Search This Blog

Saturday, December 31, 2011

Logical Arguments for the Existence of God - Basics of Philosophy

"You see, science is supposed to be based on discovery. Discovery comes from questioning. Right now the scientific community has turned from scientists to musk oxen, joined together surrounding their pet hypothesis of naturalistic materialism and their horns are all turned directly at those who question. In other words, so-called scientists of the ruling paradigm have abandoned the first precept of science, which is to QUESTION what is not proven and only accept what is absolutely certain." - Radar


credit - Darwinists, like Musk Oxen, must protect their weak hypothesis from investigation

You cannot separate science and philosophy.  You cannot separate worldview from your thought life.  You begin with presuppositions when you view the world and think about it.   The wise man does not simply view the world and consider what he should both think and do, he also reviews his worldview to be sure it makes the most sense.  Before you begin a trip you do need to have both a destination and the route that will take you there.  But anyone with any common sense makes sure that the vehicle is ready for the trip.
  
I keep my vehicles in good shape.   I keep them tuned up and do preventative maintenance.  Since I have been injured I now have a mechanic do most of the work for me but I have virtually every tool a mechanic needs and have been an accomplished "shade tree mechanic" so I know very well what to check on before a trip aside from having a basic system of automotive maintenance like changing timing belts every 80,000 miles and changing oil somewhere between 3,000-5,000 miles (an auto that is driven long distances and mainly highway miles at steady speeds allows you to change at 5,000 miles, but an auto that is driven short distances and has much stop-and-go driving you should change at closer to 3,000 miles.  You are welcome).

Before a trip I still inspect my well-maintained vehicle to be sure the tires are aired up properly and do not show too much wear.  I check the various vehicular fluids to be sure they are topped up to standards and thus, if something is unusually low I may have to investigate to see if there is a leak or problem that will make me decide to take a different car on this trip and have that car checked further.  I make sure all lights and signals are working.   Only then do I confidently set out on the trip.   A good automobile in good shape and well-maintained can last for many years. 

As far as my life vehicle, I used to continually change my worldview like I used to change my go-to-work vehicle.   I used to like to buy older cars from junk yards or private citizens, fix them up on the cheap and drive them until they were ready to be cannibalized for parts.  Like those beaters, my worldview was always changing until I became a Christian and, for the first time, I had a worldview worth keeping and maintaining.   Christianity is the Rolls-Royce of worldviews.   Those cars used to be made to last and never have to be replaced.   I'm keeping my worldview now because I know it is the best available.   But it took awhile for me to find it, a long journey stretched behind.  

In order to follow up the last post, which focused on the common definitions of that person who tends to identify himself as an Atheist/unbeliever, we now look to logical arguments for the existence of God from philosophical perspectives.  Since there is a great website (linked on my blog) which takes this issue on, it makes sense to use one of the site's posts and point the reader towards that site.   The Existence of God website is designed to take people through all these basic arguments and the post below is kind of a starting point for you.

Arguments for God's Existence

Arguments for the existence of God come in many different forms; some draw on history, some on science, some on personal experience, and some on philosophy. The primary focus of this site is the philosophical arguments—the ontological argument, the first cause argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument.

Each of these arguments, if successful, supports a certain conception of God: the ontological argument, for instance, is an argument for the existence of a perfect being; the first cause argument is an argument for the existence of an eternal Creator; the argument from design is an argument for the existence of Creator with a special interest in humanity; the moral argument is an argument for a moral authority.

Each of the arguments, if successful, then, so supports a specific religion to the extent that its conception of God matches that supported by the argument.

The Ontological Argument

The first purported proof of the existence of God is the ontological argument. The ontological argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the laws of logic alone. It dates back to St Anselm, an eleventh century philosopher-theologian and archbishop of Canterbury, but was also used by the French philosopher RenĂ© Descartes. It argues that once we mentally grasp the concept of God we can see that God’s non-existence is impossible. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a perfect being that could not possibly fail to exist.

The First Cause Argument

The second purported proof of the existence of God is the first cause argument, also called “the cosmological argument”. The first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, that has neither beginning nor end.

The Argument from Design

The third purported proof of the existence of God is the argument from design, also called “the teleological argument”. The argument from design seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe is ordered.

The universe could have been different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it could have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker big bang.

The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, if it is successful, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator that takes an interest in humanity.

The Moral Argument

The fourth purported proof of the existence of God is the moral argument. The moral argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that there are moral laws.

Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can’t exist without a commander though, so who is it that commands us to behave morally?

