Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Android | RSS
Boy did we bite off a lot to chew in this episode! For all you moms out there, raise your hand if you have heard this question. (Aunt Hillary raising her hand…) I have heard this question from children, from adults, from basically anyone who has thought about the origins of our universe. Let's be honest... Who HASN'T asked this question?! We'll give a beginner, intermediate, and advanced way to answer. Click To Tweet
The issue with this question is that there is a beginner, intermediate, and advanced way to answer this question, and we try to cover all of them in this podcast. Because this is such a complex topic, we have provided some very thorough podcast notes for you. But in case we don’t make it clear in the podcast, the main thesis that I want you to come away with is this: Every worldview has an uncaused first cause that cannot be explained by other causes. It just is, and it was the first. Never let someone tell you that belief in God as the “uncaused first cause” is somehow “less scientific” than whatever they postulate. Just keep digging underneath their worldview and you will find another uncaused first cause that they cannot “prove.” We are all on equal footing when it comes to origins in that everyone has to assume a starting point, but each of our starting points require the same element: faith that the starting point is eternally self-existing, and capable of creating something from nothing. I think that when one looks at the options, the concept of God makes way more sense than the other options. But don’t just take my word for it. Listen for yourself!
Have fun chewing on all the details in this episode!Every worldview has an uncaused first cause that cannot be explained by other causes. God-belief is not a 'less scientific' philosophical option. Click To Tweet
Topics Discussed:
Question: Who made God? (Question behind the question: How did the universe come to be here?)
Answer: God is a pre-existent, eternal being who is capable of creating everything from nothing.
Admitted difficulties embedded in this question:
- The question assumes God is like us. Unlike God’s, our nature came into being at a specific moment.
- In our world, effects have causes, but God is the Uncaused Cause, not an effect.
- The answer sounds like a copout until other options have been examined.
- The underlying question needing to be answered is, “How did the universe come to be here?”
The sentence that every worldview asserts in faith is: “________________ is eternally self-existent and capable of creating.” Every worldview fills in the blank with something that cannot be proved and which requires faith.Every worldview asserts a faith statement that '___________ is eternally self-existent and capable of creating.' None of these statements are science. They are all philosophy. Click To Tweet
There are forks in the road when asking, “Where did everything come from?”
I. Naturalism – only the material world exists. Several views are offered under naturalism, but they all side step explaining the original issue of how something came from nothing. Some naturalists are called “non-material” naturalists because they believe laws of nature and numbers are real and self-existent. Stephen Hawking is a non-material naturalist.
A. The naturalist here has to fill the blank with “nature (matter and energy)”. That’s the only option on this view. This version of naturalism holds that the cosmos is eternally self-existent and thus capable of creating, which is a faith There are 3 models on this view:
i. The Static Model – Space is neither expanding nor contracting.
ii. The Cyclic (or Oscillating) Model – In an effort to get around the fact that the universe had a beginning, this model postulates that there was a beginning, but that it was also eternally self-existent. It observes that the universe expands and contracts. It posits the “Big Bang” and the “The Big Crunch.” Circa 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered evidence of the universe’s expansion, now called “Hubble’s Law.” Einstein had shown mathematically that the universe had to either be expanding or contracting, but knew that couldn’t be the case, so he introduced the Cosmological Constant, which he later recanted and called his “biggest blunder.”
iii. The Multiverse – Like the Cyclic Model, the Multiverse model postulates that there was still a beginning, but it was instigated only of material properties, not of supernatural ones. There are two parts of the multiverse view:
a. There are duplicate universes that are next door to us that we can’t really observe. This tries to avoid the idea of God producing the universe by postulating that there is some sort of universe generator spitting out universes.
b. This Universe Generator is constantly spawning off new universes, each with the properties randomly assigned. We just happen to be in the one that was randomly assigned the properties which foster life and discovery. Thus, there is no need to explain how our universe is so fine-tuned for life. It was bound to happen eventually, and no God was required.
B. Non-material (supernatural) naturalism. Things like numbers and laws are real, but not material.
i. Gravity (and/or other natural laws) are eternally self-existent and thus capable of creating.
II. Supernaturalism – in addition to the material world, there is also something else
A. ________________ is eternally self-existent and capable of creating. “God” fills in the blank here.
B. Cosmological Argument
i. Cause and Effect Idea
1. The cause and effect are always adequate to one another.
2. If the universe is eternal, it doesn’t require a cause, because something that is eternal didn’t ever start to exist. But what we know from scientific evidence is that the universe had a beginning. Things are decaying, and eternal things don’t do that, nor do they expand. We also know that the universe can’t create matter or energy. So the options are: 1) the universe either caused its own beginning, or 2) something else did.
3. The universe couldn’t cause itself. See fallacy of circular reasoning.
4. Something outside universe caused it, so something outside of time, space, energy, and matter caused it.
a. The eternal does not need a cause.
b. If there was ever no universe and no god, we would still have nothing.
c. As Aquinas would say, God is pure actuality. He does not have to be brought into being. He just exists. As he tells Moses, “I AM”.
Unfamiliar Vocab:
Discrete, finite beginning – In the standard model, the universe has one beginning, and began a finite time ago. In contrast, other models of the universe or (different parts of the) multiverse, there are cyclic or separate (non-discrete) beginnings/endings, sometimes going back an infinite time ago.
Ex nihilo – Latin for “out of nothing.” Used in phrases such as “creation ex nihilo”.
Anthropic fine-tuning – That we would have all the physical parameters exactly the value they need to be to result in conditions suitable for producing and sustaining life, when they could have been anything out of infinity, is probabilistically astronomical to have come about through random chance.
Deist – someone who believes that a god got the universe into existence but is not still involved in it.
Ad hoc – conclusions or interpretations of evidence based on guiding presuppositions.
God of the gaps – using God to answer a question in the absence of evidence or reasons for any particular conclusion.
Monism – the belief in one substance or principle.
Free will – the idea that at least some of our choices are not predetermined or products of random chance, but are self-determined.
Pantheism – Fills in the blank with “god-nature”: ________________ is eternally self-existent and capable of creating.
Newton’s Third Law – For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
First Law of Thermodynamics – The first law of thermodynamics defines the internal energy (E) as equal to the difference of the heat transfer (Q) into a system and the work (W) done by the system. (source)
Second Law of Thermodynamics – If the physical process is irreversible, the combined entropy of the system and the environment must increase. The final entropy must be greater than the initial entropy for an irreversible process. (source)
Resources mentioned:
Teaching Others to Defend Christianity — Cathryn Buse
Mama Bear Podcast 25: How Educated Do You Have To Be To Identify Nonsense?
A Brief History of the Multiverse by Paul Davies
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
People mentioned:
Richard Dawkins – Born in 1941, Dawkins is an English contemporary author, speaker, and debater on the subject of atheistic naturalism. A former University of Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Dawkins is well-known for his authorship of the book, “The God Delusion”. He founded and operates the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.
Stephen Hawking – From his website: Stephen Hawking is the former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge and author of A Brief History of Time, which was an international bestseller. Now the Dennis Stanton Avery and Sally Tsui Wong-Avery Director of Research at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, and Founder of the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at Cambridge, his other books for the general reader include A Briefer History of Time, the essay collection Black Holes and Baby Universe, and The Universe in a Nutshell.
Robert Jastrow – (b. 1925- d.2008). American astrophysicist, founding director of NASA lunar exploration program, author, researcher, speaker, and early proponent of climate change.
Richard Lewontin – From the link: Richard C. Lewontin is an evolutionary geneticist, philosopher of science, and social critic. He is best known among biologists for his role in the development of molecular population genetics in the 1960s and 1970s, especially the use of electrophoresis to study the evolutionary implications of enzyme polymorphisms. Lewontin received his A.B. from Harvard College in 1951 and his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1954, where he was a student of Theodosius Dobzhansky. After professorships at North Carolina State University, University of Rochester and University of Chicago (where he served as Chairman of the Program in Evolutionary Biology from 1968-1973), Lewontin moved to Harvard University in 1973, where he has been ever since. He is currently Alexander Agassiz Research Professor there.
G.K. Chesterton – Integral contributor to writings and thought on the Christian faith. From the link: G.K. Chesterton, in full Gilbert Keith Chesterton (born May 29, 1874, London, England—died June 14, 1936, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire), English critic and author of verse, essays, novels, and short stories, known also for his exuberant personality and rotund figure.
R.C. Sproul – Contemporary Christian pastor, author, and leader at Ligonier Ministries. Click here to receive a free book by R.C. Sproul.
Quotable Quotes:
“We need to not just answer the question; we actually need to go back a step to where the question is coming from.”
– Hillary Morgan Ferrer
“The reason why we’re so uncomfortable with the discrete finite beginning is because it smacks of divine intervention.”
– Stephen HawkingThe reason why we’re so uncomfortable with the discrete finite beginning is because it smacks of divine intervention. - Stephen Hawking Click To Tweet
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith and the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
– Robert Jastrow
“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, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of 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. Oh 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 counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated, moreover that materialism is absolute. For we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”
– Richard Lewontin
“For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes. But somewhere on the slippery slope between that idea and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence, it requires the same leap of faith.”
– Paul Davies
“A true scientist who wants to say it’s all random, but is based on a fixed situation…I always find that a little bit comical.”
– Cathryn Buse
“Ladies and gentlemen, if anything exists now—this is elementary—then there never could have been a time when there was nothing. Because the most fundamental maxim of all reason, and all science, and all philosophy is the maxim, “ex nihilo nihil fit” out of nothing, nothing comes. / If there was ever a time when there was nothing, the only thing there could possibly be now couldn’t possibly be now. Because the only thing there could be would be nothing and nothing is not something.”
“A well-known scientist, some say it was Bertrand Russell, once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun, and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said, ‘What you have told us is rubbish! The world is really a flat place, supported on the back of a giant tortoise!’ The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, ‘What is the tortoise standing on?’ and she says, ‘You’re very clever, young man! Very clever. But it’s turtles all the way down!”
– Stephen Hawking
Is it just turtles all the way down?🌎 🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢... Click To Tweet
Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. She is the chief author and editor of Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies and Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empowering Your Kids to Understand and Live Out God’s Design. Hillary has her masters in Biology and has been married to her husband, Dr. John D. Ferrer, for 15 years. Don’t let her cook for you. She’ll burn your house straight to the ground.
When science says, “We don’t know,” the Christian seems eager to jump in and say, “Well, if you don’t, I do! God did it.”
Of course, they say this without evidence. They’ve simply replaced “We don’t know (yet)” with a pat on the head that God’s got everything in hand, and we can move on now because this question is put to bed. They also ignore the fact that the *other* religions have answered this question as well (in some different way).
If science doesn’t know, let’s let the scientists do their work, and maybe (yet again) they’ll impress us with new insights based on evidence. Science is where we learn about reality, not religion.
Did you actually listen to the podcast in its entirety? Or just see the title and decide to comment?
No, I didn’t listen to the podcast. I assumed that I could respond to the written material here.
When I tell Christians that I believe that it is it is wrong and foolish to believe any truth claim “by faith”, they complain. “You obviously don’t understand the word ‘faith’. We all use faith in many areas of our lives.”
A typical evangelical Christian’s definition of faith: Faith is trust based on past performance. It is faith in a person, not so much the claims about that person. It is based on personal knowledge of that person gained by personal experience.
Skeptic: But don’t you believe that faith is a gift from God as the Apostle Paul claims in his Epistle to the Ephesians?
Christian: Yes. The faith that leads us to personally grasp hold of the promises God made to us in Christ Jesus is something that is given to us.
Skeptic: So if we combine these two statements we have this: Faith is trust based on personal knowledge about someone (or some thing); a personal knowledge that is given to us as a gift from God.
Isn’t this statement saying that it is impossible to believe in Jesus as one’s god unless Jesus has gifted you the knowledge (about him) to believe? If that is true, what is the point of Christian apologetics? If only God can flip the switch in the human heart (brain) to believe, why do Christian apologists go to such lengths to debate evidence in an effort to convert skeptical non-believers? And why do Christian apologists accuse skeptics of being biased against “good” evidence, when what they really believe is that no amount of good evidence will ever convince the skeptic to believe in Jesus as his or her Savior? If faith is truly a gift from God, debating evidence is pointless.
So why do Christian apologists persist in doing it?
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2018/01/14/is-christian-apologetics-as-a-means-of-evangelization-an-oxymoron/
Hi Gary –
My comments here in response to you do not necessarily reflect those of the Mama Bears, they are my own. Just to be clear!
