Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[Immanuel Can]

God is not a science and has never been approached as such.

Yes. I'll grant you that it would be surprising if the Creator of the universe, assuming He exists, were merely to present Himself as an object to be studied by the sciences and limited wisdoms of men. It would be, to say the least, quite a condescension for the Supreme Being.

However, it would be equally improbable to suppose that the Creator would not be manifest in at least indicative forms with the Creation, just as certain aspects of a painter or sculptor (his attitudes, his aesthetics, his skills, and perhaps his morals) are inevitably manifest in his creative endeavours -- not enough, to be sure, to form a full biography of the artist, but enough to signal his presence and to provide leading clues to his identity.

Just so, we should be very surprised if God were to lie down on our operating table, or put himself beneath our microscopes or telescopes, or agree to be pinched in our vernier callipers and measured with our transits. But that we live in the kind of universe in which we can do science at all is a powerful testimony to the existence of God; for this universe of ours, if chaotic in origin, should be chaotic still; and laws should simply not be available, were chaos the deep secret of its origin. Its DNA molecules should not cohere, and any sequences found in them should be random, apart from the laws established by the Supreme Being concerning their construction.

This is a fact as well-established as any we have: and that we are not products of mere chaos and randomness, and don't live in a random universe but one in which science can be done is utterly improbable and amazing, yet clearly that is just what we have.

Indeed, if the scientist's own mind were a mere accidental product of random chance, it raises the very real question of how we know science is to be believed at all: the brain, being nothing but an accidental construct, should be anticipated to produce nothing but random data. But that science works, and the mind of the scientist works so well, and that the world commends itself so well to our intellection clearly bespeaks something much more than randomness or accident.

So to those who say there is no evidence for God, I say, "Begin with your own ability to frame the objection." For intellection itself is powerful testimony to the Intellect behind the universe. And if one denies that, I think he has no longer any reason to believe his own intellection.

In a sense, then, God is not approached intellectually -- that is, not merely intellectually. But in another sense, He has never been approached any other way. For intellection is involved in saying so.

God is not afraid of intellect. He made it, and its exercise is a blessing from Him. So I say, let us use it gratefully and well.

[Obvious Leo]

If "There is no God" is an empirical fact rather than a belief, then prove it with evidence.

I still think the onus is on the believer to prove existence of God, since they are the ones insisting on it. Personally, it doesn't matter to me either way. I'll deal with it later, if I must.

To my knowledge most Christians don't claim that the existence of God is a matter of empirical proof but of faith, so proof is not a factor. It is Atheists who claim that "there is no God" is a fact and thus subject to empirical proof

You misunderstand the position of the atheist, doc. An atheist does not believe there is a god and this is a completely different statement from what you're saying. Belief and non-belief are not equivalent constructs.

[Obvious Leo]

Indeed, if the scientist's own mind were a mere accidental product of random chance, it raises the very real question of how we know science is to be believed at all: the brain, being nothing but an accidental construct, should be anticipated to produce nothing but random data. But that science works, and the mind of the scientist works so well, and that the world commends itself so well to our intellection clearly bespeaks something much more than randomness or accident.

You'd be advised to steer clear of matters to with science, IC, since you've satisfactorily demonstrated that the philosophy of science is not your long suit. "Random chance" does not exist in physical reality and your assumption that the only alternative is a divine plan fails on both logical and evidentiary grounds.

[bobevenson]

Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

Exactly what evidence are you talking about, and since when is "evidence" the basis of any religion?

[thedoc]

I still think the onus is on the believer to prove existence of God, since they are the ones insisting on it. Personally, it doesn't matter to me either way. I'll deal with it later, if I must.

To my knowledge most Christians don't claim that the existence of God is a matter of empirical proof but of faith, so proof is not a factor. It is Atheists who claim that "there is no God" is a fact and thus subject to empirical proof

You misunderstand the position of the atheist, doc. An atheist does not believe there is a god and this is a completely different statement from what you're saying. Belief and non-belief are not equivalent constructs.

You don't speak for all atheists, just as I don't speak for all Christians or other religious people. I have heard Atheists describe their position just as I have stated and I understand that they don't speak for all Atheists. You seem to think that your definition is the only legitimate one and all other Atheists who don't hold your particular view are wrong. A person may apply whatever label to themselves that they choose, and it is not up to you to tell them that they are wrong.

[Dalek Prime]

FYI, I'm not an atheist. Existence of God does not matter to me. But if, as I say, there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU be praised), it should be up to me to either prove it, or to keep it as my eccentrically personal friend.

[Obvious Leo]

You don't speak for all atheists, just as I don't speak for all Christians or other religious people. I have heard Atheists describe their position just as I have stated and I understand that they don't speak for all Atheists. You seem to think that your definition is the only legitimate one and all other Atheists who don't hold your particular view are wrong. A person may apply whatever label to themselves that they choose, and it is not up to you to tell them that they are wrong.

It is up to me to tell them they are wrong because philosophy is my core business and this is a philosophy forum. I am merely stating the case as it is understood in a philosophical context. To believe something is not the same thing as to not believe something and this is simply a fact of language. "I don't believe that leprechauns exist" is NOT the same statement as "I believe that leprechauns don't exist". The entire thrust of the philosophical discourse is grounded on the precision of language and to conflate these statements as synonymous is to commit a logical fallacy. If you wish to offer a counter-argument then please do so but merely pointing out that many people routinely commit this logical fallacy will not cut the mustard.