To answer this, we only need to look at the authoritative nature of morality. Commands are only as authoritative as is the one that commands them; a command of a ruler carries more authority than a command of a citizen. Moral commands, though, have ultimate authority; they are to be obeyed under all circumstances. Their authority transcends all human authority, and they must therefore have been commanded by a being whose authority transcends all human authority. 
The existence of moral laws, the argument concludes, thus demonstrates the existence of a being that is greater than any of us and that rules over all creation.

Summary

Together, then, these arguments claim to prove the existence of a perfect, necessary, transcendent being that created the universe, has authority over it, and takes an interest in humanity. This, if it could be accomplished, would be more than enough to show that the Christian conception of God, and those conceptions of God related to it, are close to the truth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Darwinism was founded and fueled by the failed hypothesis of Charles Darwin, which he culled from several sources.   Those who preferred to deny God found refuge in this materialist explanation for life, which was then applied to all aspects of origins, from the start of the Universe (once the steady state hypothesis was debunked) to all organisms on Earth.  Darwin borrowed ideas from Lyell, Blythe, Wallace, Hutton, his own grandfather (Erasmus) and myths from the early Greek philosophers to try to explain life as he saw it.  He did not attempt at first to also pretend to have an answer for the beginning of life but that became part of the myth.   With great effort, those who wanted to eliminate God from society worked hard to make Darwinism popular and accepted and finally in the early 20th Century they began to succeed.

Unforunately every foundational portion of Darwinism has been falsified.  Life doesn't generate spontaneously from non-life, nor can scientists cause it to begin with the best 21st Century scientific tools at their disposal.  Variation within kind aka speciation can happen rapidly but the organisms are designed to do this from the beginning.   There really is no continuum of evolving creatures in the fossil record, the sedimentary rocks are catastrophic in nature, created by a worldwide flood that wiped out the ecosystem that existed beforehand.   Darwinists date rock layers by fossils found within, they hide or ignore the organisms found "out of place" and attempt to cover up evidence that falsifies their cherished worldview.   Despite the fact that we now find preserved flesh rather than fossils of even dinosaurs, have numerous proofs that dinosaurs lived with men and have completely blown the uniformitarian hypothesis from the field of play, the Darwinist myth continues to be taught by the indoctrinated to the unwitting.  

However, the groundswell of support for Intelligent Design is being driven by science, not philosophy.   Scientists are discovering that the evidence for evolution of both the Universe and organisms is lacking.  Design is becoming more obvious the more we learn about the world around us.   The scientific community has come to a crossroads.  One way is the way of further research and discovery, the other road is labeled "back and fill" and it is a road of story-telling, a series of desperately more and more impossible explanations for scenarios that easily fit the Creation model.   Which way will you go?  

This blog is aimed at critical thinkers.   Trolls inhabit the comments threads making the standard responses of mockery and badly-applied claims of logical fallacies.   They hold up examples of supposed proofs of evolution that do not hold water.  But I do not moderate the comments threads (if Blogger decides your comment is spam, it doesn't get published) other than to delete bad language.  As long as even the trolls can control their language I let them sound off.   Sometimes they decide to attack my character.  Often they make long lists of largely irrelevant questions based on bad suppositions.  A few people who agree with me pipe up now and again but usually people who agree with you do not make comments.   In fact the majority of readers do not comment at all.  But be aware that there is a comments thread and that people who vehemently disagree with me will be found there.   I do not fear the readers going there and reading what they say.  In fact consider yourselves encouraged to compare what I say to what they say. 

That is okay with me!  I love the First Amendment to the Constitution, which first gives us freedom of religion (not FROM religion) guaranteeing me the right to be a Christian and proclaim the faith as I see fit because the second part of that amendment gives me freedom of speech.   I can assert my beliefs and I do.  I can present evidence to support those beliefs and I do.  I can present interesting articles and findings and I even invite discussion from readers at times.  I can and do present both the science and the philosophy behind what I believe and I boldly proclaim that science supports Creation by the Creator God.  Propagandized trolls will automatically disagree.  But you?  Be a critical thinker and think for yourself.   I invite you to think on the things I present and consider the arguments from the other side.   Be willing to question the ruling paradigm, because questioning the status quo is key to scientific discovery and also a key to being a mature human being.    The 21st Century is going to be interesting.  I may make it close to halfway through it and I hope to see Darwinism thrown into the same trashcan that holds Geocentricism, Flat Earthism, Axiomatic Science, Philosopher's Stone, Elixer of Life and so on.   Steady State Eternal Universe?  I has been tossed into the dustbin.  Uniformitatrianism?   It is in mid-air on the way in with a few adherents desperately trying to hold onto it.  