The central point of your comment seems to be based up the idea that Christian apologetics is pointless if God can just “flip a switch”, as you say, and give us the gift of belief.
But think of the metaphor you use – switch flipping. That’s a relatively modern concept. That we can toggle a switch and send electrical currents flowing through a circuit is a wondrous thing indeed. I’m sure you’ve heard the story recently about the poor chap in Hawaii that pushed the wrong buttons and made everyone on the island believe a North Korean missile was on its way! It was a little too easy and tens of thousands of Hawaiians were rather upset by the whole thing. So here is an instance where instantaneous nature of button pushing really didn’t work out too well. Officials in Hawaii now realize there should have been more of a “process” behind and leading up to how the missile warning buttons are finally pushed.
Button-pushing, then, is a rather modern and rather instantaneous thing, isn’t it? We send e-mails, texts, turn on appliances, cars, machines, often with just the touch of a button or two and we don’t even think about it. This is the zeitgeist of modernity – effortless, instant, immediate. But it doesn’t stick in the heart, mind and soul too well does it? We quickly tend to forget those things that come thorugh such effortlessness.
Last night I pushed like 4 buttons and had a turkey and stuffing microwave dinner in less than 5 minutes.
Easy, convenient, not exactly nutritious or filling.
But I also love to make crock-pot soup. I put the ingredients together and let it simmer and stew for up to twelve hours, depending on what kind of soup I’m making.
Five minutes or twelve hours. Dramatic difference, is it not? Which do you think tastes better?
So in my estimation, “switch-flipping” is simply not the right metaphor for understanding Christian faith, Gary. From Genesis to Revelation, it is not button-pushing-microwave meals that we see, but slow-crockpot-simmering. God seems to be peculiarly interested in communicating Himself through a rather odd assortment of broken, bruised, balderdash-prone belligerents and He does not seem to be in any kind of terrible hurry either.
Why? I finally don’t know, Gary. Why would God chose people like that to share His message? It is rather contrary, from the vantage point of human wisdom, admittedly. But God does not seem to be too terribly concerned about overriding our human wisdom.
Sure there are times where we have what appears to be an “instantaneous” revelation of God in Scripture, such as Moses at the bush in Exodus 3, but even in that exchange, Moses doesn’t immediately become a Christian superhero with all the answers. He’s like (and I paraphrase), “Hey, I’m, uh, talking to a bush on fire that’s telling me to go to Pharaoh. Really? Who are you again? Don’t you know I stutter? I’m not so sure about this. How can I trust you? Who should I say has sent me?”
So even in what we might think as an instantaneous manifestation of God’s luminous, holy presence, Moses is not instantly obedient by any means. He stammers, doubts, is reluctant and wonders why God would have chosen him. He even misses out on the Promised Land.
But what would the Occident be without the story of Moses? Hard to imagine. The Exodus, whether you believe it or not, has had and continues to have a profound impact on our culture. If God uses Moses, He can use me too, despite my sins and failures. It is a narrative of hope, Gary, over a lifetime. Over many lifetimes. A story told over and over again through different people. Like Frodo and Sam Gamgee realizing they are part of the ongoing tale of the Light of Earendil. Tolkien nails it there. This is the way God patiently works with recalcitrant, sinful man. We are more than a mere electrical circuit with an on/off switch of faith, we are divine image bearers, fearfully and wonderfully made by God’s own fingers, woven together in the likeness of our Maker, complete with our own stories written by God Himself, stories He Himself, as the Author and Finisher of our faith, enters into.
God could have just “flipped a switch” and released the Hebrews, destroying all of Egypt. God could have “flipped a switch” and never even involved Moses.
But how inspirational is switch flipping, Gary? If that were the case, that the Scriptures were all about God instantaneously accomplishing His will like switch-flipping, we would be having a conversation about how awful it is we are nothing more than robots, divine automations, overridden at the flip of a switch.
No, rather God gives us a say, includes us in the drama, gives us the ability to be a kind of co-creator, has good works for us to do, has chapters for us to live out. It is a story. Each of us are a story. And stories take time and care to develop.
God could have flipped a switch and avoided coming down to us in the person of His Son. But He chose the crock-pot method – a narrative of a long, slow obedience in one direction. Choosing to be born? Why not just step out of the heavens as God and flip a switch and make everyone instantaneously believe?
Switch-flipping, not so much. It’s easy. There is no happily ever after in a circuit. Characters in fairy tale or circuits on a motherboard, which would you prefer to be?
Apologetics goes on Gary because it is one way that God develops and prepares people to receive the gift of faith.
Love to hear back from you.
Daniel Ray 🙂
The gift of faith is not finally instantaneous, but slow, gradual and long-suffering. Surely there is a “moment” in time when people articulate having received the gift of faith, but often is the case that people can look back and see God’s leading and guiding them up to that point.
Paul’s Damascus Road experience looks like a switch-flip, but it was more like the end of a long process. Paul went through extensive training and schooling to become a teacher of the law. He understood the Jewish religion and tradition like no other. That was part of the preparation behind the Lord finally leading him along the road to Damascus. Paul’s background was also a gift, for now as a believer, Paul could, like almost no one else, articulate the Gospel in a way that showed its intimate connections to the OT Law.
Bob,
As always, you are welcome to comment here, but please restrict your comments to articles that you have read (which you normally do) or podcasts to which you have already listened (which I think it is clear that you have not.) Productive discussion cannot happen when you assume to think you know what we say in a podcast, and then air your objections to the mistaken assumptions.
OK, *now* I’ve listened to the podcast.
You mentioned that everything has a cause. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics disagrees with that. Since the universe at the Big Bang was a quantum particle, it might well have *not* had a cause.
You mentioned that every answer (or worldview) requires faith. I disagree. I don’t think that I have faith in anything. (Of course, we could haggle over the definition of “faith.”) I believe things that are well-supported by evidence. If a claim isn’t well supported, I just don’t embrace it.
You mentioned the famous Richard Lewontin quote. Just a suggestion: when I find an especially juicy fact or quote, I research it to make sure I have the right data. I find that an unfortunately high fraction of quotes used to support Christian or conservative positions are taken out of context.
And that’s the case for Lewontin. Here’s how that quote continues: “. . . 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.”
Lewontin wasn’t saying that we must conclude beforehand that the supernatural isn’t possible but rather that using science with a God option is like blowing up a balloon with a hole in it. You can’t get anywhere since everything must have a God caveat. It’s “F = ma, God willing” or “PV = nRT, if it pleases God.” When you make a measurement in a world where God messes with reality (that is, you “allow a Divine Foot in the door”), what part of that measurement is the result of scientific laws and what part was added by some godly hanky panky?
There’s lots more, but let me end with just one more point. You raised a question that you said everyone must answer (sorry–I forget the details, it was something about how things are created). Science has lots of unanswered questions. It says “I don’t know” a lot, and there’s no shame in that. You seemed to want to respond, “Ooh! Pick me! I know, I know!”
If you have an explanation backed up with evidence for what preceded the Big Bang (for example), great. Let’s discuss it. But simply advancing a claim based on your theology is *not* the evidenced-based hypothesis we’re looking for.
The thing I said that everyone must answer (I think) was that you have to choose what you fill in the blank with. *You* fill the blank in with “A quantum particle is eternally existent and capable of creating.” That’s fine if that is your assertion, but you can’t take that stance on anything but faith. Please provide a completely evidentially based assessment why you think the quantum particle was eternally present at the beginning and is powerful enough to create all of matter, the genetic code, and the properties needed for life, and then please provide a reason why I should believe that a non-sentient quantum particle is capable of complex organization. I can easily explain why I think a sentient mind is capable of complex organization, and it is based on tons of repeatable observations.
Secondly, why does the concept of miracles scare you and Lewontin so badly? If I’m not mistaken, the fact that the laws of nature are so consistent should make us feel fairly safe in general. We couldn’t even detect a miracle unless the laws of nature were so fixed. If there were so much “godly hanky pankying” going on, we would not be able to identify fixed laws of nature. They would be the “whims of nature” and unpredictable. So I really don’t see the problem. The fear that a God would break in at any moment just by recognizing that He exists just sounds odd to me. Our belief in God does not actually “allow a divine foot in the door” if such a God really exists. His foot is already in the door. The question we should ask is “IF such a God does exist, do our preconceptions for science PREVENT us from discovering this truth?” Because no matter how it makes you *feel*, we should be in the business of discovering truth.
And I don’t know why you keep caricaturing me as standing around waving my hand screaming “Pick me!!! I know!!” to any question, just so I can scream, “God did it.” It sounds like you have had this experience with Christians in the past, seeing as you made this exact same comment before listening to the podcast. I am sorry if this has been your past experience, but that is not how I am. Yes, I can give reasons why I believe what I believe, and why I think it is the best explanation for the evidence. But that’s all I’m doing.
And for the record, evidence doesn’t say anything on it’s own. Evidence is what it is. Evidence needs to be interpreted to have meaning. So far, I have yet to see an explanation that I feel adequately explains how specified, complex information and organization can come about without the guiding presence of a mind. I do not see it as being unscientific in the slightest to remain steadfast in this belief until I am presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary, and theories and speculations about how something *could* have *maybe* happened are unconvincing, in my opinion. My willingness to change my stance on something is inversely proportional to the amount of evidence I see for the stance.
It’s not that I’m unwilling to change my mind. I just need to be presented with evidence that is larger than the evidence I currently have for the existence of God. You are welcome to explain to me how a mindless, eternal, quantum particle is more evidentially explanatory though. You may not think you have any “faith” in anything, but I hate to break it to you, you do. As per the comment above, your faith lies right now in a quantum particle. You can’t observe it with your 5 senses, you can’t repeat it, you can’t put it in a test-tube or a lab. Even if you could, you could never reach the end of the experiment to see if you were right, that it is fully capable of creating complex information. All you can do is have faith that it can.
No, I don’t. It doesn’t make sense to me to say that a quantum particle can create anything. Instead, I parrot science as best I can. Obviously, it’s easy to get back to a place where science says, “I don’t know.” That’s how it responds to, “What caused the Big Bang?” (Let’s ignore the concern that that question may be malformed.)
Right! And that’s why I’d never embrace it! If there’s no evidence, I just don’t go there. “I don’t know” is a fine position. In fact, it’s better than fine, because it shines a spotlight on what questions need work.
Sure, but where’s the evidence that that’s the explanation? You’re quick to answer your question, but you shouldn’t attempt that without good evidence.
I’m sure you understand the issue of falsifiability. A good scientific explanation is falsifiable, and “God did it” isn’t. It’s a powerful explanation in that it can explain absolutely everything, but it’s unfalsifiable . . . which means that it’s useless in practice.
1. They don’t bother me at all. Why should they? I’ve seen zero evidence that they exist.
2. You understand Lewontin’s point, right? He’s not saying that he’s afraid of miracles; he’s saying that “science” goes down the toilet if we imagine that every single measurement is tentative because we don’t know which ones God fiddled with.
Well, yes and no. This is probably tangential, but many of our scientific laws have limitations. Ohm’s law doesn’t take into account capacitance and inductance. Newton’s law of gravity doesn’t take into account relativity. The ideal gas law doesn’t take into account boundary conditions. That doesn’t mean these laws aren’t very useful, just that we need to know the boundaries within which they’re reliable.
Good point. We don’t see miracles . . . which makes me wonder why people believe in them.
Does God intrude in our reality or not? If so, then you see Lewontin’s point. Science must assume that God *doesn’t* intrude, otherwise, it can say nothing with confidence.
Don’t tell me. If Christian leaders have a short list of very compelling miracles, they should publicize them and force science to acknowledge that “God did it” is the most compelling explanation in these cases.
And I have yet to see an example of a mind that doesn’t exist in a physical brain. But that’s a tangent.
I became an atheist after getting into an involved Creationism vs. evolution debate 20+ years ago, so I’m familiar with the issue. Curiously, though, I have little patience for discussing it. My Creationist antagonists have been determined to not allow a chink in the armor, and they’ve been successful. Unless you want to make small forays here, there’s probably not much point in our getting into it.
But let me just summarize my position: laymen with respect to biology like me (you, too, if you don’t have a doctorate in biology) have no option but to accept the scientific consensus as the best provisional estimate of the truth. That doesn’t mean that it’s right, and it doesn’t mean that it won’t change in the future. It just means that that’s our best bet.
This is where I point to the mountains of textbooks on evolution, popular books on evolution, journals on evolution, blogs on evolution, and so on. And that’s when you respond that you’re already very well educated on evolution, thank you very much—and not just with books from the Disco Institute but with mainstream science sources. And then I figure that there’s no point in beating my head against a wall. (Or at least that’s how it’s played out in the past.)
