Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Romans

[Tyne and Tyne again]

I’d like to get everyone’s thoughts.

I see the world, and being as honest as I can possibly be, I don’t see any evidence of a creator. I just don’t. I don’t see evidence of a creator any more than I see evidence that the universe is supported on the back of a giant tortoise. This is not me saying there is no god, this is not me saying that we have answers to everything. There’s loads we don’t know.

I see there are lots of questions we don’t have answers to, how life got started being principle among those. But I see those answers that science has so far come up with and they all seem pretty reasonable, supported by the evidence that we do have and it appears to me that the scientific models about how the world came into existence and how the world works are the best current answers we have.

So that all being said, where does that put me? I can’t just, choose to believe something else. We don’t choose what we believe, we see evidence and draw conclusions. So if the conclusion that I honestly draw is contrary to what Paul says in Romans, where does that put me? Am I not proof that creation does not in fact reveal itself as proof of god?

The implications of this are kind of substantial. There’s been loads of questions in this sub asking “well what about isolated tribes that have never heard the gospel” and one of the popular answers is to reference Romans and say that these people have revelation through creation and that should ...somehow...lead them to the Christian god. But am I not living proof that’s not the case? And I love in North America and I know about the claims of Christianity. If we’re now talking about remote people who’ve never heard the Christian god claim, doesn’t that make the problem even worse?

[jimwalton]

Nature begs an explanation: Why is there something rather than nothing? Since we are intuitively oriented to cause-and-effect, it's perfectly natural to wonder about causality when we see the world. Anyone's even moderate observational skills shows us that nature has an aspect that is orderly, uniform, regular, purposeful, functional, and even beautiful. We can see that humans have personality, and even morality. We can perceive will, responsibility, and love. These are all part of world through simple observation which can lead anyone to wonder about causality, purpose, personality, morality, and yes, even spirituality. The face of nature motivates humans to look for something beyond nature.

> I don’t see evidence of a creator any more than I see evidence that the universe is supported on the back of a giant tortoise.

We all have to struggle with "What makes the most sense?" The scientists tell us that the universe had a beginning (a Big Bang from a dimensionless singularity where none of the laws of nature or natural forces existed). It makes more sense, then, that something outside of nature was the causal mechanism. Science tells us nothing can self-generate out of a state of non-existence. That would be one evidence for God. If we're going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, it's more reasonable to think that the universe had a powerful, timeless, personal, purposeful cause than that it self-spontaneously generated out of nothing. In addition, while science can explain some of this process, theism can explain all of it. Theism has sufficient explanation where science does not. Therefore if we're following Occam's Razor, theism is the most straightforward conclusion.

We also have to struggle with why the universe is so spectacularly tuned for life. It's a carbon-based universe with just the right gravitational force, just the right ratio of electromagnetism, exactly the right weight and proportions of proton, neutrons, and electrons, exactly the right...and on and on it goes. We have a choice as to whether this wonder is just dumb luck or that it was truly planned out by a causal intelligence. If you're looking for evidence of God, these amazing constants we see in the universe lead us to a purposeful source rather than one that resulted from an "explosion" (a rapid, chaotic expansion). Why should the universe be so well-tuned for life? An honest pursuit leads us more towards theism than toward naturalism. It's another evidence for God. 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.

Whenever we see something that looks like it has been designed for a purpose, we discover that it indeed has been designed for a purpose. Many elements of the universe have the distinct appearance of having been designed for a purpose. We have to weigh whether it's more logical to conclude it was an accident or the result of an intelligent and purposeful designer. 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.

Why should mathematical principles so consistently explain the universe? Why is it all so incredibly concurrent with math? There's no particular reason if the universe is the result of matter + time + chance, brought about by an "explosion" and progressing by chance occurrences. There is plenty of good explanation if there is a God. It's another evidence for God.

Consider our ability to think and reason. If naturalism is true, our ability to reason came about by processes that were geared to survival, not to the truths we become aware of by reasoning. If we are the result of natural selection and genetic mutation, can I trust my ability to reason, or is it a toss of the coin every time? On the other hand, if an intelligent God created us in His image with the ability to reason, again we have sufficiency of explanation.