[thedoc]

Indeed, if the scientist's own mind were a mere accidental product of random chance, it raises the very real question of how we know science is to be believed at all: the brain, being nothing but an accidental construct, should be anticipated to produce nothing but random data. But that science works, and the mind of the scientist works so well, and that the world commends itself so well to our intellection clearly bespeaks something much more than randomness or accident.

You'd be advised to steer clear of matters to with science, IC, since you've satisfactorily demonstrated that the philosophy of science is not your long suit. "Random chance" does not exist in physical reality and your assumption that the only alternative is a divine plan fails on both logical and evidentiary grounds.

I did not read that IC was proposing an "either or" situation, I think you are reading things into his statements that are not there. Perhaps you see the world as strictly dualistic, "either or" but I didn't read that in IC's post.

[thedoc]

It is up to me to tell them they are wrong because philosophy is my core business and this is a philosophy forum.

Just because you do philosophy as your business, does not mean that you got it right. You could be just as wrong as anyone else. This is your opinion and nothing proves that your opinion is the correct one. If arrogance isn't a philosophical fallacy, it should be.

[Obvious Leo]

It is up to me to tell them they are wrong because philosophy is my core business and this is a philosophy forum.

Just because you do philosophy as your business, does not mean that you got it right. You could be just as wrong as anyone else. This is your opinion and nothing proves that your opinion is the correct one. If arrogance isn't a philosophical fallacy, it should be.

Am I free to assume that you decline my invitation to offer a counter-argument?

[Obvious Leo]

Indeed, if the scientist's own mind were a mere accidental product of random chance, it raises the very real question of how we know science is to be believed at all: the brain, being nothing but an accidental construct, should be anticipated to produce nothing but random data. But that science works, and the mind of the scientist works so well, and that the world commends itself so well to our intellection clearly bespeaks something much more than randomness or accident.

You'd be advised to steer clear of matters to with science, IC, since you've satisfactorily demonstrated that the philosophy of science is not your long suit. "Random chance" does not exist in physical reality and your assumption that the only alternative is a divine plan fails on both logical and evidentiary grounds.

I did not read that IC was proposing an "either or" situation, I think you are reading things into his statements that are not there. Perhaps you see the world as strictly dualistic, "either or" but I didn't read that in IC's post.

His enthusiasm for the teleological argument is implicit in his repeated references to such figures as Aquinas and Plantinga and I was simply pointing out that the unlikelihood of the gigantic cosmic accident is hardly an argument in support of it since such an explanation has never been proposed as an alternative to it. IC clearly makes no distinction between determinism and pre-determinism.

[thedoc]

Am I free to assume that you decline my invitation to offer a counter-argument?

Now I get it, you're not here for a civil conversation, you're here to pick a fight. Good, now fight with yourself.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Your reasoning is question begging nonsense. And you are assuming about Neptune before it was discovered what it was not possible to say, and what NO ONE ever did claim.

You are incorrect. You can easily see I am assuming nothing about Neptune, not even its real existence at the moment. I did not affirm that it did exist, nor say it did not: I left it an open question.

and with that you shoot yourself in the foot in two ways. One id that you do not consider god to be an open question. You ignore the fact that Neptune only was a question as and when evidence presented itself. None of this analogy applies to god in any sense. And you still have failed to say what is god.

Now, I happen to believe it exists, but that's merely incidental. Using something in which people generally believe -- though they must admit, with no solid evidence, for most people have never actually seen Neptune -- does not rule on the side of its existence, but rather only reveals whether or not their disbelief could possibly be rational.

Your "belief" is not evidence; it is of no importance.
Once again Neptune is defined BY THE EVIDENCE. and its existence is therefore quite evident. Nothing of the kind can be said for your undefined "god"

In other words, my critique is formal, not substantive -- a critique of inquiry methods, not of a particular proposition. It would apply no matter what the substance plugged into the critique was, whether Neptune, God or fairies. Absence of evidence is simply insufficient grounds to know whether or not anyone else has evidence. It's straightforwardly illogical, as you can see.

Your critique is nothing of the kind; neither substantive, nor formal. You have not presented a critique as your example does not apply in any sense.
You are straightforwardly illogical as is plain to anyone reading this.

P.S. -- Actually, Neptune was discovered in 1846, after a great deal of debate about its existence (as early as Galileo, its existence had been suggested, but it had not been observed), so it would be untrue to say I was positing something "no one ever did claim." They did.

Totally irrelevant.
SO what do you mean "god" anyway?

[thedoc]

Once again Neptune is defined BY THE EVIDENCE. and its existence is therefore quite evident. Nothing of the kind can be said for your undefined "god"

Apparently you have observed Neptune through a telescope, or know someone who has.

[Obvious Leo]

Neptune has been very closely studied by a large number of astronomers using a wide range of different telescopes. It was also visited by the Voyager 2 spacecraft in 1989 and a wealth of empirical data was collected on this mission. On the balance of probabilities we can safely accept the existence of Neptune as a validated fact and thus no belief in its existence is necessary.