You’re not talking about Creationism now, right? Or are you saying that rejecting Creationism would remove your foundation for believing in God?
Bob: “I’m sure you understand the issue of falsifiability. A good scientific explanation is falsifiable, and “God did it” isn’t. It’s a powerful explanation in that it can explain absolutely everything, but it’s unfalsifiable . . . which means that it’s useless in practice.”
Let me just address this, Bob, because I see it a lot from scientists (I used to be one, after all … still am if what’s growing on the neglected food in the back of my refrigerator counts as research).
Saying that God is unfalsifiable and the science of the early universe is is simply confusing categories. The assumptions that underpin science are themselves unfalsifiable scientifically – they are philosophical. By the way, it’s a philosophical assumption that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all, much less our science. We can’t not assume. Explanatory power is the means by which we can test our assumptions – at least some of them.
The best way to falsify them (the assumptions) is to look at their explanatory power. Philosophically, the God hypothesis has greater explanatory power than mere materialism (and “God” is a broad and varying category – it needs to be clarified – not all God hypotheses are created equal!).
The latter has incredible, practical value in a lab but fails when considering the totality of our experience (as Cathryn pointed out in the podcast). Too much in our daily experience becomes an illusion – or trick of the brain – under metaphysical materialism: free-will, good&evil, love, rationality, and on. It is all reduced to movements of molecules in the mind of a bewildered ape, as Chesterton would say (of course, excluding the clever scientist who can rise above it all to figure it out!). The materialist’s cosmos is very small and contracted. It works only by leaving out or explaining away much of existence and our experience. That’s a fail in my book!
Rebekah:
Assumptions like what? If we imagine that 1 + 1 = 2 is such a fundamental axiom, this isn’t taken on faith; indeed, it’s tested continually.
You’re right that we have (1) some claims built on other claims, and (2) some claims that are axioms, the ones at the bottom of the pile holding everything else up. But none are taken on faith. They’re backed up with evidence.
Sure. But is it backed up with anything?
You can say, “God did it!” about anything, and I can’t prove you wrong. And, as I mentioned before, that’s a bad thing, not a good thing.
“We’re all just molecules in motion”—OK. Is there a problem with that? I’m not clear what’s unexplained.
At some point, you’ll point to things that science doesn’t have an answer to. Yep, that’s how it works. That’s a problem for naturalism only if you have a better argument—that is, one that explains more and is equally or better grounded in evidence. Evidence is the problem for the God hypothesis.
“Evidence is the problem for the God hypothesis.”
No, it is not. We are literally swimming in evidence, my friend, starting from the reasoning faculty you used to formulate your last reply. Paul told the Athenians on Mars Hill that the God of Christianity is the God in whom we live and move and find our being. The more I study philosophy (and theology!) the more I am forced back to this simple statement (which is a quote of a pagan poet). I encourage you to doubt your doubts, as Chesterton would say. Doubt your doubts.
Doubt your doubts. That’s what I did when I thought about things pretty much as you are thinking and it led me back to the faith of my childhood. It’s pretty gosh darned humbling, too! But that’s a good thing considering what you gain, in the end. 🙂
That’s a claim. In fact, that’s yet another claim. You can’t support a claim with another claim—that requires evidence.
God gave us our reasoning faculties? Show me that God exists first. The world around us is full of evidence for God? Looks to me that the world around us is full of evidence for naturalism. Religion has taught us nothing about reality. Science, on the other hand, has a pretty good track record.
Science delivers, and religion doesn’t. Given that, what do you recommend that I doubt?
We agree that science is fallible. Is anything more required?
BTW, did you talk about the Second Law of Thermodynamics? I thought I recall some argument about the universe running down, etc.
You should consider the Zero Energy Universe hypothesis. In short: consider all the matter in the universe as its equivalent energy. The negative energy equals the positive energy. Hence, the creation of a universe is indeed a free lunch.
It’s not universally held, but it does answer the question, “But where does the energy to start up the universe come from?”
This is scatter shooting, Bob. I think you are “kicking against the goads,” man.
Do you realize that most Christians believed that the universe was eternal up until 20th-century science began to show otherwise according to more current models (which includes matter and energy being eternal)? Have you read (really read directly!) Aquinas’s Unmoved Mover explication in his Summa Gentiles? I highly recommend looking up Ed Feser on this. He was an atheist philosopher until he had to actually teach Aquinas on a university level. Now, he is a Christian and a professional Thomist philosopher. Basically, even apart from “the universe had a temporal beginning” arguments of Christian apologists like William Lane Craig, an eternal universe does not pose a problem for the Judeo-Christian God. Look it up – it’ll be fun for you! Ed Feser. 🙂
Is it? The zero-energy universe destroys the Second-Law-of-Thermodynamics objection. Of course, you could point out that the Second Law is very well established and the zero-energy universe isn’t so much, but there’s no scatter shooting on my part. I’m simply bringing out a data point that you and your readers may be unaware of. Just trying to help.
I was reading some Feser just a week ago or so, though I’m not sure I’ve read him on the Cosmological Argument. He’s great at writing obtuse philosophy. What I need instead is someone to defend the argument that you made last time—that this isn’t hard. The evidence is everywhere. This God who is anxious to have a relationship with every one of us (and knows the terrible things that happen otherwise) isn’t hidden at all. Indeed, the way to know that he exists as strongly as you know your best friend exists is ___.
I need a plausible filling in of that blank, not obtuse philosophy.
Who’s talking about an eternal universe? WLC is talking about a universe that didn’t exist before the Big Bang.
WLC’s Kalam argument fails on many points. He’s a popular guy, but I’m not sure why. His arguments are poor.
Hello Bob,
Rebekah invited me to comment. I don’t know how much background you have in Physics, but you bring up an interesting new idea in the Zero Energy Universe concept. I have a Masters in Physics and used to be a science and math teacher.
The Zero Energy Universe apparently makes the argument that the origin of the universe works like the relationship between gravitational potential energy and the gravity force. So this is implying when the universe had not begun, there was a negative potential energy and the expansion of the universe represents positive energy that came out of the negative energy that preexisted. This is assuming that something we can represent mathematically in the here and now had validity before the universe as we know it. But this is unverifiable. Furthermore, since it is unverifiable, how would anyone know if it answers the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or not? A lot of things in modern cosmology are ad-hoc concepts that have no conceivable means of being verified. So I would say that to assume this negative energy concept is actually making a leap of faith. The fact that someone can express it in an equation does not make it less so. The origin of the universe in the Zero Energy Universe still requires a cause, unless you take the view that the origin of the universe was spontaneous. To say it is spontaneous (uncaused) is also again a leap of faith because this is unlike anything verifiable or testable.
Mathematical constructs in and of themselves are not real things when they are not verified by any experimental evidence. Or at least they are not a scientific explanation, but are something else. The argument for the Zero Energy Universe idea seems to be that it is like gravitational potential energy being converted to kinetic energy through gravity. But potential energy is really just a mathematical construct also. Potential energy is not usually thought of as an actual “negative” energy really. The negative is just a matter of how you write the equations. However it is easy to verify in many ways. My point is that mathematics can represent many things but it doesn’t actually tell us the nature of reality. Some of mathematics is useful for real applications and some of it isn’t.
So if modern cosmological theories are unverifiable then what makes my view as a Christian better? I like to think of the question in terms of “What makes an adequate First Cause?” Depending on known physical processes or spontaneous events is always inadequate it seems to me. The universe is governed by physical laws that are mathematical and which have a kind of complexity. The physical laws themselves constitute information and I think only a Creator is an adequate cause of the origin of the information.
Believing in a God who created the physical laws does not create a problem with us doing scientific measurements and experiment. You can say “PV=nRT, if it is God’s will” if you want to. I’d say it is God’s will. Yet Biblically the laws do not exist in a way that makes them independent of God. The laws themselves are dependent on God. This is not a problem for doing science. But God can supercede natural law if He has a reason to. The physical laws are for our benefit, so we can understand them and put them to use. They shouldn’t be thought of as if it is either God or natural law. It is both/and. This is not contradictory, in a Biblical view of things.
Wayne:
Thanks for your comment.
I’m an amateur.
Are you saying that the zero-energy universe hypothesis is ad hoc? I have read very little on it, but I would’ve thought that, in principle, it would be very testable. If the amount of negative energy in our universe pretty much equals the positive energy, then that’s good evidence. Obviously, that measurement wouldn’t necessarily be practical.
I’ve never seen such a thing in science. Guesses and crazy hypotheses, sure. But I’m not sure why the f-word is relevant here.
The Copenhagen interpretation says that quantum effects don’t always have causes. But then you knew that.
Just it case it’s not obvious, my point in bringing up the zero-energy universe hypothesis is simply to say that, when in the original podcast, the comment was made that the Second Law of Thermodynamics raises the tricky problem of what wound the universe up (with energy) at the beginning, the necessary caveat is “ . . . unless the zero-energy universe hypothesis is correct.” That’s it.
The God hypothesis is ad hoc. It’s an answer to nothing, because the natural explanations are sufficient.
You might respond that we have unanswered questions. And, yes, I’ll admit that “God did it” can pretty much explain everything. But, of course, by explaining everything, it is unfalsifiable and therefore useless.
Alternatively, we can reach “God did it” as a conclusion. That would be fine, but I need to see the evidence for that conclusion. I’ve seen nothing convincing. Science has the track record of showing us things with evidence; religion has taught us nothing about reality.
And, as the complete quote from Lewontin indicates, this makes doing science quite difficult.
Hi Bob
Though I am new to the discussion here, Rebekah invited me to read and partake.
My name is Dan and I have a little background in cosmology and astronomy. Hope this finds you well today.
First, a general observation that the positive and negative energies that are theorized to have birthed the universe do not give us a universe from nothing. The zero-energy claim assumes the pre-existence of positive and negative energies to begin with. Those things are not nothing.
If we must belabor the point of this fairly obvious fact that energies are not nothing, then in truth we will indeed be off into the realm of obtuse philosophy that you said you wished to avoid.
Consider. If I have debts and someone comes along and pays them, I have no more debt. But because I have no more debt does not mean there is no such thing as currency.
My lunch was not free. Someone picked up the bill. Currency changed hands and “Bang” I am now debt free.
Also, there is no way at the moment to come up with an exact amount of total energy in the universe except theoretically, and that through a myriad of other theoretical, often ad hoc assumptions like inflation. The field of cosmology is by and large “theoretical” physics.
Great. Have your theories. I do not criticize that aspect of it, but only to remind us all that Krauss, Hawking, et. al. are talking about a great deal of things that remain beyond the purview of our ability to test them.
Including the beginning of the universe (technically that’s cosmogony).
One can crunch numbers on the back of an envelope, but there is no way to presently measure the total energy of the entire universe.
Now, if you wish to discuss what actually has been “destroyed” it would appear that the laws of homogeneity have been completely overturned by actual observational evidence of enormous superstructures of quasars and galaxies in places in the universe where the “should not be” according to the candid, peer-reviewed literature.
If we knew the total amount of energy in the universe Bob, we’d know beyond a shadow of a doubt what shape it. And as far as I can tell, that question has not been settled. So the idea that “zero energy” claim has “destroyed” the second law objection is groundless hyperbole, not good science.
From your other comments, it appears by your level of confidence in your assertions that you believe there is no present satisfactory evidence for God’s existence, is that correct? As you said above “Show me that God exists first.”
If you believe He does not exist, then we are only left to assume you would have some idea of what this world would look like if God did exist. To know that there are no cats in the living room is to know what cats look like.
If you would like to continue the conversation, feel free to e-mail me at psalm 1968@gmail.com anytime.
Merry Christmas!
Daniel 🙂
Thanks, and Merry Christmas.
We’re dealing with two topics here. One: the zero-energy universe hypothesis addresses the “But if the universe is winding down, how did it get wound up in the first place?” argument.
Two: I agree that the laws of physics aren’t nothing. I don’t know if energy would be an additional thing, but it also would obviously have to exist.
You seem to be pointing to the claim that science has unanswered questions. Yes, it does.
Or, perhaps you’re saying that the precedent of this zero-energy universe wouldn’t have been nothing. Again, I agree. But so what? If you’re saying that we’d expect a godless universe to not have anything (laws of physics included) before the universe, then show us this.
But from the standpoint of the “But who wound up the universe?” the zero-energy universe hypothesis does indeed explain that the universe could’ve been the ultimate free lunch. No energy required.