Why should the universe be orderly, purposeful, uniform, and regular, and why should life be intelligent and personal?

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, I honestly don't understand how you can say, "I don’t see evidence of a creator any more than I see evidence that the universe is supported on the back of a giant tortoise."

[Tyne and Tyne again]

> Nature begs an explanation: Why is there something rather than nothing? Since we are intuitively oriented to cause-and-effect, it's perfectly natural to wonder about causality when we see the world. Anyone's even moderate observational skills shows us that nature has an aspect that is orderly, uniform, regular, purposeful, functional, and even beautiful. We can see that humans have personality, and even morality. We can perceive will, responsibility, and love. These are all part of world through simple observation which can lead anyone to wonder about causality, purpose, personality, morality, and yes, even spirituality. The face of nature motivates humans to look for something beyond nature.

I agree. The scientific method has proven to be the single most reliable method of discovering the world around us. Every single time the scientific method has made a discovery that's increased our understanding of the world around us, the answer is never god.

> We all have to struggle with "What makes the most sense?" The scientists tell us that the universe had a beginning (a Big Bang from a dimensionless singularity where none of the laws of nature or natural forces existed). It makes more sense, then, that something outside of nature was the causal mechanism. Science tells us nothing can self-generate out of a state of non-existence. That would be one evidence for God. If we're going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, it's more reasonable to think that the universe had a powerful, timeless, personal, purposeful cause than that it self-spontaneously generated out of nothing. In addition, while science can explain some of this process, theism can explain all of it. Theism has sufficient explanation where science does not. Therefore if we're following Occam's Razor, theism is the most straightforward conclusion.

Saying god did it can be used to explain anything, but any time that you say god did it, I can say universe-farting pixies did it and I can come up with exactly the same amount of evidence.

> We also have to struggle with why the universe is so spectacularly tuned for life. It's a carbon-based universe with just the right gravitational force, just the right ratio of electromagnetism, exactly the right weight and proportions of proton, neutrons, and electrons, exactly the right...and on and on it goes. We have a choice as to whether this wonder is just dumb luck or that it was truly planned out by a causal intelligence. If you're looking for evidence of God, these amazing constants we see in the universe lead us to a purposeful source rather than one that resulted from an "explosion" (a rapid, chaotic expansion). Why should the universe be so well-tuned for life? An honest pursuit leads us more towards theism than toward naturalism. It's another evidence for God. 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.

The universe is not fine-tuned. The vast vast vast vast vast majority of the universe is (as far as we know) empty, radiation-filled space that's hostile to every type of life we're currently aware of

> Whenever we see something that looks like it has been designed for a purpose, we discover that it indeed has been designed for a purpose. Many elements of the universe have the distinct appearance of having been designed for a purpose. We have to weigh whether it's more logical to conclude it was an accident or the result of an intelligent and purposeful designer. 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.

This is the watchmaker argument. Loads of youtube videos exist that can explain the issues with this argument

> Why should mathematical principles so consistently explain the universe? Why is it all so incredibly concurrent with math? There's no particular reason if the universe is the result of matter + time + chance, brought about by an "explosion" and progressing by chance occurrences. There is plenty of good explanation if there is a God. It's another evidence for God.

Universe-farting pixies

> Consider our ability to think and reason. If naturalism is true, our ability to reason came about by processes that were geared to survival, not to the truths we become aware of by reasoning. If we are the result of natural selection and genetic mutation, can I trust my ability to reason, or is it a toss of the coin every time? On the other hand, if an intelligent God created us in His image with the ability to reason, again we have sufficiency of explanation.

You can trust your reason based on it's prior reliability.

> Why should the universe be orderly, purposeful, uniform, and regular, and why should life be intelligent and personal?
> 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, I honestly don't understand how you can say, "I don’t see evidence of a creator any more than I see evidence that the universe is supported on the back of a giant tortoise."

