Evidence for God #1

[DaveD49]

Two of the constant things I have heard from atheists on other sites is that first "There is no proof of God" and "There is no evidence for God". The first can be dismissed because to the total impossibility of there being "proof". The ONLY things that can be scientifically proven are within the universe. Anything outside of the universe or non-physical can only be theorized about, but NO "theory" is proof of anything. So, just as there can be no "proof" for God, nor can there be proof of alternate universes, membranes producing endless universes, etc. etc. In as far as the second assertion, that there is no evidence for God, that one is blatantly false as evidence for Him exists in many, many different categories. It is my intention to list some of them one at a time so as to get everyone's reaction as to the viability or lack thereof of the evidence presented. I realize that some, if not all, of these you have heard before and may have actually responded to. I already listed a few of the in a response to a earlier question, but I think that they will only get the attention they deserve if listed individually.

Topic for Debate: Do you agree or disagree with the following being evidence for the existence of God?
In answering please state clearly whether you agree or disagree
Your reasoning for doing so
Please rate from 1 to 10 with 10 being the strongest what you feel the strength of the evidence is.
If you have something further to add please let me know.

#1 The Existence of Scientific Laws

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence. One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so. Randomness cannot produce intelligence. No matter how many monkeys you have banging away on typewriters for whatever length of time, it is highly unlikely that any of them will ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare. They won’t produce even one of his sonnets. But even if they did that would be a semblance of intelligence, not the real thing. Intelligence would only be shown if the task could be repeated many times.

Therefore, the very existence of scientific LAWS, such as the Law of Gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics, is firm evidence of an intelligent being who is in some way responsible for the existence of everything. In our society are human laws just random words on a piece of paper? No. They show purpose and meaning which positively proves an intelligence behind them. In reality man-made "laws" are not laws at all, but rather rules which can be broken. However scientific laws can not be broken thus making them unlike civil laws. But they BOTH show a purpose. But in the case of scientific laws without them the universe could never exist. There is no reason why a universe created by randomness should be compelled to obey ANY laws, let alone display complex mathematics. Intelligence is absolutely necessary.

[OneWay]

Evidence for God #1

You are talking about Him.

Evidence for God #2
Not really... I am talking about my understanding of Him, but none of us have that right.

You are right, none of us have it right. But welcome to the roller coaster ride on the search for Him. Be prepared for peaks and valleys and even a few stalls as well as times it feels like you are going backwards. But you will find that the peaks always get higher and the valleys shallower. Good luck on your journey.

There is no such thing as luck. You can be fortunate but not lucky,
for everything is determined by something else before you.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

A lot of atheists get the idea of evidence for God wrong. They think either reading the argument must instantly convince them of God, or it is not evidence. That is not how it works, though. As the atheists philosopher Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) says, an argument is evidence even if it only raises the possibility of God by 1%. If we were 99% confident that God is unreal, then we read an argument and we think, hmm. If we go from 99% sure God is unreal to 98% unsure, then that argument is evidence for us.

He also says, the most likely way one would come to believe in God based on philosophical evidence, will be accumulative. It will be from many different arguments they come to believe, each argument raising the possibility of God to some percent.


This argument you present is known as the argument from natural laws. It goes like this.

1. Laws require a lawgiver.
2. The universe is governed by laws.
3. Therefore,the laws of nature require a lawgiver.

It is not that strong of an argument IMO, especially when expressed like this. But if we dive deeper into what natural laws are, we can make a stronger argument. Bertrand Russel says the argument fails because natural laws are not like human laws. They do not require a law giver. They can arise by chance he says. He gives an example of tossing a die. It has a chance of landing on 6, but it will not land on 6 every roll. We can write a kind of law of statistics to explain this. The law here is represent a chance event so doesn't require a law giver.

Okay, I agree. However, this doesn't explain why the die (singular for dice) can work in such a consistent way. What dictates that the die works in such a predictable statistical way?

This leads to deeper arguments that are stronger, IMO.

Also, have you looked at the argument from math? It is reduced to the following syllogism, but the heart of the argument is in the defense of the premises and conclusion.

1. If God does not exist, then the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God exists.

What I pointed out above about the argument from natural laws, and how we can dive deeper into why do the things even have the properties they have such that they are predictable by laws, is exactly the heart of this argument from mathematics.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... athematics

I think it is a pretty strong argument.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #64

the universe 'explains itself' through the conscious awareness which is able to integrate the evidence with the most correct explanation.

I don't think I would define that as the universe explaining itself. I think you're alluding to the universe explaining its nature or purpose, but not its existence.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #15]

It is all overwhelming when we try to think about all the properties that must exist in order for the world to obtain.

When it comes to what we call natural laws, we should ask, are the intrinsic properties of the fundamental particles enough to account for the world? Or do we need something that exist beyond the particles themselves?

I am going to use a philosophical term "simples." Simples are these most fundamental things that exist as they exist. They do not change. They have an intrinsic property, say an electron, which has the intrinsic property of negative charge.

Can we explain gravity only using these simples and how they interact?

