Image via WikipediaOne way of demonstrating the necessity of the existence of God is to show that without God, we cannot have any claims to knowledge or laws of science and nature that don't commit the fallacies of begging the question, getting caught on an infinite regress, or falling prey to the Problem of the Criterion. In order to make any knowledge claims apart from God; one must retreat to a “common sense realist” position and be willing to accept basic beliefs or systems of coherence that are dogmatically assumed to be true. This will entail that our so-called knowledge is grounded in our opinions or by agreement; sort of like a man who has his feet firmly planted in mid-air. The self-evident beliefs or basic beliefs that atheists use to ground their knowledge; can all be challenged and are subject to an infinite regress. There isn't an atheistic internalist, externalist, or naturalized epistemology that can stand up to the scrutiny of philosophical inquiry.
It is patently evident that knowledge, reasoning, and consciousness presupposes something...but what - A higher intelligence with similar attributes? Lower species of life in the process of evolving into higher intelligence? Chemical reactions from a big bang? What seems most cogent to you? These are all metaphysical issues and cannot be answered by science - which has always puzzled me as to why we have dropped these questions off at the laboratory. Hard science cannot re-create creation in a laboratory to test and re-test the hypotheses.
Chisholm in his work on the problem of the criterion acknowledged that we cannot divorce epistemology from metaphysics. What he meant to say is that the circularity which the problem of the criterion deals with, ultimately rests on our presuppositions and worldviews for grounding our knowledge. For example atheists such as Dawkins are patently guilty in his flawed epistemology when he disallows any supernatural explanation in the search for the origin of the universe. What he is doing is begging the question in that he assumes as his premises that naturalism is the only explanation for the origin of the universe - the very thing he is trying to prove.
The Christian worldview does allow for an epistemology that doesn't fall prey to any of the fallacies and inconsistencies of atheistic worldviews. Christianity also provides the the answers for the preconditions of intelligibility, for man's experience and reasoning. The reason there isn't one theory of knowledge among atheist philosophers that is free of the aforesaid fallacies is because of their atheistic worldviews. If your worldview is that life originated from nothing by nothing or you don't have an answer, then you cannot possibly have a theory of knowledge that is truly grounded. And if you can't ground you premises, you are stuck on an infinite regress or begging the question and don't have any justification for your beliefs, hence - no knowledge. Additionally if your view is that all relationships in the universe are contingent, then you cannot rely on any laws of science, nature, and logic. But atheists love to cite laws; however, they cannot claim that these laws are nomic or necessary. David Hume rightly said that if so-called laws are contingent -than they are merely inductive, and induction is irrational and undermines science. So the atheist wants to borrow the Christian worldview of necessary laws but deny the foundations thereof viz. God. Her worldview is inconsistent with her science, logic and reasoning.
I would also like to ask the atheist how she knows that the laws of nature are contingent vs necessary? Has she tested and observed every single electron to see that it most often orbits a nucleus? Secondly how does she calculate the probability of these laws? So you see the atheist is in yet another dilemma; of having to justify that the laws of the universe are contingent. Could it be that her science is really just an extension of her religious views or metaphysical views (as philosophers would rather call them)?
Christians ground their knowledge in the mind of God, the naturalist attempts to ground her knowledge in what ultimately results in convention and is subject to the aforesaid fallacies. Christian epistemology is free of begging the question, infinite regress, and the problem of the criterion and thus indirectly proves the existence of God, and is able to justify the laws of science, nature and logic. The naturalist cannot justify any laws, all she can claim are statistical probabilities - which are not law-like, even though she proceeds in science as though these laws are necessary. Christian epistemology can produce knowledge whereas the atheist views cannot. So epistemically, we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. We know we have knowledge and necessary laws, yet the only way to justify these is by grounding them in an infinite being.
There once was a time when philosophers were mostly theists and did hold to a valid epistemology which could yield knowledge. But once the atheists began to dominate philosophy, they eliminated the existence of God in their epistemology and as a result are now left in search of a theory of knowledge that is grounded and therefore justified. They have not found one yet and claim that epistemology is a primitive field...and some day(by faith) they will find a theory of knowledge that is free of any fallacies...Well if they would simply accept the obvious (there is a higher intelligence who is rules the universe) they could save themselves a lot of wheel spinning; but if they continue their quest for knowledge without the most basic presupposition that God exists...they are doomed to failure. If the atheist cannot produce any thing as fundamental as knowledge; why should we take her word on anything?
I now ask: by what standards then does the atheist have to judge what is knowledge and what is not; what can she appeal to and who is the atheist to call something good or evil. click to read article on relative morality
I would first like to begin by stating that there are no true atheists. Romans 1:19 “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." The bible is saying that every man has a God-given conscience that testifies to the existence of God; and God has revealed Himself through His creation. The atheist will often claim that she argues from a neutral positions and merely investigates raw data and brute facts. Yet this is not true; for every atheist presupposes that there is no god and then attempts to prove her beliefs a la circular reasoning. The atheist grounds all of her knowledge in faith (that there is no god or the thesis of naturalism), just as the Christian grounds her knowledge in her faith in God. There is no neutrality in our empirical observations of the universe due to biases of our humanity and the presuppositions by which we perceive the universe through.