Universe, Farting, Pixies.

[jimwalton]

> The scientific method has proven to be the single most reliable method of discovering the world around us. Every single time the scientific method has made a discovery that's increased our understanding of the world around us, the answer is never god.

This is true, but only as far as it goes. Science is a study of the natural world, and is pretty useless for everything else. With it we can predict the next lunar eclipse (natural world), but we can't predict the winner of the Super Bowl. It's because such predictions are not within the scope of science. We can scientifically describe how Picasso's Guernica is just globs of oil paint on canvas, but that doesn't begin to tell us about the painting. The power, impact, and meaning of the painting is not what science can do. So also is Beethoven's 9th Symphony not describable by the physics of sound.

Neither is "God" a scientific statement. If a scientist were to say, "Well, God did it," he would no longer be doing science. If you're using the scientific method to understand the world around you, then all you're going to able to describe is the world around you. I would assume that makes sense to you. Describing God is no more in the reach of the scientific method than proving whether Trump abused the power of his office by the scientific method. That's not what science does. But you can't use that as justification for the non-existence of God any more than you can use it to show Trump didn't abuse power.

> Saying god did it can be used to explain anything

If we're being trite, this is true. But if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence at hand, then no, saying God did it can't be used to explain everything.

> I can say universe-farting pixies did it and I can come up with exactly the same amount of evidence.

Actually you can't, not if you're being honest. If someone's just trying to be a jerk, then yeah, but not someone who is really thinking about the issues at hand.

> The universe is not fine-tuned.

I beg to differ. There are things like...

• the cosmic microwave background radiation
• the mass of protons, neutrons, and electrons
• the speed of light
• electron charge
• Planck's constant
• the electrical permittivity of a vacuum.
• the ratio of protons to neutrons
• the strong nuclear force
• Earth's orbit around the sun
• the size, density, mass, and distance of our sun from Earth
• The Earth's gravity
• the properties of the carbon atom
• the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity
• the measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium
• the cosmological constant

Brandon Carr and Martin Rees: "The basic features of galaxies, stars, planets, and the everyday world are essentially determined by a few microphysical constants and by the effects of gravitation….several aspects of our Universe—some of which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life—depend rather delicately on apparent 'coincidences' among the physical constants." For example, if the force of gravity were even slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants; if even slightly weaker, all would be red dwarfs; in neither case could life have developed. The same goes for the weak and strong nuclear forces; if either had been even slightly different, life, at any rate life even remotely similar to the sort we have, could probably not have developed.

Stephen Hawking: The existence of life also seems to depend very delicately on the rate at which the universe is expanding. Hawking says that "reduction of the rate of expansion by one part in 10^12 at the time when the temperature of the Universe was 10^10 K would have resulted in the Universe starting to recollapse when its radius was only 1/3000 of the present value and the temperature was still 10,000 deg"—much too warm for comfort. Hawking concludes that life is possible only because the universe is expanding at *just the rate required* to avoid collapse. At an earlier time, the fine-tuning had to be even more remarkable. John Polkinghorne adds: "We know that there has to have been a very close balance between the competing effect of explosive expansion and gravitational contraction which, at the very earliest epoch about which we can even pretend to speak (called the Planck time, 10^-43 sec. after the big bang) would have corresponded to the incredible degree of accuracy represented by a deviation in their ratio from unity by only one part in 10^60."

Paul Davies: "The fact that these relations are necessary for our existence is one of the most fascinating discoveries of modern science."

> The vast vast vast vast vast majority of the universe is (as far as we know) empty, radiation-filled space that's hostile to every type of life we're currently aware of

That's correct. Doesn't it strike you as odd that life exists and thrives here in a universe so hostile to it? With theism, it's not odd at all. With naturalism, we have quite a problem as to how that happened.

> This is the watchmaker argument. Loads of youtube videos exist that can explain the issues with this argument

We are looking for where the weight of evidence lies, given all the evidence. It all leans in the direction of theism. In other words, there is plenty of evidence that leads us in the direction of theism, and very little that leads us in the direction of naturalism. Of course philosophers can show the reasons why they watchmaker argument is less than ultimately conclusive, but it still stands that we all recognize design when we see it.