Doesn’t sound ad hoc to me. It is predicted by Cosmic Inflation, for which there is good evidence.
Perhaps the multiverse is the ultimate of these.
Again, more agreement. But again, so what? Science has unanswered questions. If you can answer them, based on evidence, let’s hear it.
It doesn’t destroy anything at the moment because it’s not the scientific consensus. If it were the truth, however, it would destroy it.
Correct.
I see it from another direction: where does the godless-universe hypothesis fail? That is, what is left unanswered (and unanswerable) by omitting God from the explanation? As far as I can see, nothing. As I’ve mentioned several times, we all agree that science has unanswered questions. This doesn’t nothing to support the Christian side of the balance.
Thanks for the invitation to chat by email. If you think that would be more convenient, that’s fine by me.
blockquote>TEST
Hi Bob
Thank you for replying and I hope you are having a good Christmas!
There are indeed “explanations” for things sans a Creator, of course. We agree, but that was not the question. The question involves the standard by which you determine what constitutes acceptable evidence for God’s workmanship verses something that came into being “naturally”.
If you are satisfactorily convinced that the universe came into being on its own and not by God, then that says to me you must have some idea, some standard, which enables you to determine what God and His handiwork would look like.
Having now watched a few of your videos, I know you’ve talked about divine hiddenness. The only way it seems one can make the claim that God is hidden is if you know what He looks like to begin with. How do you know which God is hiding, Bob? How do you know God is hiding at all? That says to me you would know God if you saw God. How can it be otherwise?
Second Law and Zero Energy: You said that “It doesn’t destroy anything at the moment because it’s not the scientific consensus. If it were the truth, however, it would destroy it.”
We agree, but your original comment prompted me to reply as I did. “If it were the truth” was missing from your reply to Rebekah.
Cosmic inflation was developed mainly to explain the uniformity of the CMBR. It is not a law of nature, it is an attempt to rig the singularity to fit the observable data. There are a host of problems with it. The first one being you have to suspend virtually every known law of the universe to get it.
It is the physicist’s miracle narrative. They are indeed willing to suspend the laws of physics to explain the initial conditions.
The general conundrum raised by Roger Penrose is that if you are going to posit inflation, you need the singularity to be extraordinarily fine-tuned to an order of magnitude that is staggeringly improbable. It actually requires more finely-tuned initial conditions.
We can talk about that if you want to.
But cosmologists wanting to force the foot of their theoretical universes into the glass slipper of reality will grant this staggeringly improbable state of affairs without batting an eyelash, because, well, here we are. And therefore, it must have happened the way we say it happened.
There also should have been more “ripples” in the CMBR, far more pockets of density fluctuations that appeared from the COBE and WMAP. They aren’t there as expected. So technically, you’ll run across the occasional brave astrophysicist or cosmologist who will tell you stars and galaxies should not exist.
Enter dark matter. An invisible, ad hoc, place-holder, particle-less, undetectable non-entity that just has to be there because otherwise, we cannot explain the formation of stars and galaxies in the early universe. Now, maybe someone in the future will find a dark matter particle. Great. I will be one of the first to cheer. But for the moment, it seems we are more likely to find aliens on an exoplanet before we find a dark matter particle.
I am not here falling into any kind of God-of-the-Gaps by any means, Bob, only to point out that a few secular cosmologists invoke physical-law-suspending invisible deities too.
Physics cannot show us what is before the singularity, Bob, neither can they even show us the singularity!
It is theoretical cosmology. Theoretical physics. I am not saying they are bunk, or that they shouldn’t continue to theorize, but in the end you cannot reproduce this stuff in a laboratory.
You asked for a demonstration of what a godless universe would be.
Out of nothing, Bob, nothing comes.
Thank you for replying and I will continue to check back with you here! By the way, how do you get the quote bars? I am hoping my above html blockquote will work. If it does, great! If not, whaddayado?
DR 🙂
The plausible natural explanation beats the supernatural explanation.
That the universe came about naturally is the default hypothesis. If there’s good reason to consider the supernatural hypothesis, I’m happy to consider it.
As for what evidence I would need to convert to Christianity, I think I would have about the same demands for evidence that you would if you converted to an entirely new religion.
Not really. Again, the natural hypothesis is the default. That’s where I’m starting, and I’ve seen nothing to move me from that starting position.
Do you mean, “Having read a few of your posts . . .”?
Yes, the problem of divine hiddenness is a biggie for Christianity, IMO.
Not at all. I look around and don’t see anything that would push me from the natural hypothesis.
Are you just trying to avoid the burden of proof?
Bingo! Great question! The most popular Christian apologetics are deist arguments.
I don’t. I’m (generously) accepting the Christian assumption for the sake of argument and seeing where it takes us.
You see my concern with God’s hiddenness, right?
Could be. I’m not a cosmologist. Because I’m a layman, I always accept the scientific consensus (if/where it exists).
To repeat, my point about Inflation was simply to respond to your claim that it is ad hoc.
So cosmologists are just a bunch of sleazy liars? Given the choice of the scientific community and you, I think I’ll go with the community, thanks.
Uh, OK. I don’t have a lot of interest in getting into cosmological tangents, so let’s not go too far down this road.
An invisible, ad hoc, wishful thinking deity who desperately wants to have a relationship but just can’t seem to be able to make his existence obvious doesn’t have enough evidence to justify belief.
I don’t know why this search is any more speculative than any other (the long, thankless process that preceded LIGO’s marvelous discoveries a few years ago sounds like a parallel). I’m not sure why scientists are on your naughty list, but as an outsider to science, I’ll simply note that science has taught us much about reality. Religion has taught us nothing.
You must then be delighted with the idea of a zero-energy universe.
Pop philosophy like “out of nothing, nothing comes” isn’t particularly useful at the frontier of science. You should know that.
Yes, they look fine.
Hi Bob! Hope this finds you well today.
You are certainly entitled to this interpretation of the physical world, but it still does not tell anyone what standard you are employing for assessing evidence of God’s workmanship.
Why isn’t the universe evidence of God’s handiwork?
Doesn’t matter what “I” require, Bob. Something certainly could be true despite my rejection of it. This still doesn’t answer the question of what standards you’re using to reject God’s existence. You have standards but haven’t yet said what they are.
These were the videos I saw where you mention divine hiddenness.
https://youtu.be/DDUY42yDLvU?t=14m15s
https://youtu.be/DeDz1nKfTQY?t=3m2s
No sir. I am guessing you are familiar with Christianity and the apologetic arguments offered for its claims. The evidence, it seems, has been presented to you, but you have rejected it. All I am asking is for you to define precisely what God and His workmanship would look like if He did in fact exist.
So if God existed, Bob, what could we expect to find and why?
I see that you think “hiddenness” Is an attribute of God, but what is not clear is how you claim to know that He is hiding. If you think He’s hiding, you must know what He looks like when He’s not.
I did not say cosmologists were sleazy liars, Bob. What I am saying is that theoretical physicists, cosmologists and astrophysicists who write books about their discipline for a wider popular audience, such Lawrence Krauss, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Paul Davies, Martin Rees, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Sean Carrol, Frank Wilczek, all have something to say about “God” in their hypotheses, and reject the possibility out of hand that God has anything to do with the universe. They insist on a purely materialist interpretation of the data.
Given your above posts to Rebekah and Hillary, it seemed to me you were! You said above that you believed “The zero-energy universe destroys the Second-Law-of-Thermodynamics objection”. I would think someone who makes such a claim would be prepared to defend it in greater detail.
Whatever do you mean by evidence? You still have not articulated what evidence for God would look like and how you would go about justifying that evidence.
I applaud the LIGO discoveries. Dark matter and dark energy are placeholders for the unknown and that, too, is perfectly fine. I am not criticizing science for not knowing everything. What I am critical about are the often derogatory theological assumptions held by materialist scientists. Like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVrr_BbEtJE My comment pertains to the purely naturalistic assumptions held by certain scientists. It must be some kind of “matter”.
“Religion has taught us nothing”. Again another claim but you have not offered any evidence to support it. It once again assumes you would know what God would look like.
Since you have rejected God, what are we left to assume other than you must know what God would look like if He did exist?
It is not pop philosophy at all. Ex nihilo nihil fit. This was classically argued by Parmenides. Lucretius also discussed the concept at length in De Rerum Natura.
Thanks for replying Bob.
Dan:
Again: think of what evidence you would need to convert to some religion. I suspect that your demands would be about the same as mine.
The universe might be compatible with the hypothesis that God created it, but it’s also compatible with the natural explanation. Let’s go with the natural explanation, since it’s the one with the evidence.
You’re asking for a succinct paragraph with the criteria I need, clearly stated? I don’t have one. Still, I think I’m giving you a reasonable answer to your question.
Ah, yes. I’d forgotten.
Dunno. I’m still stuck at the fact that natural explanations are sufficient. Why fret over an unsatisfactory explanation?
Something unexplainable by natural explanations.
?? Already addressed.
They do this on a whim? Because they’re angry at God? Or could it be because the necessary evidence isn’t there for the God hypothesis?
“Forget Jesus—the stars died so that you could be here today”? Snarky, yes. But is there anything else? Sounds right to me.
“Naturalistic assumptions” meaning what?
Not at all. I’m simply evaluating the contributions that religion has made in teaching us about nature and reality. Not only does science have a greater share, I can’t think of anything from religion.
Aaah. It has a pedigree and can be stated in Latin—you should’ve said so in the beginning!
My point remains: we can certainly try simple common sense or popular philosophy, but we shouldn’t be surprised when it isn’t much of a tool for us. QM is a good example.
(I must admit that I have a bad attitude toward philosophy after having read far too many articles from Christian philosophers like Wm. Lane Craig who supports grand conclusions with thoughtless claims. Perhaps our discussion will help revitalize philosophy for me.)
Hey guys—I don’t mean to interrupt, but just want to applaud you both for the interesting exchange. I too am fond of the argument from divine hiddenness, it’ll be interesting to see where you guys go with it (if you choose to pursue it). Again, thanks.
Frank:
Thanks for the feedback.
I’m an atheist. From my perspective, the problem of divine hiddenness is a tougher problem for the Christian than the problem of evil.
If you’re curious, I’ve written at some length about the issue here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/08/the-most-powerful-argument-against-christianity-problem-of-divine-hiddenness-atheism/
Agreed. Once you posit the existence of a God that loves us and wants to engage with us you immediately become responsible for explaining his absence, be it real or apparent. That is the entire purpose of apologetics. Like I suggested to Hillary, perhaps apologetics isn’t written with skeptics like us in mind. Maybe it’s written to help convince other Christians.
Frank: Good point about the purpose of apologetics. I think the purpose is almost exclusively to assure Christians that they’ve backed the right horse rather than encourage nonbelievers to sign up.
This is a tangent, but IMO no atheist converts to Christianity unless (1) they don’t have a good grasp of all sides of the popular arguments pro and con or (2) they convert for emotional reasons (rather than intellectual).
Hi Frank
Great you jumped in. No worries. I think your questions are good, but as Hillary has noted, we need to go behind the questions and address the assumptions that inspired the inquiries in the first place.
How does an atheist know God is hidden?
If the Bible says “The whole earth is filled with His glory” and “The heavens declare the glory of God” or that God has shown us His invisible attributes through what He has created, on what grounds rest atheist claims of their being no tangible, visible evidence of God’s presence or handiwork in the world?
Jesus says “Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Does that mean God is hiding? To know God is hiding is to know what He looks like. How does an atheist know that?
Love to hear your thoughts.
DR
God is hidden because his existence is unclear. Christians point to vague shadows and say, “Didja see that? Over there! It’s God … oh, too late.”
If we could have lunch, I’d know that you (or at least the guy across the table from me) exists as much as I know anything. The Christian view is that we must first know that God simply exists (the believing in Jesus as savior comes next), and yet this step that is trivial and rarely even comes up in human interaction is the obstacle that stops Christian apologetics.
Hi, Frank. Is Apologetics for Christians? Yes! Is it *just* for Christians? Absolutely not!. Sometimes, we need to be reminded of what’s before our very eyes. You are correct when you say the hiddenness is only apparent. We are to blame, Frank.
G.K. Chesterton wrote that when it comes to speaking to our modern world about Christianity, “we have to react against the heavy bias of fatigue” in which “it is almost impossible to make the facts vivid, because the facts are familiar; and for fallen men it is often true that familiarity is fatigue.” Sometimes we are too close to something to be able to objectively assess its merits. In his book “The Everlasting Man,” Chesterton wrote that “it is well with the boy when he lives on his father’s land; and well with him again when he is far enough from it to look back on it and see it as a whole.” But we in the modern world are in a horrible “intermediate state”, for we have “fallen into an intervening valley from which” we cannot see clearly. We need to go on a journey far enough away so that our vision can be cleared.