I have typically favored the Teleological Argument or more popularly the Design Argument accompanied by the empirical proof that God has given us along with the TAG or Transcendental Argument for the existence of God. I cannot conceive of a wrist watch randomly evolving from the elements of the earth no more than a human being evolving through trillions upon trillions of mutations. I cannot even imagine life coming from non-life without the mind and design of the Creator. The Design argument is a form of abduction whereby we reason a cause or something that we don't see; from certain effects or things that we observe - similar to our beliefs about electricity or sub-atomic particles. I cannot imagine the immense universe and all it contains coming into existence without a designer. Atheism posits that something viz. the universe was created by nothing. I would ask the atheist what presupposes thought and reason, what concepts must we first possess before we can even interpret the sense datum that is presented to our minds and where did these concepts originate? Additionally it is a logical absurdity to claim that the something can be its own creator, because of the obvious circular reasoning.
I don’t have the faith it would take to believe that everything that we see in the universe; living and non-living evolved from nothing. That something was created by nothing. Again it is an axiom of science “the thing cannot be its own creator”, the universe cannot, with it's laws, have created itself; there had to have been something or someone outside of the system to create it. An infinite universe is not possible either, since an actual infinite series of events can only exist conceptually.
Question: The person who looks at a building and wonders if there was an architect and a builder is A. Wise B. Fool C. Has an ulterior motive?
Consider the atom and it's order, how the electrons know to orbit the nucleus and how to form various compounds. If one were to study the atomic world they would embark upon an entire universe of sub-atomic particles that are miraculously designed and ordered. Consider the thousands of living species of plants, animals, fish, mammals, humans. Consider the universe and its grandeur. If the universe were not exactly as it is, the ability to sustain life on earth would not be possible. The sun burns 7 feet of its diameter every hour; if you do the math you will see that the universe cannot be as old as evolutionists claim it is because the sun would be so large that its gravitational pull would have destroyed the planets along with its heat. But evolutionists must have millions of year in order to make their story plausible. For a mud puddle to evolve into a human would be unacceptable given a few thousand years; but give it millions or billions of years and it might make sense.
Have you considered that one molecule of DNA has more information than a library that houses 1,000 books, each containing 1,000 pages of information. The simplest cellular organism such as the Amoeba is a complex machine that has the ability to reproduce, repair itself… there really is no such thing as a simple cellular organism - even an individual cell is a complex machine.
A group of scientists and engineers gathered together in the Netherlands several years ago; they made a machine. This project took 7 years, 27 minds and a warehouse that was 100 yards long. This machine was the pride of the engineers and scientists who were congratulated on their accomplishment once the project was complete. The machine was designed to take food and turn it into human waste and mimic what the human digestive tract does.
Imagine all of the computers, brain power, machinery, and wisdom that were required to accomplish this great task. Yet people are still willing to concede that the creation of the universe happened by random chance and trillions of mutations. I think not. I read a good book written by an atheist Bill Bryson titled “The History of Nearly Everything”; Bryson admits that the chances of an amino acid being created by chance are statistically impossible. He went on to say that the chances of a tornado ripping through a junk yard and leaving behind & creating a fully fueled 747 Jumbo Jet were better than the odds of an amino acid coming into existence by chance. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tell us that in a closed system, things decay, decline. Consider your body, the shingles on your roof, everything in the universe - order does not come from chaos; but rather chaos comes from order per the Conservation Laws.
Consider consciousness, free will, emotions, morality, reason, how could a Naturalist explain these along with the laws of logic and laws of nature? See as an atheist not only do you have to explain man evolving from apes; but you also have to justify the premises immediately proceeding human evolution such as the creation of all animals, plant life, rocks and minerals, all of the elements, the stars, planets… ultimately you need a cogent explanation of how the universe came into being. Often evolutionists want to dismiss this by saying "they are not interested in the origins of the universe" but this leaves them with unjustified premises. In order to ground the premises that man evolved from ape without God, you have to ultimately explain the origins of the universe or you don't have a valid or cogent argument.
Have you considered that as every species had evolved, the plant life was also evolving to provide these living creatures with a food source that had the exact nutrients necessary to sustain life - that tasted good too! Have you also noticed how natural selection knew how to encourage reproduction among the species by either hormonal attraction and the pleasurable sensations of sex? How about the electric eel, the flying beetles that shoot down acid on it's prey, deep sea crabs that kill their prey with a blast of heat as hot as the sun. Do the stories about dragons in the bible and stories in antiquity seem so far fetched in light of these strange species that are still in existence? Do you really think that some eels developed an electrical charge to kill their prey through random, blind evolution? Is the Blind Watchmaker really responsible for the awesome creation of the universe? Don't check your commonsense and reason at the door when you study the origins of the universe. This might be a good time to view a very short link The Watchmaker: click to view link
Evolutionists will attempt to "assign" a mind to natural selection and attempt to argue that natural selection sort of "knew" what direction to go based on the needs of the moment. For example; I have heard evolutionists argue that natural selection bore the need of the reproduction of the species; so sex organs began to form from other body tissue". Doesn't this sound like they are talking about an intelligence albeit they will not call it "God or a Creator"; this sure sounds mystical. How could a species randomly acquire the ability to reproduce itself without knowing in advance of this necessity? For the atheist to remain true to her beliefs, the evolutionary process of necessity has to be random, without purpose or reason or else we are assuming a God, but calling him natural selection. This is also a circular argument because it assume a goal that must be reached by pure randomness. I hear this argument in several forms about nature having a "simplistic beauty" and try to sweep the crumbs of unbelievable complexity and design under the rug.