> Universe-farting pixies

Do you want to have a discussion, or do you just want to be rude? The evidences lead us in the direction of a powerful, timeless, personal, purposeful, intelligent source, not a farting one. If you don't want to have an honest, open discussion, please just say so.

> You can trust your reason based on it's prior reliability.

This is a non-sequitur. Again, some quotes from thinking people:

Nietzsche: "Only if we assume a God who is morally our like can 'truth' and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success. This God left aside, the question is permitted whether being deceived is not one of the conditions of life."

Thomas Nagel: "If we came to believe that our capacity for objective theory (e.g., true beliefs) were the product of natural selection, that would warrant serious skepticism about its results."

Barry Stroud: "There is an embarrassing absurdity in [naturalism] that is revealed as soon as the naturalist reflects and acknowledges that he believes his naturalistic theory of the world. … I mean he cannot say it and consistently regard it as true."

Patricia Churchland: "Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four Fs: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. … Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost."

Charles Darwin: "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

The principal evolutionary function or purpose of our cognitive faculties is not that of producing true or near true beliefs, but instead that of contributing to survival by getting the body parts in the right place and by perceiving survival and threat properly. What evolution underwrites is only (at most) that our behavior is reasonably adaptive to the circumstances in which our ancestors found themselves, and therefore it doesn’t guarantee true or mostly true beliefs. Our beliefs might be mostly true, but there is no particular reason to think they would be: natural selection is not interested in truth, but in appropriate behavior. Evolution without God gives us reason to doubt two things: (a) that a purpose of our cognitive systems is that of serving us with true beliefs, and (b) that they do, in fact, furnish us with mostly true beliefs. Nietzsche, Nagel, Stroud, Churchland, and Darwin, all nontheists, concur that naturalistic evolution gives every a reason to doubt that human cognitive faculties produce for the most part true beliefs.

> Universe, Farting, Pixies.

I get it. When you have no argument, and you know you're in a corner, just make fun. In other words, you have no scientific, logical, or evidentiary response. Just making fun. Well, thank you for the conversation, even though it was brief. Have a nice rest of your day.

[Tyne and Tyne again]

> This is true, but only as far as it goes. Science is a study of the natural world, and is pretty useless for everything else. With it we can predict the next lunar eclipse (natural world), but we can't predict the winner of the Super Bowl. It's because such predictions are not within the scope of science. We can scientifically describe how Picasso's Guernica is just globs of oil paint on canvas, but that doesn't begin to tell us about the painting. The power, impact, and meaning of the painting is not what science can do. So also is Beethoven's 9th Symphony not describable by the physics of sound.

If you're saying that god has/had any sort of effect on the natural world then we absolutely can use the scientific method to investigate the effect. If god has no impact on the natural world then I don't care

> If we're being trite, this is true. But if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence at hand, then no, saying God did it can't be used to explain everything.

What I'm saying is that you can use god (or fart pixies) as an explanation for anything you want. It says nothing about the truth of the claim.

Then you quote mine a bunch of scientists, I have no problem saying that the universe in which we find ourselves in is very large very old and allows things that would be otherwise be very improbable to happen.

We live in a universe that is very large and very old. The bulk of it seems incredibly hostile to life. If god designed the universe to be this way, then it's stupid. My question to you, in a universe where there is no god, and where life exists, what would it look like. I bet it would look alot like the universe we currently live in.

> We are looking for where the weight of evidence lies, given all the evidence. It all leans in the direction of theism. In other words, there is plenty of evidence that leads us in the direction of theism, and very little that leads us in the direction of naturalism. Of course philosophers can show the reasons why they watchmaker argument is less than ultimately conclusive, but it still stands that we all recognize design when we see it.

Ugh.. ok I was hoping to avoid rehashing this but why not.

Tell me how you recognize design.