If we cannot, then there must exist something extrinsic to the simples to account for gravity.

But even if we can explain every force and interaction with simples, we still need to explain why those simples have the properties they do.

But also, there are at least two things extrinsic to the simples, space and time, without which we cannot have a world.

[TRANSPONDER]

Evidence for God #1

You are talking about Him.

Evidence for God #2
Not really... I am talking about my understanding of Him, but none of us have that right.

You are right, none of us have it right. But welcome to the roller coaster ride on the search for Him. Be prepared for peaks and valleys and even a few stalls as well as times it feels like you are going backwards. But you will find that the peaks always get higher and the valleys shallower. Good luck on your journey.

There is no such thing as luck. You can be fortunate but not lucky,
for everything is determined by something else before you.

Yes...we have to be reasonable about anthropomorphism, in the broadest sense. "Hmm...random factors appear to have operated in our favor." Spock

"In other words, weve been lucky." Dr McCoy.

Yes, same thing in other words. There is no natural physical Law as 'Luck', let alone some predictive force that determined our Fate. Uncannily like whatever we get when we pray (or not) that is God's answer to our prayer (sometimes, it's No). This is, by all reason, self delusionary and reading an order or intent (using the delusionary fallacy of counting the hits and ignoring the misses, and a couple of others) into what, as statistical evidence will reveal, should we apply it (I have) is pure random chance.

There is no such thing as Luck, is the go - to hypothesis, and that applies to prediction, fate, prophecy, answered prayer, a god's plan and, so all the evidence indicates, anything but an unplanned universe and world where our best chance for doing anything to master our fate is to understand our world and make our most reasoned plans to deal with it.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #64

the universe 'explains itself' through the conscious awareness which is able to integrate the evidence with the most correct explanation.

I don't think I would define that as the universe explaining itself. I think you're alluding to the universe explaining its nature or purpose, but not its existence.

Correct.

This underlines that no one is able to say the existence of the universe can explain itself. All that can be ascertained, is its nature and purpose re those within it who are capable of doing so.

[brunumb]

1. If God does not exist, then the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. Why?
2. Who says?
3. Dodgy conclusion.

What about...

1. If God exists, then the applicability of mathematics would not be a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

It all depends on whether the premises are justified, or not. Really just a lot of word games.

[OneWay]

Evidence for God #1

You are talking about Him.

Evidence for God #2
Not really... I am talking about my understanding of Him, but none of us have that right.

You are right, none of us have it right. But welcome to the roller coaster ride on the search for Him. Be prepared for peaks and valleys and even a few stalls as well as times it feels like you are going backwards. But you will find that the peaks always get higher and the valleys shallower. Good luck on your journey.

There is no such thing as luck. You can be fortunate but not lucky,
for everything is determined by something else before you.

Yes...we have to be reasonable about anthropomorphism, in the broadest sense. "Hmm...random factors appear to have operated in our favor." Spock

"In other words, weve been lucky." Dr McCoy.

Yes, same thing in other words. There is no natural physical Law as 'Luck', let alone some predictive force that determined our Fate. Uncannily like whatever we get when we pray (or not) that is God's answer to our prayer (sometimes, it's No). This is, by all reason, self delusionary and reading an order or intent (using the delusionary fallacy of counting the hits and ignoring the misses, and a couple of others) into what, as statistical evidence will reveal, should we apply it (I have) is pure random chance.

There is no such thing as Luck, is the go - to hypothesis, and that applies to prediction, fate, prophecy, answered prayer, a god's plan and, so all the evidence indicates, anything but an unplanned universe and world where our best chance for doing anything to master our fate is to understand our world and make our most reasoned plans to deal with it.

God can see the end before the beginning.

[DaveD49]

Evidence for God #1

You are talking about Him.

Evidence for God #2
Not really... I am talking about my understanding of Him, but none of us have that right.

You are right, none of us have it right. But welcome to the roller coaster ride on the search for Him. Be prepared for peaks and valleys and even a few stalls as well as times it feels like you are going backwards. But you will find that the peaks always get higher and the valleys shallower. Good luck on your journey.

There is no such thing as luck. You can be fortunate but not lucky,
for everything is determined by something else before you.

To a degree that is correct except I would not use the word "determined" which seemingly indicates that we have no way that we ourselves can change events. I am certain that Peter and the other apostles felt that way when they were fishermen or other trades, but they went on to change the whole world. I don't agree with the observation that our pasts made us who we are. We have full control over our lives not matter how our pasts have treated us.

[AquinasForGod]

1. If God does not exist, then the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. Why?
2. Who says?
3. Dodgy conclusion.

What about...

1. If God exists, then the applicability of mathematics would not be a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

It all depends on whether the premises are justified, or not. Really just a lot of word games.

You are right in the sense that it hinges on mathematical realism. You have to read his justifications for and against mathematical realism. This is just a syllogism. It doesn't do the work of the argument. It should not convince anyone of anything other than hey, maybe I should look at what the evidence is for the applicability of mathematics not being a coincidence. I will link to the full argument again.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... athematics