Too often from ignorance the apathetic atheist over simplifies her position by saying that a mere handful of mutations and man evolved from ape and the process was really a quick & easy—not so fast…
If we will take time to study the issues we will see that every living thing reproduces after its own kind. Orange trees bring forth seeds that sprout more oranges, alligators give birth to alligators, monkeys give birth to monkeys, and humans give birth to humans. This by the way is in accordance with the biblical account of creation.
The quest for the missing link in the fossil record is quite silly. Think for a moment; can a fossil tell a scientist that it is on its way to becoming a new species? The answer is clearly no. All these paleontologists are doing is arranging a bunch of bones and trying to order the ones that give an appearance transforming from brute ape to human; so they can dismiss the existence of God and continue in their rebellion against Him.
Take the fossil challenge: approach a science professor and ask him or her at the beginning of the semester “how do they date fossils?”. I guarantee you that buried in their answer will be ‘by the rock strata they are found in’. Then at the end of the semester ask the same or different science professor “how do they date the rock strata?” again I guarantee you that some where in their answer you will hear them say ‘by the fossils they find in the strata’.
So we date the fossils by the rock strata; and we date the rock strata by the fossils. Doesn’t this smack of circularity? They will also tell you that the rocks and fossils are judged against the “geological column” which was arbitrarily developed in the 18th century as an estimate of the ages of the rocks and fossils that should be found in them based on their complexity. Did you know that trilobites which are considered among the simplest organisms by these evolutionists have the most complex eyes of all living creatures? Now I wouldn’t try the fossil challenge with the same professor in the same day or week for he might catch on to the inherent circularity in his reasoning.
As with all people, evolutionists have their set of presuppositions and worldviews by which they interpret data. There are no “brute facts” in life. The evolutionist will include or exclude evidence based on his or her presuppositions. Did you know that carbon dating has been done away with by evolutionists because it was found to work against their cause? Did you know that lava rocks from Mount St. Helen’s eruption in the 80’s have been dated to be thousands of years old and in some cases – millions of years. In fact the half life of Carbon 14 is 7,000 years, which means that by 6 half lives or 42,000 years there should not be any traces of Carbon 14 in fossils. To date there has never been one fossil discovered that doesn’t have measurable traces of Carbon 14 – so the evolutionist has reasoned that every fossil has been contaminated. Of course they would never consider that maybe the earth is maybe 8,000 years old as the bible tells us or at least less than 42,000 years old.
By now I hope that I have you re-thinking what you once thought; that evolution was a simple process of one species mutating into another species over a few million years. And the chances of the entire universe and everything therein needs an explanation of its origins in order to ground your evolutionary beliefs as this is an insurmountable task.
I have heard atheists try to dispose of the Design Argument by saying that the universe has no design nor order - only that which we sentient beings impose on it. Sort of like the taxonomy or the naming and dividing of species in the animal kingdom. This argument fails at first glance because we would have to assume that the earth would fail to orbit on its axis, the planets would fail to move in harmony.... if we humans were not here to impose our interpretation and order on it. I believe this was part of Hume's argument. But you may be hanging on to your atheist views by your finger nails at this point and hanging your hopes on the fact that the universe being created by nothing is still logically possible. Well, let me tell you that it is logically possible that I walk away from the keyboard that I am typing this article with; flap my arms and fly to the moon, then fly at light speed to the sun for a barbecue; and then return to finish this paper. This example should show you that logical truths are often vacuously true. I can say with full assurance that it is rationally impossible for man to ever do what I just explained. I feel the same way about the creation of the complex and orderly universe.
What empirical proof do we have for the existence of God?
Have you noticed that when an archaeologist is at a dig-site and finds a broken piece of pottery, she infers that this simple piece of clay (which is made from the soil that it was found), is the product of an intelligent civilization because of its design.
Would not a theist be entitled to the same inferences when she considers the complexity of DNA, order of sub-atomic particles, plant life, animals and humans, the design of the human eye and brain, consciousness, and concludes that these are the product of an intelligent designer?
- How about the testimony of Moses and his meeting God in the burning bush, doesn't this suffice as empirical proof?
- How about the miracles of Jesus and His claims to be God Almighty?
- What about the resurrection of Jesus and His appearing to 500 after He rose from the dead?
- Has any one man or book had such an impact on the world as Jesus and the bible?
- How about the 1,000 prophecies of the bible that have been fulfilled?
No comments:
Post a Comment