> Do you want to have a discussion, or do you just want to be rude? The evidences lead us in the direction of a powerful, timeless, personal, purposeful, intelligent source, not a farting one. If you don't want to have an honest, open discussion, please just say so.

I've written a book, inspired by the pixies. I've come to know, through revelation that in addition to being gassy, these pixies are powerful, timeless, personal, intelligent. Now I want you to tell me what is the difference between my revelation, Paul's revelation, revelation that ancient Greeks received, revelation that indigenous people have received, revelation that Joseph Smith received and the revelation that the guy on the subway received. All of these revelations cannot be true. All of them may be false. How can we test and determine which one, if any, is true.

I have no need for an argument. I am not making a truth claim. I am saying that the god claims I've heard thus far have failed to meet their burden of proof, they're based on assertions and ignorance. I don't need an argument, you do. I use the farting pixies example because in addition to being hilarious, it illustrates the point that every single religion has the same amount of evidence as far as it's adherents are concerned. We have no reliable way to test one against another.

[jimwalton]

> If you're saying that god has/had any sort of effect on the natural world then we absolutely can use the scientific method to investigate the effect.

God has plenty of effect on the natural world, but you'd have to know when, where, and how to be able to set up an experiment. But since God isn't a organ-grinder monkey to appear at our demand, no one can ever use the scientific method to investigate. And if you think differently, possibly you can tell me when God will show up next, where, and what He has in mind. I'd be glad to set up an experiment myself!

Secondly, sometimes God uses natural means to do what he does, like an earthquake to knock a portion of the Jericho wall down or an east wind to push back the water. Perhaps you can explain to me how science could differentiate the two causal factors.

If you can do that, your claim could be valid.

> What I'm saying is that you can use god (or fart pixies) as an explanation for anything you want.

And it's just not true. You can't legitimately use God to explain anything you want. We use reason, logic, and evidence, not farting-pixie explanations. When Jesus healed someone, he said, "Go show yourself to the priest. Let him evaluate it." He healed people in public, not in a back alley. And when he rose from the dead, He didn't just disappear and expect people to have blind faith. Instead, he showed up in a body and said, "Go ahead, touch me. Give me something to eat. Check out the evidence, and THEN believe." This is nothing like farting pixies. Sheesh.

> that would be otherwise be very improbable to happen.

And here's the point. If we are inferring what is most probable, and the best explanation, theism gives the better explanation than naturalism, unless, of course, someone is biased from the beginning and refuses to consider some of the alternatives, such as a theistic explanation.

> My question to you, in a universe where there is no god, and where life exists, what would it look like.

Great question. I don't think it would look anything like the universe we live in. How does an "explosion" of sorts—a rapid expansion at a barely-fathomable rate of speed, produce laws of nature, order, regularity, predictability, mathematical precision, and, of all things, LIFE? Mathematicians have struggled to quantify the probability of the chances of such an occurrence by purely accidental means, and they are so abysmally low as to be considered impossible. And you seem to think we won the lottery not just once, but millions of times in a row to get what we have. And you think that's a better explanation than a powerful, intelligent, personal causal source?

> Tell me how you recognize design

There are many very restrictive parameters into which dozens of factors fall to make life possible, as I listed. One might be fortuitous, two just fantastical, three unbelievable, and by the 4th one we have to look for other explanations. But we have DOZENS.

Suppose you and are were playing poker, and I got a royal flush. You'd shake your head and give up your chips. But then suppose I did it again. You'd look at me really funny. If I did it a 3rd time you'd suspect I was cheating, and if I did it a 4th you'd attack me. Now, it's statistically true that my probability of getting a royal flush is the same each time, but that's now how it plays out in Dodge City. The more than 60 identifiable constants that exist within very tight boundaries required for life in the universe are evidences of design.

> All of them may be false. How can we test and determine which one, if any, is true.

I'm not going to legitimize this with a response.

> I have no need for an argument. I am not making a truth claim.

You've made plenty of them. Here's one of your more important ones: "The scientific models about how the world came into existence and how the world works are the best current answers we have." It assumes science is the only source of knowledge and that there is nothing outside of the natural world. But can you substantiate that argument with evidence?

