is no natural explanation for the human idea of (and obsession with) justice. If we have never seen true justice how do we know what it is? How do we know that the universe is unjust if we have no example of justice to judge it by? There must be some source for our objective standard of justice. The theist will say that God, who himself is eternally just, puts this conception into people – it is therefore a priori. Atheists have a very hard time counteracting this argument. Another form of the argument is called the Argument from Perfection. This argument states that in order for us to call things imperfect (a common example would be the universe – wasn’t that the main thrust of your ‘Trinity of Religious Contradiction’ thread?) we must have an idea of what perfect is. How can we call something less than perfect if we don’t know what perfect is? And if we do know what perfection is how exactly did we find out about it? We have never seen it but we daily make judgments that necessitate an understanding of it.
• Just as with ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘just’ and ‘perfect’ are not only subjective human concepts, but don’t exist in an absolute state. If you use ‘better’ or ‘worse’ you are being more accurate, and the whole argument falls apart. Anybody can see that something is better or worse from their perspective.
The tendency of theists to use absolute terms is a big part of the problem with these arguments, not to mention being the source of much misery in the world.
...
What do you think the reason is for your conception of such abstract concepts as justice, perfection, beauty, infinity and eternity (more on this below)?
• Your upbringing, education inculcate such concepts, and (again) your ability to think abstractly and therefore develop your own set of values and beliefs can lead you to modify them. They are learned, considered, and adapted to circumstances.
Such abstract concepts are not shared across any given society, much less between societies. We have values and beliefs in common, but there is certainly no agreement on the nature of the concepts you’ve listed.
Scientific Evidence for God
Cosmological
The Cosmological argument argues that the universe must be the creation of a supernatural creator. I will briefly introduce a few laws and concepts that require the beginning of the universe before I venture into the science.
1. The Principle of Causality. The POC states that every effect must have a cause.
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The SLT states that ‘In a closed, isolated system, the amount of useable energy is decreasing’.
3. The impossibility of an infinite series of events.
If nothing created the universe then the universe must have always existed (in one form or another anyway). If the universe is not the effect of something then it will have no cause, right? If the universe has no cause then it must be eternal, right? But, if the universe started at some point something must have started it, right? As they say, ‘out of nothing, nothing comes’. So, effectively, to disbelieve in God one must believe that there is a natural explanation for nature. One must believe that - at least in some form or another - the universe is eternal.
• So, what caused God? Oh, wait: I’m guessing you’ll tell me God is eternal.
.... . If you don’t believe me check it out. The Big Bang is now a well-established scientific fact. What is also a well-attested fact is the impossibility of any type of cyclic universe model. The idea of a Big Bang/Big Crunch is rampant with flaws (see Alan Gluth’s 1983 Nature article "The Impossibility of a bouncing universe"). In recent years the entire idea of a contracting-then-expanding universe has become even less feasible given the discovery of the Energy Density Effect. It appears that the universe has had one shot at vitality before it dies a heat death (a heat death is the state of something with very high entropy). What is the chance that the universe exploded out of ‘nothingness’ through a natural process? I can tell you it is very slim. As everything natural found its beginning in the Big Bang how can there be anything other than a supernatural explanation for the Big Bang? Perhaps you think that this is a big conclusion to jump to? Perhaps you cannot see the reason for a supernatural explanation?
• A big difference between theists and others is that scientists have no trouble accepting that they don’t know something. The Big Bang is not “a well-established scientific fact.” Various theories are debated, and none can be observed. Scientists will speak of their beliefs in terms of probability. So while they have almost 100% certainty about gravity, it is lower for any theory about origin of the universe for rather obvious reasons.
Robert Jastrow, Astronomer and former head of the NASA Goddard Space Flight institute, said "Astronomers have now painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover….. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
Eddington stated, "The beginning seems to present in superable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."
Teleological
All right, so an objective analysis of the facts indicates that the universe is not eternal and is caused by something supernatural.
• Nope. Misuse of the term ‘supernatural’.
What is this supernatural thing though? What or who started the universe? Was it some supernatural law, some principle, something or someone? This is a major question. A rational person understands that there is no use claiming that a God exists because the universe was started by something supernatural. That type of belief requires further evidence before it becomes valid. This evidence can come from the teleological argument.
The Teleological argument is the argument from a design to a designer. It seeks to show that some things are too complicated to be produced by chance and as such must be the intended products of a creator.
The logic of the teleological argument runs like this:
1. Every Design has a designer.
2. The universe has a highly complicated design.
3. Therefore, the universe had a designer.
• Nope. Misuse of the terms ‘design’ and ‘designer’. The premise is flawed. The fact that something is happening doesn’t mean it has a design. Chemical reactions occur automatically without a designer, which happens to be an important principle as we look at the beginnings of life on earth.
It makes sense to start at the beginning so let’s start with an overview of what scientists call the Anthropic Principle.
The Anthropic Principle is what scientists have named the apparent trend in nature to support the onset of life. It has recently been discovered that there are over 120 ‘constants’ that each contributes to the existence of human beings. Each constant is highly specific as well as highly unlikely. What does this mean? It means that while every combination of numbers is equally as unlikely, all the constants display numbers and ratios that are all highly specified to support life. If just one constant had not supported life none would have arisen.
• This is merely a description of the
existing processes, and says nothing about how they happened. It isn’t surprising that there are things about our existence which are crucial to our existence. That proves nothing about a design or a designer.
As Stephen Hawking said "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron…. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
Below are ten out of over 120 such anthropic constants. There are no natural laws that require the universe to be this way; the atheist will have to believe that it is a freak accident.
• Nope. Misuse of the terms ‘freak’ and ‘accident’, and it is standard operating procedure for creationists to use value-laden terms of this sort. The atheist or naturalist will simply say ‘that is how it happened’ without characterizing it. That goes for all ten of the examples given.
What follows that is just quote-mining: using selected quotations from noted scientists, usually out of context, to ‘prove’ that even scientists somehow accept the notion of design. This is also standard creationist fare, as is the presentation of the astronomical odds of things happening the way they did. And of course, it all “fits perfectly with Christianity.” Pity the poor Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and members of several hundred other religions that haven’t seen it that way.