J.R.R. Tolkien referred to such a journey as an act of “recovery”, and he wrote of the same fatigue, calling it “the penalty of ‘appropriation” in which things take on a triteness when we think “we know them”. That’s one reason why he wrote “The Lord of the Rings,” by the way.
Apologetics can be a tool we use to help others see what is right before their very eyes – what Romans 1 talks of: seeing God through the work of His hands. YES! We need this because we “have sinned and have grown old” as Chesterton said. We get bored and fall out of love too easily. The fault is ours for we are weak and fickle.
The more I study philosophy and theology, the more I understand what Paul told the Athenians on Mars Hill and what I believed as a simple child, God is not far from us. We are swimming in evidence as I told Bob above. Indeed, my time researching in the field of protein crystallography challenged me with this every single day. It was humbling, to say the least!
God’s glory can be seen quite clearly from what he has made – including our reasoning and moral faculties (most of the time, that is – we can abuse those faculties, too!).
I think we struggle with divine hiddenness because we ask the wrong questions, have wrong (or poorly-formed) expectations, and do not stop to factor ourselves into the picture. We put God in the dock without stopping to ask if we even should and if we’ve done something that makes him only seem distant and hidden. I think this is especially hard for us moderns for we assume that the idea of sin is antiquated, at best (except when Trump was elected which was clearly evil :-P).
A good scientist/ seeker of truth should consider all rational possibilities that fit the greatest amount of data. As far as I see it, atheism only works in the negative– by explaining away practically everything we hold dear (and it might even end up explaining away itself!). Morality? That doesn’t need explaining, it’s just evolution. Love? That doesn’t need explaining, it’s just oxytocin. Rationality? That doesn’t need explaining, it’s just pattern-making finely tuned by survival. And so on ….
Conversely, what Paul tells the brightest thinkers of his day in Acts 17 explains the totality of our existence beautifully without explaining away as illusions important aspects of our daily lives like free-will/moral responsibility, morality, love, the existence of real good and evil, meaning, and the confidence we can place in our senses and faculties.
Under atheism, MORE becomes hidden – more eludes us. Under atheism, we should talk about the hiddenness of love, morality, free-will, genuine good and evil … much of our daily experience!
And this makes sense for God is goodness and love and rationality himself. He goes, they go.
The universe being a product of an intelligent, just, and loving being is a better fit for the data.
Therefore, he is not as hidden as we’d like to think sometimes. Hebrews says he upholds the universe moment by moment and when I finally understood Aquinas’s Unmoved Mover, I saw this confirmed. Anselm’s Ontological argument says the He is existence itself but God told Moses this centuries before: “I AM WHO I AM.”
Romans says that we sometimes suppress this truth (and hide God) because we do not like what it says about ourselves. His hiddenness is an artifact, in other words. His existence shines a terrible light on our misdeeds. I think this is certainly worth considering, too.
In the end, I am thankful for apologetics because it helped me overcome a heavy bias of fatigue because I had sinned and grown old.
My in-depth replies to Bob have gone to e-mail.
But regarding atheists and divine hiddenness. How does the atheist know God is hiding? And how does the atheist know which God is allegedly hiding? This question seems to assume an atheist would know what God’s presence would be if He were not hiding.
I have copied my e-mail response to Bob below. Book titles are not properly formatted as I did not want to fuss with the html!
Bob
Nothing you have said tells me anything about what sort of criteria you have in mind for God’s existence. Simply preferring “natural” explanations does not explain what it is you think would count as evidence for God. The closest you have come to making an attempt at a definition so far is “Something unexplainable by natural explanations.”
How do you know that would be evidence for God’s existence?
There are a few unexplainable phenomena in the universe at present. Why don’t the following mysteries count as “Something unexplainable by natural explanations”? These are sections from essays I have written.
1. Technetium in Red Giant Stars.
Consider that there is an element found on the periodic table in position number 43. It’s called Technetium (Tc) and though it can be and has been manufactured on Earth in particle accelerators, it has never been found to be naturally occurring on the planet anywhere. Technetium has seventeen more protons in its nucleus than iron and according to current theories of how stuff heavier than iron is formed, Tc, along with sliver (Ag), gold (Au), lead (Pb), and many other atomic weights beyond 26, had to have been forged in supernovae, so say the current theories about how stuff came into existence. The massive amount of energy released in a supernovae is currently believed to be the source that fuses together the nucleuses of these heavier elements. Supernovae are usually said to occur at the end of a long process of stellar evolution that takes place over the course of billions of years. The curious fact about technetium is that scientists say it has a relatively short half-life of just a few million years. In other words, technetium does not hang around for very long. What then, can explain the presence of this relatively quick-diminishing metal in the presence of a class of very old red suns, nearing their supernova singularity, known as AGB stars?
2. Star formation in the early universe.
Current star formation theories state that new stars are born from “clumps” of gas pressed together by gravity. Gas, however, tends to spread out. When you press the top of an aerosol can, you can see this for yourself – you are releasing gas into the atmosphere. Gas will flow from a state of high pressure to low pressure. On Earth, we use mechanized air compressors to squeeze gasses into metal tanks, but what exactly goes on “out there” in the starry nether regions remains somewhat of a mystery, for there aren’t any tanks or compressors out in the universe. One theory suggests that the shockwaves of supernovae could interact with the mass present in the gas cloud and compress it into a gravitational state sufficient for igniting the heart of a star. But if the early universe was a very “smooth” distribution matter, from where do the clumps originate? And how might one explain a veritable plethora of supernovae in a relatively young universe? An article appearing in Scientific American in 2009 suggests that “The case for a high supernova rate at early times… dovetails with the recent evidence suggesting that most of the ordinary matter and metals in the universe lies in the diffuse intergalactic medium rather than in galaxies.” In short, oodles of supernovae are said to be responsible for the manufacture and subsequent firing of gold, silver, and lots of the “heavier” elements on the periodic table out into “space”. Alchemy on steroids for the 21st century. “To produce such a distribution of matter,” the article goes on to say, “galaxy formation must have been a spectacular process, involving intense bursts of massive star formation and barrages of supernovae that expelled most of the gas and metals out of the galaxies.” Note “barrages of supernovae.” In a young universe, mind you. How do young stars use up their fuel so quickly? And how do gas and dust coalesce into supernovae-ready clumps? You need a “clump” of gas and dust to start the whole business. More mass, more gravity, more fuel. No one really knows. Big Bang theories predict clumps (remember they are models, not actualities), but do not explain clumps. They are just there. But even if we grant that explanation, when one considers just how many stars are out there, it seems to be a point of contradiction within the theory to suggest the existence of “barrages of supernovae” in a very young universe could be responsible for primordial star formation. But because astrophysicists are still investigating this stellar puzzle, the universe’s first stars are sometimes classified as “Population III” stars as they allegedly differ widely from stars as we know them today. The only problem is that Pop III stars are entirely hypothetical at present. Despite intense searches, no Pop III star has ever been observed.”[1]
[1] http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Population+III, accessed February 15, 2017.
3. 1-in-100,000 Density Problem in the CMBR.
In 2016, Princeton astrophysics professor Michael A. Strauss admits that “it is not obvious, even under the process of gravitational instability, that fluctuations at the level of one part in 100,000 can evolve into the incredibly structured universe we see today in the galaxy distribution.”[1] He’s saying essentially the same thing Weinberg is saying but adds that “computer simulations” have demonstrated this miniscule ratio can potentially give us the galaxies we see today. But a “computer simulation” was begun by intelligent programmers, not all by itself from a primordial expansion of matter and energy and time. As the theory stands, it seems that there is a general consensus that there wasn’t enough clumpy stuff in the early universe for galaxies to have formed as they have.
The issue is that there exists a fantastically smooth uniformity throughout the early universe (with only 1 part in 100,000 having these clumps) in the form of microwave background radiation, photons at the microwave end of the electromagnetic spectrum. These light particles are the alleged luminous “left-overs” of the initial expansion or “Big Bang” of the universe, like sizzling fireworks tendrils falling from the sky after the initial firework has died out. These were predicted to exist, but the technology to detect them was not available until the mid 1960s, when Penzias and Wilson accidentally ran across a faint hiss in their Bell Laboratory antenna. These photons have a remarkably uniform temperature and distribution throughout the entire universe, reflecting only slight variation in density (the 1 part in 100,000 Strauss mentions above). It seems plain that no one expected these photons to be so evenly distributed. The astrophysics community was so sure they’d find the clumps, the COBE satellite was launched in 1990 in order to validate the predictions. But as it turned out COBE found just the opposite. Nothing but smoothness. It proved to be such a conundrum a second satellite was launched with more sensitive equipment, the WMAP mentioned above which currently sits at Lagrange point 2. COBE basically said “Fie on your mountains, Giant Math.” WMAP said, “Indeed there are no mountains anywhere, but there are a few dust mites lingering about.”
“We’ll take them!” said the astronomers, eager to solve for X.
The combined data of these satellites gave astrophysicists the 1-in-100,000 density variations. But such small clumps hardly solved the problem, given the size of the universe and number of galaxies we find all over the place. Giant Math says the radiation in the very early universe had to be really clumpy. Without “clumps,” gravity has nothing upon which it could act, not enough matter to condense into ginormous galaxies. Note this explanation of early galaxy formation and how it completely passes over the “clumps” issue.
“After the epoch when the Universe was a million years old, the cosmic radiation streamed freely. The matter cooled and became dark. During the subsequent eons of expansion, the matter agglomerated into lumps that became galaxies. At some point, the gas in the lumps condensed and heated and started the first production of stars. The long interval between the release of the cosmic background radiation and the lighting up of the first stars has come to be called the ‘Dark Ages.’ After a long period with no light, stars winked on and the Universe started to take the form we recognize now.”[2]
No mention of the enormous problem of missing stuff. Scientists hoped the clumps would show up in the background radiation in a Mt. Everest kind of way. But instead COBE and WMAP revealed it was more like very fine dust grains. But “dust grains” alone cannot explain galaxy formation. The mountains must still be there, astronomers reasoned, they just must be invisible. X isn’t a number at all, in fact, it is nothing. Not even zero. As Trefil explains it rather plainly, “galaxies can’t exist if we assume that radiation was smoothly distributed in the early universe…The upshot is this. What is required of the microwave background by the galaxy formation process and what we observe of its uniformity are diametrically opposed to each other.”[3] Since they couldn’t find the mountains, they settled for dust mites and posited an enormous corpus of invisible matter. For “the observed uniformity of the microwave background implies that radiation could never have been so thoroughly clumped; if it had been, it wouldn’t be uniform today. When detained numerical calculations are done, astrophysicists find that it is impossible to reconcile these two conflicting requirements.”[4]
[1] J. Richard Gott; Michael A. Strauss and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Welcome to the Universe, An Astrophysical Tour (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2016), 238.
[2] J. Craig Wheeler, Cosmic Catastrophes, Exploding Stars, Black Holes, and Mapping the Universe, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 259.
[3] Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe, 63-64.
[4] Ibid, 64-65.