> I am saying that the god claims I've heard thus far have failed to meet their burden of proof, they're based on assertions and ignorance.

I've given you a list of arguments based on evidence and reason.

> I don't need an argument, you do.

I've given you some.

> We have no reliable way to test one against another.

Of course have ways to test them against each other. You do tests for truth just as in other disciplines of study and knowledge. But it's not science. If I asked you to do an experiment to prove the conquests of Alexander the Great, you'd think I was loony. You'd say, "Science can't do that. We go by documentation and corroboration." Exactly. We use historical evidences, not scientific ones. There are also tests for truth—logical, reasoning, evidentiary, and historical—for religious claims.

[Tarnished]

> Why is there something rather than nothing? Since we are intuitively oriented to cause-and-effect, it's perfectly natural to wonder about causality when we see the world.

Sure, so we speculate. But religions convince its followers that those speculations are the absolute truth. It's not justified.

> Anyone's even moderate observational skills shows us that nature has an aspect that is orderly, uniform, regular, purposeful, functional, and even beautiful.

And through observation and study of nature, we understand how those things occur and why they seem designed. Again, religions tell us, or ancient writers, tell us how this happened, but they didn't know about physics and the natural guides that helped form these things, and so they attribute them to superstitious and supernatural explanations based on speculation. Then the religious tell you that this is fact. Again, not justified.

Wow this is a long comment.

[jimwalton]

> Sure, so we speculate. But religions convince its followers that those speculations are the absolute truth. It's not justified.

But it's not just idle speculation. We examine the evidence, the logic, and people's experiences. It's all based in reasoning, evidence, and the conditions for truth—religions included. That's why it's justified. It's not just speculation but examination and inferring the most reasonable conclusion.

> And through observation and study of nature, we understand how those things occur and why they seem designed.

Right, but theism offers a more sufficient explanation than naturalism, so if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, we lean towards theism. To be legitimate and justified, we have to look at where the weight of evidence and argument are. And that leads us to theism.

> religions tell us, or ancient writers, tell us how this happened, but they didn't know about physics and the natural guides that helped form these things, and so they attribute them to superstitious and supernatural explanations based on speculation.

Religions (at least Christianity) does tell us HOW those things occur. Instead, they show how God is the source and WHY they have occurred. It is up to science to tell us how; the Bible tells us why. They didn't have to know physics because they aren't writing science. They are writing theological teleology.

> so they attribute them to superstitious and supernatural explanations based on speculation

I understand that this is your opinion, but I trust you realize you have no evidence of this. How do you know God wasn't involved the way they said He was?

[Tarnished]

> We examine the evidence

No you don't. You cherry pick and do what you can to defend your belief, you don't follow the evidence. Your religion probably teaches you to have faith when your beliefs falter. It has built in defense mechanisms.

> Right, but theism offers a more sufficient explanation than naturalism

Only if you don't care about the evidence. Theism offers no explanation other than 'god did it'. It's a panacea. I can offer an even better and more sufficient explanation than that if you want. But if you want the truth, you follow the evidenced, you don't defend your favorite belief.
so if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, we lean towards theism

Is that based on science?

[jimwalton]

> No you don't. You cherry pick and do what you can to defend your belief

It's illegitimate that you judge me when you hardly know me and we've hardly conversed. Yet you'll already prejudicially put me into some kind of fallacious box so you could disregard anything I say.

I don't cherry pick at all. I examine the evidence deeply—as much as I can get my hands on. I'm an avid reader in many disciplines.

And yet you accuse me of cherry-picking just to superficially defend and that I don't follow the evidence. Nope, you can't win a case by the straw man fallacy or by the fallacy of argument against a person. You don't even know me.

> Your religion probably teaches you to have faith when your beliefs falter.