credit

You see, science is supposed to be based on discovery.  Discovery comes from questioning.   Right now the scientific community has turned from scientists to musk oxen, joined together surrounding their pet hypothesis of naturalistic materialism and their horns are all turned directly at those who question.  In other words, so-called scientists of the ruling paradigm have abandoned the first precept of science, which is to QUESTION what is not proven and only accept what is absolutely certain.   Darwinism is backwards in that they abandon what is absolutely certain (Laws of Thermodynamics and Biogenesis) and defend what is apparently folly with every weapon in their possession.   They have the money and they have the people in government and the people in charge of secular scientific organizations.  Naturalistic Materialists defend their cherished myths like musk oxen defend their young.  But, just as young musk oxen are no match for wolves or polar bears, Darwinism doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.   Eventually the truth wins.   Remember that.  Eventually the truth wins.  I believe I will live to see the day that Darwnism goes into the same dustbin that holds the Steady State Universe and the Philosopher's Stone and Geocentricism and other such myths.  Those three concepts once ruled science.   They are considered foolish and often we wonder at how they were ever believed.  Darwinism?  Your day is coming!

12 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Yes, good advice: be a critical thinker. Investigate the primary data sources. When you do, you'll find that every single assertion Radar makes in this paragraph:

"Unforunately every foundational portion of Darwinism has been falsified. Life doesn't generate spontaneously from non-life, nor can scientists cause it to begin with the best 21st Century scientific tools at their disposal. Variation within kind aka speciation can happen rapidly but the organisms are designed to do this from the beginning. There really is no continuum of evolving creatures in the fossil record, the sedimentary rocks are catastrophic in nature, created by a worldwide flood that wiped out the ecosystem that existed beforehand. Darwinists date rock layers by fossils found within, they hide or ignore the organisms found "out of place" and attempt to cover up evidence that falsifies their cherished worldview. Despite the fact that we now find preserved flesh rather than fossils of even dinosaurs, have numerous proofs that dinosaurs lived with men and have completely blown the uniformitarian hypothesis from the field of play, the Darwinist myth continues to be taught by the indoctrinated to the unwitting."

is wrong.

christian soldier said...

Mares (female horses) form a circle to protect their young--
so-let's all- female and male- form a coalesced circle and protect our Republic-ASA our young - what do you think!

Happy NEW Year-
Carol-CS

AmericanVet said...

Carol, Happy New Year! Yes, parents are charged with protecting their young. We need to teach our children the truth and teach them to think logically and critically and arm them for the war of worldviews we call daily life as an adult. That Musk Oxen protect their young is both good and normal.

But the idea that scientists would ring around a frail idea that cannot sustain itself under scrutiny is anti-science. If Darwinism is so great, let it walk out into the light on it's wobbly legs and survive on it's own!

Anonymous whatsit said...

Radar, which aspect of the theory of evolution do you think doesn't hold up to scrutiny?

Anonymous whatsit said...

The four "logical" arguments are easily discounted:

1. Ontological: if we define something as perfect, it must therefore exist? This argument is so general and vague as to be meaningless.

2. First cause: this argument invariably falls apart the moment this unsupportable claim is introduced as part of the argument: "The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past."

3. Design: since there is no specified complexity in nature that is not explainable by natural causes, this argument fell apart some time ago.

4. Moral: man's moral understanding has changed over time without any change in the "commands" from any "moral law-giver", but through man's own collective decisions and understanding. That alone lays this argument to rest.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

It's interesting that Radar keeps arguing that worldview should trump observable reality, disregarding the achievement of the scientific method. I suppose it's the only way creationism can continue to exist.

Interesting also that Radar's only comeback to this argument is noting that the originators of the scientific method were creationists. Just because they were wrong about one thing doesn't mean they were wrong about other things. (It's actually a twisted kind of ad hominem argument, if you think about it.)

AmericanVet said...

HLH keeps twisting the scientific method by limiting it to naturalism when considering results. The scientists who developed it would never do that. One can only test within the material universe in the here and now, but forensics is about seeing what is and then applying that knowledge to consider what may have been.

In fact, forensics is all about making predictions about what DID happen based upon what IS observed. So my argument is not just about the fact (which is true) that creationists invented the scientific method (which does tend to prove my point in and of itself) but it is also the fact that you are using a flawed argument. Suppositions are required to consider origins because it is a forensics exercise rather than a "here and now" test. That means anyone who views the evidence must take one of two roads labeled either "created" or "just happened somehow." I think the second choice is intellectually incoherent.