You mention that “I’m simply evaluating the contributions that religion has made in teaching us about nature and reality.” It appears your survey is somewhat limited then. Roger Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, James Clerk Maxwell, just to name a few, were all Christians whose faith had a direct influence upon their scientific endeavors. Christianity in particular gave scientists the confidence that the world was orderly and could be comprehended, something Einstein in his rejection of God could not understand. I have an acquaintance at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, MD who works with Hubble full time. He is a devout Christian whose faith also influences the care he puts into his work. Perhaps you have seen his work? The Hubble Ultra/Extreme Deep Field. He was the chief image processor of this image. Ten thousand galaxies in a spot of sky no bigger than a sand grain held out at arms length. Four hundred Hubble orbits, 800 exposures. From an essay of mine:
Sir Arthur Eddington wrote in 1931 that “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me. I am simply stating that the dilemma to which our present fundamental conception of physical law leads us. I see no way around it; but whether the future developments of science will find an escape I cannot predict. The dilemma is this: Surveying our surroundings, we find them to be far from a ‘fortuitous concourse of atoms.’ The picture of the world, as drawn in existing physical theories, shows arrangement of the individual elements for which the odds are multillions to 1 against an origin by chance. Some people would like to call this non-random feature of the world purpose or design; but I will call it non-committally anti-chance.”[1] For Hubble Space Telescope astrophysicist Anton Koekemoer who served as the primary imaging specialist in producing the Hubble Ultra and Extreme Deep Field images for release to the public, the heavens are more than just “anti-chance”. He believes the stunning pastorals Hubble has taken of the universe “can be thought of as ‘landscape portraits’ of the cosmos, using Hubble as our camera, which we then make available to the world. The variety of colors and shapes in our images are generally intended to appear as they would if they could be seen directly by the human eye, and I sometimes describe these as revealing ‘God’s artwork on a cosmic canvas.’ The images also often convey much of the scientific results directly, as the shapes, sizes, and colors of the galaxies, stars, and glowing gas clouds all reveal the astrophysical processes that are at work. So there is often an elegant connection between the images themselves and the scientific results that we can obtain from them.”[2]
Koekemoer goes on to say that “Just contemplating the sheer scale of the universe, as well as the beauty revealed in all our astronomical images, can leave anyone with a profound sense of awe and wonder, regardless of one’s perspective on religion. From my own personal viewpoint as a Christian, I would say that we can appreciate even more deeply how the writers of Scripture were inspired thousands of years ago to write: ‘the heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies proclaim His handiwork’ (Ps. 19:1). Contemplating the scale of the universe can also lead us to ponder the ultimate significance of our own humanity by comparison, as stated so eloquently by the Psalmist: ‘What is humankind, that Thou art mindful of us?’ (Ps. 8:4). Yet the very next verses provide an answer to this question, by showing how precious we all are to God. When we consider the universe from the viewpoint of religion, by contemplating God as its creator, faith can be deeply enriched and broadened as a result.”[3] As a world-class astrophysicist working with the iconic Hubble Space Telescope, Koekemoer sees no conflict between his Christian faith and scientific endeavors. He believes it “is quite possible to contemplate the grand scale of the universe, as revealed by modern astronomical science, from the perspective of faith where God is viewed as its creator, as revealed by scripture, and that science and faith can be fully reconciled in this context. Science can be said to describe the physical mechanisms and processes in the universe, while the Christian faith considers God as the agent responsible for its creation and discusses the purpose of our own lives in that context, which is not really a question that can even be posed in a scientific setting.”[4]
[1] Danielson, The Book of the Cosmos, 403. Eddington uses the term “multillions” to refer to any number 10^10^10 or more.
[2] From “The Scribe,” summer 2016 newsletter, “Q&A With Astrophysicist Anton Koekemoer,” Accessed June 24, 2017, http://www.saintjohnsbible.org/promotions/news/pdfs/Summer16.pdf.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
You are of course entitled to your opinions, but the history of science and Christianity in particular suggest to me your opinion is not in accordance with reality.
Bob, I think it is a simple question for which you have not yet provided any comprehensive answer.
What counts as evidence for God’s existence and handiwork? If you reject the Christian claims or the claims of any other religion, then I can only assume you would know what God would look like if He did exist. If you don’t have an answer, then you have given me and the Mama Bears good reason to be skeptical of your atheistic assumptions. What’s the evidence for God’s existence?
Look forward to your reply. Thanks again.
DR
Frank:
No, to know that God is hiding is simply to express the blindingly obvious fact that relationships in human space rarely stumble over or even are aware of step 1, “Does the other person actually exist?”
A God who was not hiding would have his existence as obvious as that of any person with whom you had a relationship.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere!
A God who was not hiding would have his existence as obvious as that of any person with whom you had a relationship.
How does an atheist know what God would be or do if He existed? Could you elaborate a bit more?
Where’s the confusion?? What is unclear about my quoted statement?
God is hidden because his existence is unclear.
Who is making that determination? It seems you are fairly confident the question of God’s existence is pretty clear – namely He does not exist.
So again, unclear by what standard? Is His existence unclear or does He not exist?
Me, obviously. The Christian claims are presented to me, and I’m the one who must evaluate them.
Say you and I had lunch tomorrow. I’d then know that Dan (more precisely: that guy I had lunch with) exists. I see no equivalent for God.
And no, “Just look around at this marvelous world!” is no answer. I can explain why not if this isn’t obvious.
You’re determined to be baffled yet again with my response, so I doubt we’ll have made any progress. You should ask a different way. Better: answer the question for me as best you can so I can see what I’m doing wrong.
Rebekah:
Said another way, apologetics is necessary because God’s existence is not at all obvious.
If I’m imperfect, I think you need to take it up with my Maker.
Evidence for . . . Yahweh? or Chemosh? or Allah? or Zeus? The popular apologetics are deist arguments. I find none convincing, but if I did, this only takes us to a clock maker. More effort is required to go to the specific god.
And the Muslim scientist marvels at the majesty of the world that Allah has created. And so on.
Sometimes I see Christians treating God like a baby. He’s not responsible for anything. He can’t handle criticism. You can avoid criticizing the God claims after you know that he exists.
Does God exist? Then he gave me this big human brain to use. If I stand in judgment, one thing I won’t need to answer for is not using my brain to challenge unsupported worldview claims. The Christian claims that don’t stand up must be challenged, by me and by you. If the Christian worldview isn’t well supported by evidence, then it should be discarded.
Let’s just reset for a moment and remember that atheism is simply the answer to one question, is there a god? (Alternatively, do you have a god belief?) You can answer any other question any way you want.
Technically, that’s science. I will, like you, lump a naturalistic worldview with an atheistic worldview, but we should occasionally remind ourselves what a narrow domain “atheism” actually covers.
Huh? You do know that atheists are moral, can love, evaluate good and evil, and so on, right? I don’t see what hiddenness you’re talking about.
Well, there are the natural explanations. If you don’t like them, just say that these are unanswered questions. When you drop the God hypothesis, you’ve lost zero good explanations. “God did it” can “explain” myriad things, but never with any evidence.
“Said another way, apologetics is necessary because God’s existence is not at all obvious.”
Um, did you just read my comment above, Bob? Go read it, again. I must not have clear.
“If I’m imperfect, I think you need to take it up with my Maker.”
Christian theology has an answer for this. It’s called moral responsibility. There’s no such thing as imperfection under atheism. There is no good and no evil!
“Evidence for . . . Yahweh? or Chemosh? or Allah? or Zeus? The popular apologetics are deist arguments. I find none convincing, but if I did, this only takes us to a clock maker. More effort is required to go to the specific god.”
Sure some of the arguments can apply to other monotheistic gods. Not sure how evidential arguments for the Resurrection do ….
“And the Muslim scientist marvels at the majesty of the world that Allah has created. And so on.”
Yes, humans throughout most of history have done this as they looked at “what has been made.” Romans 1 speaks of this – general revelation. I think it is a way God does communicate with us – especially for those outside his special revelation. Atheists are the outliers here when it comes to the whole of humanity throughout history.
“Huh? You do know that atheists are moral, can love, evaluate good and evil, and so on, right? I don’t see what hiddenness you’re talking about.”
Huh? Where did I say you couldn’t? Of course, you can! It’s that daily experience I’ve been telling you about ad nauseam. Under atheism, all of that is an illusion, a trick of the brain. None of it is real in the sense that we believe. Take morality: it could have evolved such that what we think is evil would be good and vice versa. It is completely arbitrary. Good and evil are nonexistent. But see, you can’t live that way, can you? Obviously, you care for you’ve decided that Christianity is bad enough to spend a good part of your waking existence shooting down every sentence that challenges your worldview. Under atheism, why care? Obviously, religion is here and it served some purpose – leave it be. Atheism can’t really be better – there is no better or worse – none of that makes sense!
“Well, there are the natural explanations.”
Precisely! That’s my entire point. There are indeed attempts at natural explanations but they explain by explaining away things like love, good, evil, free-will, mind, etc. None of these have any real value in such explanations, for nature is blind and valueless and operates mindlessly. That’s been my entire argument. But we do not live like they are valueless, do we? Some atheists have tried and it didn’t end well for them – they went mad. So you can think that all of these things arose by themselves, without any kind of mind guiding and grounding them. You are conveniently getting rid of the very evidence that God uses to hold us accountable per Romans 1 – that evidence that we swim in. It all becomes nothing – a mere trick of a highly evolved brain.
But how can we trust anything with such a trickster brain? That’s a huge price to pay. It won’t end well if you try to live by that.
“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools …”
Here’s hoping you stop resisting God, Bob. It’s a dangerous business.
Hi Bob
Evidence for . . . Yahweh? or Chemosh? or Allah? or Zeus? The popular apologetics are deist arguments. I find none convincing, but if I did, this only takes us to a clock maker. More effort is required to go to the specific god.
You are apparently rejecting all theistic claims. So you must have made a concerted effort to compile some pretty specific criteria in mind as to actual evidence for God’s existence. Again, could you outline precisely for what it is you are looking exactly?
“God did it” can “explain” myriad things, but never with any evidence.
What do you mean by evidence Bob? You persist in using this word without ever defining precisely what you have in mind. So I think it necessary for you to outline what exactly you have in mind when you mention “evidence.”
All the Christian apologetic arguments are terrible. If God existed, (1) they wouldn’t be terrible, and (2) they wouldn’t be necessary.
If the Christian worldview isn’t well supported by evidence, then it should be discarded.
What exactly should this evidence be and how do you know?
You can continue to make the “no-evidence” assertion, but until you provide us with specific criteria and the means by which you justify that criteria, there is no way to know what you are talking about.
Daniel:
Your complaint that I didn’t satisfy you with my response to your question about the evidence for God that I need prompted me with the blog post series below, “25 Reasons We Don’t Live in a World with a God.” These are the things that I see in the world that argue for no god. What I need is to see that these things don’t exist (that I’m mistaken in seeing them, I guess).
You weren’t satisfied with my last (short) answer, and I’m sure you won’t be satisfied with this new (very long) answer, but FYI. I thought you might be interested in hearing how our conversation last December bore fruit.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/02/25-reasons-dont-live-world-god/
Thanks for sharing Bob.
Hi Dan—
You: “Hi Frank
Great you jumped in. No worries. I think your questions are good, but as Hillary has noted, we need to go behind the questions and address the assumptions that inspired the inquiries in the first place.”
Thanks, Dan. I have no problem with questioning any assumptions I may have made. So—
You: “How does an atheist know God is hidden?
If the Bible says “The whole earth is filled with His glory” and “The heavens declare the glory of God” or that God has shown us His invisible attributes through what He has created, on what grounds rest atheist claims of their being no tangible, visible evidence of God’s presence or handiwork in the world?”
When people describe whether or not evidence exists for the existence of God or whether his existence can be established by argument they speak as if they’re trying to discover phlogiston when in fact God is an intelligent agent capable of independent action. He doesn’t need apologists, he doesn’t need scripture, he can speak for himself just fine and yet has chosen not to. How do I know God is hiding (presuming he really exists)? Because he isn’t telling me himself that he’s real. That he seems to need apologists and missionaries that are far less persuasive than he would be. There’s the rub. He could appear to me in fiery glory and tell me what’s on his mind with 100% persuasiveness but instead has chosen to send some guy on the internet. His hiddenness is a valid objection as evidenced by the very fact that we’re even having this discussion in the first place. You notice we aren’t arguing whether or not the earth exists.
Let me offer an analogy. You proclaim yourself to be in a relationship with one Jesus of Nazareth, yes? Now—how would you react if I told you I was in an actual relationship with an extraterrestrial and when you asked for some sort of verification of this, instead of showing you ET so you could see for yourself I scratched out the Drake equation on a blackboard? That’s what the apologists does, because that’s what apologetics is for.
There’s no getting around it: When you advertise the existence of a deity that has means, motive and opportunity to reveal himself to me in an unmistakable way—and then he doesn’t show up—you got some splainin to do, Lucy.
One of the best ways to confirm that God is hidden is by the simple observation that I am discussing the subject with you rather than with God directly. In fact,
Jesus says “Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Does that mean God is hiding? To know God is hiding is to know what He looks like. How does an atheist know that?
Love to hear your thoughts.”
Frank:
Very succinctly stated. Thanks!
Sorry—Edit above to end my reply after “you got some splainin to do, Lucy.”
Hi Frank
Thanks for being “frank” in your replies. Who else could you be except yourself?
God is an intelligent agent capable of independent action. He doesn’t need apologists, he doesn’t need scripture, he can speak for himself just fine and yet has chosen not to. How do I know God is hiding (presuming he really exists)? Because he isn’t telling me himself that he’s real.
So my question to you is that if you really do know these things about God, that he is an “intelligent agent capable of independent action” or that “He doesn’t need apologists” or “scripture” that “he can speak for himself just fine” even the notion that God is a “he” – then I can only surmise He has indeed revealed Himself to you. You obviously know something about Him it seems, do you not? How did you acquire that knowledge? Where did it come from? Why wouldn’t that count as God revealing Himself to you?