My religion teaches me to examine the evidence and follow the evidence where it leads. In the Bible evidence precedes faith. There is no "close your eyes and jump off a cliff" and good luck to ya! God appears to Moses in a burning bush before He expects him to believe anything. He gave signs to take back to Pharaoh and the Israelite people, so they could see the signs before they were expected to believe. So also through the whole OT. In the NT, Jesus started off with turning water into wine, healing some people, casting out demons, and then he taught them about faith. He didn't expect them to believe until they had evidence to go on. And they couldn't possibly understand the resurrection until there was some evidence. He could have just disappeared and expected the disciples to blindly believe, but that's not what he did. He showed up to give them material evidence. The whole Bible is God revealing himself to us all—and I mean actually, not through some exercise of faith.

When you read the Bible, people came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. Evidence preceded faith, and more evidence grew faith. That's how it works in the Bible.

> Only if you don't care about the evidence.

I care DEEPLY about the evidence.

> Theism offers no explanation other than 'god did it'.

Completely untrue. That there is something rather than nothing tells us that the universe had a cause. Since it had a beginning, it couldn't cause itself when it didn't exist. And since the laws of nature weren't operative before the Big Bang, and nature itself didn't exist, the cause of the universe had to be something powerful and timeless outside of nature. The evidence of the universe that science gives us leads us to a theistic conclusion.

The fact that so many constants in the universe are very finely-tuned to exact parameters to sustain life gives evidence of an intelligence that planned it rather than to chance occurrences after an "explosive" rapid expansion. The evidences of so many precise components leads us to theistic conclusions more logically than to a natural one.

The evidence of us a rational, reasonable, intelligent beings gives evidence of a rational, reasonable, intelligent source than to a random, naturally selected, genetic mutation source.

The evidence of us as personal (having personality) leads us to a personal source rather than an impersonal one. If we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, theism has more sufficiency of explanation in all these areas than naturalism.

The evidence of Jesus's resurrection looms large.

The evidence of people's religious experiences has validity.

All these together, and more, are the evidences that lead me to a confidence and certainty in Christianity as truth.

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.

> I can offer an even better and more sufficient explanation than that if you want.

I would love to see this. Thank you.

>> so if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, we lean towards theism
> Is that based on science?

Absolutely. We all have to struggle with "What makes the most sense?" The scientists tell us that the universe had a beginning (a Big Bang from a dimensionless singularity where none of the laws of nature or natural forces existed). It makes more sense, then, that something outside of nature was the causal mechanism. Science tells us nothing can self-generate out of a state of non-existence. That would be one evidence for God. If we're going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, it's more reasonable to think that the universe had a powerful, timeless, personal, purposeful cause than that it self-spontaneously generated out of nothing. In addition, while science can explain some of this process, theism can explain all of it. Theism has sufficient explanation where science does not. Therefore if we're following Occam's Razor, theism is the most straightforward conclusion.

We also have to struggle with why the universe is so spectacularly tuned for life. It's a carbon-based universe with just the right gravitational force, just the right ratio of electromagnetism, exactly the right weight and proportions of proton, neutrons, and electrons, exactly the right...and on and on it goes. We have a choice as to whether this wonder is just dumb luck or that it was truly planned out by a causal intelligence. If you're looking for evidence of God, these amazing constants we see in the universe lead us to a purposeful source rather than one that resulted from an "explosion" (a rapid, chaotic expansion). Why should the universe be so well-tuned for life? An honest pursuit leads us more towards theism than toward naturalism. It's another evidence for God. 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.

Whenever we see something that looks like it has been designed for a purpose, we discover that it indeed has been designed for a purpose. Many elements of the universe have the distinct appearance of having been designed for a purpose. We have to weigh whether it's more logical to conclude it was an accident or the result of an intelligent and purposeful designer. 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.

Why should mathematical principles so consistently explain the universe? Why is it all so incredibly concurrent with math? There's no particular reason if the universe is the result of matter + time + chance, brought about by an "explosion" and progressing by chance occurrences. There is plenty of good explanation if there is a God. It's another evidence for God.

If I look for scientific evidence, and am truly letting the evidence lead me where it goes, the evidence is more concordant with theism than naturalism.