Board index ‹ God

[Sqallor]

For Those Who Believe in God, Why?

[jimwalton]

I follow the evidence. The evidences for God are plentiful. They don't prove God, but they show that if we are following the evidence to infer the most reasonable conclusion, the existence of God is by far the more reasonable conclusion.

Cosmological evidence: The universe had a beginning. The idea of an infinite universe is absurd. Something outside of the universe had to have caused it to bang. Science can give partial explanations, but it has no complete explanation, nor even a full explanation. God qualifies for the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the terminate of explanation, whereas nature does not. It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but more likely that God would exist uncaused. The existence of the universe is strange and puzzling. It can be made comprehensible if we suppose that it is brought about by God. Theism has the stronger case.

Ontological evidence: If God doesn't exist, his existence is logically impossible. If he does exist, his existence is necessary. Since we know God is not impossible, he must be necessary.

Teleological evidence: We don't know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that was not indeed purposefully designed. Many parts of the universe exhibit purpose, patterns, regularities, and order. Therefore it's logical to assume the universe could be the product of purposeful design. Again, science can give a partial explanation; theism can give a full explanation. There is reason to consider it plausible or even probable that a rational agent was responsible for the laws of physics and the process of evolution.

We also know that there is great uniformity in material objects confirming to the laws of nature (gravity, nuclear force, etc.). This motivates us to wonder if a natural process or an intelligent source is the more likely explanation. That there is something rather than nothing is strange enough, but that they all have similar properties and powers passes strange—and also that they were uncaused! Theism (as an intelligent causal agent) is the more complete explanation. The existence of such order speaks of the probably of the existence of a powerful, intelligent, purposeful, and orderly source.

Analogical evidence: Everything we humans produce for a particular purpose is designed for that purpose by someone intelligent enough to have designed it. The universe has many characteristics that seem like it was produced for a particular purpose. Given its beginning (Big Bang) and the chaotic nature of such a process, we could logically conclude that the universe would be chaotic. But it's not. There is order rather than disorder. It's more reasonable to conclude that the universe was designed by an intelligent being.

The evidence of other minds: I can't prove that other minds exist, but it's logical to believe that. I can't prove what other minds are thinking, and yet it's reasonable to assume they are. The bulk of my commonsense beliefs about others minds is more probable than not, on my total evidence. Using that analogy, then, belief in God is rational, being more probable than not on the total evidence.

Evidence from consciousness: Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist (feelings, thoughts, emotions). The explanation for such mental states is either personal or scientific. The explanation for nonphysical mental states is not a natural scientific one, for no naturalistic explanation postulated thus far has been capable of accounting for how the mental can arise from the physical. Again, science can explain part, but not all. Therefore the best explanation for now of nonphysical mental states is a personal one. If the explanation is personal, then it is theistic.

Axiological evidence: Since there is evil in the world, there must also be good (or we wouldn't know evil was evil). If those words mean anything, there must be a standard by which to define and measure them. And if there is a standard, there must be a source for that standard. That source must be moral, objective, and personal. Therefore theism is the more reasonable conclusion than evolution for survival (which has nothing to do with "good" or "bad").

Linguistic evidence: Language is effective only if endowed with meaning. Meaning is definitively non-material; it is neither energy nor matter. The essence of meaning is entirely distinct from energy and matter. Language demands a non-material source, since meaning is non-material. Language therefore demonstrates that we as humans possess non-material attributes. The most plausible source for that is a non-material entity with mental faculties qualitatively similar to our own but vastly superior.

God makes sense of the existence of abstract entities.
God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
God makes sense of the complex order in the universe.
God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

If we are drawing the most reasonable inference:

• Is it more reasonable to assume the universe brought itself out of nothing (the dimensionless singularity of the Big Bang theory) or that it was brought about by a causal agent outside of itself?
• Is it more reasonable to assume our intelligence and ability to reason came from an intelligent source or a blind one?
• Is it more reasonable to assume the orderliness and teleology of the universe came from purposeful planning or random process (the Big Bang), natural selection, and genetic mutation?
• Is it more reasonable to assume our consciousness just happened to arise or that it was caused by a previous consciousness?
• Is it more reasonable to assume our personality came from a personal source or an impersonal one?
• Is it more reasonable to assume our sense of right and wrong came about by survival instincts or from a moral source?
• Is it more reasonable to assume informational data (such as DNA) happened to arise by natural process out of random data or from a previous source of information?

Theism wins every one of these. It doesn't prove God, but if we are honestly pursuing where the evidence leads and inferring the most reasonable conclusion, theism is the far stronger case.

[Mims]

I was going to write a similar answer, but you’ve considered even more here than I would have. Brilliantly said. I agree completely. Blessings, friend.