If you want to claim you have a relationship with ET, by all means. But it doesn’t matter what kind of evidence “I” would require of you, Frank. Might be entirely true you indeed have this relationship. My own personal evidentiary criteria would not affect the truth of your claim one way or the other, would it? I might demand you show me a little pale green androgynous figure, about three or four feet in height with big, black bulgy eyes and slit for a mouth, with gangly arms and legs, but those criteria might be completely wide the mark. My criteria neither proves or disproves your claim. I think we would agree.
As far as God not “showing up,” that only says to me Frank knows for whom he is looking. Again, how do you know?
Thanks for replying.
DR
Uh . . . I think Frank is taking on the Christian worldview just for the sake of argument to illustrate the problem. No, I’m pretty sure God hasn’t revealed himself to Frank.
One more observation – to say that God has chosen not to speak is to tacitly admit you would know what His speaking would sound like, no?
I would not know exactly what Frank is up to. I am sure he can elaborate.
I’m an atheist, and I will happily point out imperfect and moral error as I see it. I have no idea what constraints you think I have that prevent that.
How is morality any less real for the atheist?
Yes, quite so. And God could’ve made murder and rape OK by writing that on our hearts.
Not “arbitrary” in the sense of throwing darts randomly at a dart board. However, I see no evidence that morality is bound by anything objectively true. (Here, I’m using WLC’s definition of objective morality: “moral values that are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not.”)
Not to an atheist.
I presume you’re imagining an objective good that the atheist can’t access. (1) I can’t access it for the same reason you can’t—because (as far as I can tell) it doesn’t exist. (2) Look up “good” and “bad” in the dictionary and explain to me how the atheist can’t access them. Last time I checked, there was no objective demand in the dictionary.
?? I live in the US. Christianity is the bull in a china shop. Christians demand prayer in city council meetings, they try to get prayer and Creationism in public schools, they demand Christian belief as a prerequisite for public office, and so on. Have you not been paying attention?
There’s good, and there’s objective good. Two different things. Are you assuming objectiveness for these?
Yes, the human brain is imperfect. We have biases. We’re subject to logical fallacies. We’re terrible at simple probability. Illusions, mental illness, and so on—we both agree, I’m sure, that the human brain is imperfect.
I’m not sure where the problem is for me—I propose the error-prone but self-correcting scientific method.
And yet when that imperfect brain tells you that God exists—a truly incredible conclusion—you believe it. Are you living in a glass house with this argument?
“Are you living in a glass house with this argument?”
I don’t think you’ve understood my argument at all. God grounds our reasoning faculty because in Him, it is the product of an intelligent mind not mindless, directionless, nonrational processes. We can have much more confidence in all of our faculties if they are the product of a rational mind rather than nonrational forces – the movements of matter. That is all. Not a glass house, at all, unless, of course, God is evil and is tricking us. There are other arguments about His inherent goodness – that he is goodness itself – that counteract those, though.
But this is just turning into a tit-for-tat, Bob, and I simply do not have the time or energy at the moment. I hope others do, though. These conversations are always so much better in person, anyway.
God is there and He is not silent. That is all, Bob. I hope you come to see that one day.
I am truly sorry that some people have been shoving Christianity down your throat like bulls in china shops, causing you to fear for your freedom. That is wrong. Deeply wrong.
God does not and will not force Himself on us, so we shouldn’t force Him on others.
OK
More “evidence” claims, Bob? What are you looking for?
I see no evidence…
What are you looking for?
I presume you’re imagining an objective good that the atheist can’t access. (1) I can’t access it for the same reason you can’t—because (as far as I can tell) it doesn’t exist.
What does objective good look like Bob? If you haven’t seen it, then you must know what it would look like. Could you explain this a little more?
And yet when that imperfect brain tells you that God exists—a truly incredible conclusion—you believe it.
And you do not. Whose brain arbitrates the difference? What is the proper standard of evidence by which brains should go on and who gets to decide that question?
By all means, Bob, articulate what you mean by evidence. As long as you keep pressing the point of this evidentiary lack, I will keep asking you to articulate specifically what it is you’re looking for!
What a fun game we’re playing here! I explain what I’m looking for (“Here, I’m using WLC’s definition of objective morality: ‘moral values that are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not’ ”) and you just ignore that and go back to square 1. It’s like we’re playing chutes and ladders with every square having a chute back to the beginning.
Hi Bob
No games at all. You have never seen a standard such as WLC describes means it must not exist, then right? Since Bob hasn’t seen such a thing, it must not exist? Is that your argument?
All the Christian apologetic arguments are terrible. If God existed, (1) they wouldn’t be terrible, and (2) they wouldn’t be necessary.
And again. Bob believes such arguments are terrible and unnecessary so, well, then Bob must be correct.
This still does not answer the question I have been patiently asking you to answer, Bob. What constitutes acceptable evidence for God’s existence and works and how would you know?
By the way, Bob, how are you so sure of this?
I’m pretty sure God hasn’t revealed himself to Frank.
How does God reveal Himself to people? Does Frank’s atheism mean God has not revealed Himself to Frank? How would you know?
Bob is correct. God has not revealed himself to me. If he had I would be a theist right now, since God is 100% persuasive when he wants to be.
Hi Frank
Did not want to assume anything of course.
So thanks again for replying! So it seems you do claim to know something about God, no? But if He is hidden as you say, how can you know anything about Him, even the fact that He is hidden? From where do you get your ideas about God and why wouldn’t that information you have about God be a means by which He has revealed Himself to you?
How does God reveal Himself to a person, Frank? You say He has not revealed Himself to you because if He did you would be a theist. But have you considered the possibility that He has revealed Himself to you, even through the physical world, and that maybe you have found His revelation unsatisfactory and have rejected it?
What do you think?
“A God who was not hiding would have his existence as obvious as that of any person with whom you had a relationship.”
How does an atheist know what God would be or do if He existed? Could you elaborate a bit more?
Where’s the confusion?? What is unclear about my quoted statement?
Hi Bob, what is unclear is from where you as an atheist are deriving your theology. How do you know God would be that obvious, in other words? That’s what I meant.
The God hypothesis is ad hoc. It’s an answer to nothing, because the natural explanations are sufficient.
You might respond that we have unanswered questions. And, yes, I’ll admit that “God did it” can pretty much explain everything. But, of course, by explaining everything, it is unfalsifiable and therefore useless.
Alternatively, we can reach “God did it” as a conclusion. That would be fine, but I need to see the evidence for that conclusion. I’ve seen nothing convincing.
Bob, with comments such as these, it is perfectly reasonable to continue to ask you how you know what evidence for God would look like. It is clear you want to continue to make this “no-evidence” claim but are continuing to refuse to answer how you know there is no evidence.
So I will just keep asking.
How do you know God is “ad hoc”? What evidence do you need to see? What exactly are you looking for? What would God’s handiwork in the realm of physics look like? What would be the qualities of divine attributes in the physical world if they were created by God?
Look forward to your replies!
I’m sure you will. After asking you to repeatedly clarify your question and even model what an acceptable answer would look like, it looks that this rhetorical game of yours isn’t about sharing information and expanding minds. Since you won’t and I can’t get past this issue, we can’t move on to topics that are actually interesting.
I’m done. Bye.
Hi Bob
There’s no need for me to model or clarify anything, Bob. They are your claims, not mine.
So I will repeat the request for you to specify what you mean when you say there is “no evidence” for the claims Hillary and Rebekah are making. Can you be more specific? What are you looking for exactly? You’re the only one who can answer those question, not me.
What constitutes acceptable evidence for God’s existence and handiwork? How can I be any more clear than that, sir? Surely you are using some sort of standard. By all means share it with us!
I am fully willing to have a continued discussion with you, but I will also continue to hold you accountable for the claims you have made herein. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to ask, especially since you do seem keen on the importance of evidence yourself.
If ever you do return with more comments about a lack of evidence, though, I will be here once more with the same questions! Thanks for the exchange.
All the best to you sir!
DR 🙂
Better: answer the question for me as best you can so I can see what I’m doing wrong.
Bob, you are the only one who can answer the question. What are the standards of evidence you use in assessing claims for God’s existence and workmanship?
Hi again, Dan—
You: “Hi Frank
Thanks for being “frank” in your replies. Who else could you be except yourself?”
Thanks Dan, I do try to be as forthright and as frank in my discussio….oh wait. I get it.
Me: “God is an intelligent agent capable of independent action. He doesn’t need apologists, he doesn’t need scripture, he can speak for himself just fine and yet has chosen not to. How do I know God is hiding (presuming he really exists)? Because he isn’t telling me himself that he’s real.”
You: “So my question to you is that if you really do know these things about God, that he is an “intelligent agent capable of independent action” or that “He doesn’t need apologists” or “scripture” that “he can speak for himself just fine” even the notion that God is a “he” – then I can only surmise He has indeed revealed Himself to you.”
Then I would have to reply that your surmis….ation, your surmis…sion, your conjecture is incorrect. Since you’re a Christian, the deity under discussion is the Christian one. The attributes I allude to can be gleaned from a cursory examination of the Bible; no divine appearance required.
You: “You obviously know something about Him it seems, do you not? How did you acquire that knowledge? Where did it come from? Why wouldn’t that count as God revealing Himself to you?”
Me: Well, lemme ask you—If I read the Koran’s description regarding the attributes of Allah would that count as Allah having revealed himself to me?
You: “If you want to claim you have a relationship with ET, by all means. But it doesn’t matter what kind of evidence “I” would require of you, Frank. Might be entirely true you indeed have this relationship. My own personal evidentiary criteria would not affect the truth of your claim one way or the other, would it? I might demand you show me a little pale green androgynous figure, about three or four feet in height with big, black bulgy eyes and slit for a mouth, with gangly arms and legs, but those criteria might be completely wide the mark. My criteria neither proves or disproves your claim. I think we would agree.”
Me: This seems like an odd reply. You consider yourself unequipped to evaluate the validity of an extraterrestrial being even if you were to directly examine one, but you have no problem accepting the validity of a divinity you haven’t even seen.
Hello Frank
Glad you caught my poor attempt at humor. But you were indeed being “frank” so I thought the attempt apropos.
If you are assuming the Christian God, then you know that the Bible is His revelation to us. He has revealed Himself to you. You can bring Him “out of hiding” by reading what is written. And not only through His Word does He reveal Himself but through the world, according to Romans 1. He has revealed Himself to us through what He has created.
One of the first objects ever imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope was the star Betelgeuse in the constellation of Orion. It is estimated that the star’s diameter is nearly a billion miles. Why does that not count as evidence of God’s handiwork? According to the Bible, it does.
The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork.The Hebrew word for “glory” means “weighty”. And that is precisely what a star is – massive, weighty. Why not?
No. I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the living God. The Koran emphatically denies Jesus is anything but a prophet of Allah. That’s my simple answer for now (I would not mind an aside discussion in comparative religions if you wish, by all means)
But I assume you have already answered this question for yourself, have you not? In rejecting all theistic claims, you must have some kind of standard in mind by which you assess them, no? What would those be?
But you kind of skipped over my question by asking me about the Koran. In order for you to make a claim that God is hidden, you have to claim to know something about God. You’ve said you’re positing the Christian God for the sake of the discussion. How would you know if God did exist? How would you know how He reveals Himself to us? And Why does not Jesus coming in the flesh count as God revealing Himself to us?
I have never seen an extraterrestrial Frank. Wouldn’t have a clue what one would look like save for what I have seen on TV and in the movies. If you really claimed to have one, what standards would I have to go on to assess your claim?
DR 🙂
Hi Rebekah, and thanks for taking the time to reply. Actually I was about half way through a smokin hot response to you that would’ve doubtless shattered your faith right down to the ground when the wife without so much as a by-your-leave booted me off the computer. Now let me tell you, there are Mama Bears and there are Mama Bears, and the one I’m thinking of has claws. So this reply is the cold leftovers of what I started to whip up last nite.
You: “Hi, Frank. Is Apologetics for Christians? Yes! Is it *just* for Christians? Absolutely not!. Sometimes, we need to be reminded of what’s before our very eyes. You are correct when you say the hiddenness is only apparent. We are to blame, Frank.”
Oy. I didn’t say the hiddenness was only apparent. But like me you >donot< right in front of my eyes. If he really were right in front of my eyes, and he and I were conversing your apologetics would not be necessary.