Furthermore, observable reality is as follows = Everything appears to have been started from a beginning and all organisms appear to be designed and all scientific laws and all aspects of the positioning of the Earth and Moon in relationship to each other, the Sun and the other planets all are fine-tuned to be precisely right to support life. So Darwinists must make a leap of faith and ignore what appears to be and assert that despite appearances surely life and all of existence was not created by a Creator despite appearances.

I suggest that Naturalistic Materialists must make a leap of faith to ignore the obvious and cling to the statistically impossible because of their worldview. The more we learn about the Universe and organisms, the less credible any aspect of naturalism becomes. All who cling to that belief system do so out of boredom, ignorance or faith.

Anonymous said...

"HLH keeps twisting the scientific method by limiting it to naturalism when considering results."

That's not twisting the scientific method - scientific method is methodological naturalism.

"The scientists who developed it would never do that."

Okay, please tell us how they would or did stray outside of methodological naturalism in their work.

AmericanVet said...

How often will you people ask the same stupid question? The scientific method is methodological INVESTIGATION and has nothing at all to do with naturalism. Sir Francis Bacon would call you out for such a statement and so would Roger Bacon and Isaac Newton and Maxwell and Lord Kelvin and a host of other great scientists from the earliest days of real science until now. You may continue to fool yourself if you like but you are dead wrong and I have certainly discussed it enough that anyone with a brain can plainly understand the difference.

Naturalism was refuted by the scientific greats of the past and it is simply an atheistic dogma rather than part and parcel to science. Modern science was invented by creationists and you may hate to admit it or pretend it isn't true but yet it is true and what has already happened cannot be changed. Feel free to believe what you like, but don't think you can justify it as science. You are in the realm of religion when you make such assertions.

Jon Woolf said...

Of all the attempts you've made to discredit science, Radar, I understand this one the least.

The meaning of the terms "methodological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism" are both pretty well established. Methodological naturalism is the ad hoc assumption that the specific event or object being studied can be explained using only references to natural forces, not supernatural ones. This "naturalistic assumption" is necessary in order to do science at all. Even creationists use it. On the other hand, philosophical naturalism is the assumption that the supernatural does not exist, and the natural world is all there is.

You can do science without holding to philosophical naturalism. You cannot do science without holding to methodological naturalism. I can understand why philosophical naturalism is a threat to your worldview, but why in the world would you try to claim that methodological naturalism is a similar threat, when you use it yourself all the time?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"How often will you people ask the same stupid question?"

I would say until you come up with an answer. But we already know there is no answer. So in the meantime it's fun to see you squirm.

"The scientific method is methodological INVESTIGATION and has nothing at all to do with naturalism."

Why does this word "naturalism" upset you so? There is no difference between methodological naturalism and what you call methodological investigation. Your beef is with philosophical naturalism.

"Sir Francis Bacon would call you out for such a statement and so would Roger Bacon and Isaac Newton and Maxwell and Lord Kelvin and a host of other great scientists from the earliest days of real science until now."

Why, how did any of them ever use anything other than methodological naturalism in their work?

"You may continue to fool yourself if you like but you are dead wrong and I have certainly discussed it enough that anyone with a brain can plainly understand the difference."

Like who? Do you think Highboy or Hawkeye can't tell the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism either?

"Naturalism was refuted by the scientific greats of the past and it is simply an atheistic dogma rather than part and parcel to science."

If you're talking about methodological naturalism, you're completely wrong - all the scientific greats use methodological naturalism.

If you're talking about philosophical naturalism... which scientific great refuted it, and how? Look forward to your evasion on that one.

"Modern science was invented by creationists and you may hate to admit it or pretend it isn't true but yet it is true and what has already happened cannot be changed."

I don't recall any commenter here pretending that wasn't true, although I haven't bothered checking it out for myself. I truly couldn't care less if they were creationists. That doesn't make creationism any more or less true. Nor does it mean that anything a creationist does is scientific.

"Feel free to believe what you like, but don't think you can justify it as science. You are in the realm of religion when you make such assertions."

Again, you must be referring to philosophical naturalism, not methodological naturalism. When you engage in methodological naturalism, you're in the realm of science.

BB-Idaho said...

RE:
" I believe I will live to see the day that Darwnism goes into the same dustbin that holds the Steady State Universe and the Philosopher's Stone and Geocentricism and other such myths. Those three concepts once ruled science. They are considered foolish and often we wonder at how they were ever believed. Darwinism? Your day is coming!" Possibly- afterall, the
church apologized to Gallileo after 382 years of deliberation
over Chronicles 16:30. IMO, if the college of cardinals had been
scientists, they would have 'seen the light' within a couple days....