You: "The more I study philosophy and theology, the more I understand what Paul told the Athenians on Mars Hill and what I believed as a simple child, God is not far from us. We are swimming in evidence as I told Bob above. Indeed, my time researching in the field of protein crystallography challenged me with this every single day. It was humbling, to say the least!"
I question this. Biologists are pretty sharp people. If protein crystallography is evidence of the existence of God as you seem to suggest then religious belief should be much more widespread among people who study protein crystallography than it is among people who do not. Would you say that is the case? Or are you instead making an unwarranted inference that the intricate structure of proteins is the product of a supernatural agent employing what is essentially magic?
You: "I think we struggle with divine hiddenness because we ask the wrong questions, have wrong (or poorly-formed) expectations, and do not stop to factor ourselves into the picture. We put God in the dock without stopping to ask if we even should and if we’ve done something that makes him only seem distant and hidden. I think this is especially hard for us moderns for we assume that the idea of sin is antiquated, at best (except when Trump was elected which was clearly evil :-P)."
Me: This goes back to the idea that if we only look hard enough and are pure enough and steadfast enough then surely we can Discover God. But God isn't a subatomic particle you have to go hunt down. He's an intelligent agent that will one day reveal himself unmistakably (Philippians 2: 9-11) and when he does every knee will bow. The only question is why he doesn't reveal himself likewise right now and save us both a lot of unnecessary typing?
You: "A good scientist/ seeker of truth should consider all rational possibilities that fit the greatest amount of data. As far as I see it, atheism only works in the negative– by explaining away practically everything we hold dear (and it might even end up explaining away itself!). Morality? That doesn’t need explaining, it’s just evolution. Love? That doesn’t need explaining, it’s just oxytocin. Rationality? That doesn’t need explaining, it’s just pattern-making finely tuned by survival. And so on …."
Hmmm. Belief in God is much lower among scientists as a whole than it is among the general populace. It is also much lower among philosophers as a whole (see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201402/why-62-philosophers-are-atheists-part-i). Somebody once said that we atheists can appreciate the beauty of a garden for its own sake without insisting there must be fairies living at the bottom of it. Your remark reminded me of that. How does finding an evolutionary explanation for morality in any way make morality less important to us as a species than insisting it had some magical origin?
You: "Under atheism, MORE becomes hidden – more eludes us. Under atheism, we should talk about the hiddenness of love, morality, free-will, genuine good and evil … much of our daily experience!"
Let's take one of those: free will. Do you believe that God knows, before you're even born, whether or not you'll go to hell (omniscient)? Do you also believe he is infallible? If at the moment of my birth God foresees that I will in fact go to hell, then for all practical purposes I have been consigned to hell. Any attempt I make to escape hellfire is doomed to failure because if I somehow escape hell anyway then God was wrong. So if God has all the attributes you christians ascribe to him then free will is an illusion. If the future is already set, then there is no free will. See what I mean? Apologetics might be great for sunday school, but it's useless against actual skeptics.
You: "And this makes sense for God is goodness and love and rationality himself. He goes, they go."
Me: Tell that to the 62% of all philosophers my article above referenced.
You: "The universe being a product of an intelligent, just, and loving being is a better fit for the data."
Atheists make up 4% of the general public and 41% of scientists. Atheists make up 62% of philosophers as a whole according to the survey cited in my article above.
You make some interesting points here Frank, and I would love to respond to a few of them, but I will not respond unless I have your permission! Sounds like your computer time is valuable!
The comments section needs a text editor. Plz edit as follows:
Oy. I didn’t say the hiddenness was only apparent. But like me you >donotdo not< see God right in front of your eyes.
Like I said—a text editor would be nice
But like me you do not…
But like me you do not…
Dan, sure you can comment on anything coherent I can still manage to put up….but these kinds of discussions can take on a life of their own. I’m thinking time drain.
To me the discussion will always revolve around God’s seeming hiddenness. (Well, that and the argument from gratuitous evil; neither can be satisfactorily answered). One of the attributes God has is omnipotence, which means if he wants to convince me of his existence he can easily do so. The fact that he has not should raise red flags for you. Either he doesn’t exist in the first place or he does and he’s playing hide and seek games of some sort.
Hi Frank
No problem. I understand the time and tangent issues.
One of the attributes God has is omnipotence, which means if he wants to convince me of his existence he can easily do so. The fact that he has not should raise red flags for you.
I know this is an obvious fact, but sometimes I have to say it out loud because I get so accustomed to the terms myself, but we only have a extremely limited knowledge of what it means to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. I mean, duh. We all know that. It does not mean we can’t know anything about these terms, of course we do, but experientially, we are obviously limited in our capacity to know what it is like to possess those qualities.
That’s one point.
Second, how do you know that God has not revealed Himself to you? I am not here meaning just a physical epiphany of some kind. How do you genuinely know God has not revealed Himself to you in one way or another?
See, I think divine omnipotence has a quality you may be overlooking.
Restraint.
Omnipotence, as I read the Gospels, includes the strength God uses in restraining Himself, such as Jesus from the cross, praying for those who were crucifying Him, “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” and not vaporizing you and not “forcing” you to accept Him.
He has revealed Himself through creation and through the Word and through His Son, Jesus Christ.
So we marvel though. Why the prayer of forgiveness? Why not just settle the score right there and tell the angry mob who He really was with a brief demonstration of His omnipotence?
Part of His omnipotence, then, as I see it, includes an incredible restraint. God takes on flesh and comes down to our pale blue dot and tells us of His kingdom and of His love for us and what do we do? We crucify our creator.
Why did He chose to reveal Himself to us that way, Frank? Why all the trouble of taking on a human body? Why all the humanity, tears, hunger, sweat, rejection, toiling, turmoil and rejection as an itinerant Rabbi?
And why allow the very hands that stretched out Andromeda and the rest of the heavenly host to be pierced through with iron spikes by His own creation?
That is some kind of dreadful omnipotence.
Paul says in the first epistle to the Corinthians that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
So sure, He could just power up and give you the Damascus Road special, of course. But that is generally not the way He works. Paul was a unique case.
As Rebekah points out, God leaves His calling cards everywhere – in crystals, in the oceans, in the stars, in the smile in your Mama Bear’s eyes, through every created thing God’s invisible attributes are clearly displayed, even in a lily. The whole earth is filled with His glory.
And that is enough, Frank. In His omnipotence, He does not need, nor does He desire, to force Himself upon you. There is no greater demonstration of His love for all of us than Calvary. If that is not sufficient for you though, in His omnipotence, He restrains Himself and allows you to have your own way.
It is my guess you could summarize the Gospel.
But I think Jesus prayer from the cross 2,000 years ago was said for not just those who were crucifying Him in Jerusalem that day, but for all of us.
So, no, Frank. No red flags. No hide-and-seek games. God has revealed Himself in the person of His Son, in the weakness of human flesh, and told us all we need to know. In His omnipotence, He lets us have our say in the matter.
Here’s what I find strange. You wouldn’t trust yourself to evaluate the validity of an extraterrestrial even if you could physically examine him. But all this stuff you just posted about the magical overtones of Jesus’ execution 2000 years ago and look at all the certainty you exude.
Something’s wrong here.
Hi Frank,
There is a great deal more to Jesus than there is to ET, unless of course you are a YouTube conspirator awaiting the arrival of planet Nibiru.
You will have to forgive me of my inability to see the point you are trying to make with this!
What exactly do you think is “wrong”?
I exude certainty because Jesus saved me, Frank. He knows me, He loves me, He keeps me going and gives me hope, even when I don’t want to. So yes, the certainty is real.
On the other hand, I have never met an alien and it is not likely that I ever will. Government officials and folks at NASA and the ESA would have first dibs and probably try to keep it a secret for as long as they could, maybe not. But it is likely that by the time I got to see one, it would probably be stuffed and behind glass at the Smithsonian. And then only God Himself would know what exactly it was. How would I ever be able to tell? No one is giving me the necessary super top-secret clearance to handle the evidence firsthand!
How would I ever be able to tell?
You have more certainty of the truth of a supernatural event you have no objective means to validate than you do regarding truth claims in the physical world, such as whether a living being was of extraterrestrial or terrestrial origin—even if you could physically examine the potential extraterrestrial. About the spirit world you’re absolutely certain. About the physical world that you can verify with your senses and suddenly you’re just not qualified to judge. You wouldn’t be qualified to judge if Jesus of Nazareth was an extraterrestrial or not. But you can judge whether he was the son of God just fine. That’s what’s wrong.
I see.
But aren’t you certain about a lot of unseen things, Frank?
Do you tell your wife she is beautiful? What is beauty exactly? Color? Light? Proportionality?
Do you tell your wife you love her? That you trust her? What is love and trust?
Do you believe in such things as wisdom or justice?
I do not see a problem in having certitude about unseen realities. And if I were to see an ET for the very first time, I would have less of an understanding about what it is I’m looking at, far less certitude than I have about love or trust or wisdom.
So I really don’t see an issue in having confidence in Christ and His love while at the same time being uncertain about an alien creature I have never seen before. I would have no idea what I’m looking at.
test
But aren’t you certain about a lot of unseen things, Frank?
Do you tell your wife she is beautiful? What is beauty exactly? Color? Light? Proportionality?
Do you tell your wife you love her? That you trust her? What is love and trust?
Do you believe in such things as wisdom or justice?
I do not see a problem in having certitude about unseen realities. And if I were to see an ET for the very first time, I would have less of an understanding about what it is I’m looking at, far less certitude than I have about love or trust or wisdom.
So I really don’t see an issue in having confidence in Christ and His love while at the same time being uncertain about an alien creature I have never seen before. I would have no idea what I’m looking at.
Of course, if the mere fact that there is such a thing as non-material abstract concepts really rendered your belief in God reasonable, then the following would be true by the very same logic—
And belief in leprechauns is probably not reasonable. I think your ointment has a fly in it.
No, sir! My ointment has a gentleman named Frank in it (who has kind of been acting like a fly on the wall of sorts, so I cannot say for sure…) who appears to consider leprechauns on the same level as the Lord of the universe.
Thanks for replying!
DR
Give this a look-see Frank.
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode
DR
And this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockquote_element
There, that should do it.
Belief in God(s) and belief in leprechauns both involve unsubstantiated belief in supernatural agents; I drew the parallel from that. And viewed in this way, the statement I posted really is true. If the existence of abstract concepts like wisdom and morality render belief in God true, then they do it for every other unsubstantiated supernatural belief as well.
Okay—let’s see how this one goes up
Usually mythical creatures are brought into discussions like this as a kind of slap-in-the-face to the theist, at least that is the way I always take them anyway. Not exactly an easy thing to read without having a visceral, emotive reaction. But I will not belabor the point. I understand where this claim is coming from, but to claim leprechauns are equivalent to Christ is a fairly shallow and dismissive comparison, just from a historical perspective (aside from the question of whether Jesus even existed or not). Do leprechauns have the same cultural equivalency as Christ? I am not going to argue this point any longer Frank.
If you think wisdom and morality can just as likely be tied to leprechauns as to Christ, then this round goes to you. I don’t have the time for a discussion like that, nor do I want to have one. If you see my reluctance as a victory, by all means! I will take the hit.
DR
Dan—[u]Many thanks[/u]!
Test
Many thanks! you mean?
Nope, no underline so far, tried u between[ ] and , nested but no underline
But enough messing around. Thanks for your patience, and I wish you well on your spiritual journey. It’s an interesting conversation in its own right. But at the end of the day your God is a no-show so far as I can tell. When that changes I’ll see you in church.
It’s these marks, Frank with an i for italic or a b bold in between.
then the words then
The letter will appear in between and after the / in the second one.
To know God hasn’t shown up is to know what He would look like! Take care Frank. All the best to you. 🙂
The see is full of fish.
The sea is full of fish. To bold:
Use followed by the word then the . Don’t use space between the marks or the b’s. The word(s) you want to bold should be between the marks.
Dang it, I can’t show you on this, it just goes right to the effect!
Lemmie try this.
Words go in between the b’s on the same line.
This signs I mean are the greater-than, less-than dohickies.
Dan, I’m sorry. You’ve been perfectly civil and I didn’t mean to come across that way to you. But the problem isn’t you, it’s Christianity itself. Christianity is seriously flawed. You believe yourself to be in a relationship with an historical figure from 2000 years ago. That’s not the kind of thing you try to validate by way of logic, which is what apologetics purports to do.
Christians are perfectly decent people for the most part
I am actually happy to glance at this web site posts which carries plenty of
useful information, thanks for providing these kinds of data.
How to take care of Mental Health during Covid-19.
https://www.hupcfl.com/