Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Jeweler]

If we assume something is true because it’s the best fitting explanation, then is it also reasonable to use that assumption to assume other things are true or to prove other things wrong?

Meaning, if God is the most reasonable explanation for our existence (which in my opinion is only “reasonable” because assumptions are made) is it also reasonable to then assume that the Bible is inspired by God and infallible based on that original assumption?

[jimwalton]

> If we assume something is true because it’s the best fitting explanation, then is it also reasonable to use that assumption to assume other things are true or to prove other things wrong?

I think you know the answer to this question. Are you just playing games with me? Knowledge is cumulative. We based the things we are learning now on things we already know. We use what we know to be truth to determine other things that are truth. Everyone knows this.

> if God is the most reasonable explanation for our existence (which in my opinion is only “reasonable” because assumptions are made) is it also reasonable to then assume that the Bible is inspired by God and infallible based on that original assumption?

No. That's a non sequitur. Just because theism is the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, and just because theism is the best explanation for why things are the way they are does not lead us to conclusion that that Bible is inspired by God and is infallible. Those are different questions and require different arguments.

[Jeweler]

So even if we determined that the best fit explanation for the universe’s existence was a creator and we worked with that assumption, how would any Christian beliefs be rationalized?

When is not making an assumption the most reasonable option?

[jimwalton]

> how would any Christian beliefs be rationalized?

We don't rationalize, but weigh evidences and evaluate logic, reason, and alternatives. Christianity has to be evaluated on the same tests of truth as anything else: What corresponds to reality? What has historical corroboration? What describes the human condition most accurately? What conforms to logic and reason? It is on the basis of these that I have discerned that the Bible is the correct text describing God and His interactions with nature and with humanity. My subscription to the reasonableness of Christianity and the veracity of the Bible is based on the truth that is in the Bible corroborated by history and archaeology, as well as many people's personal experiences, along with my own, showing that the Bible has told the truth and is true.

Here's why I'm a Christian, and not just a theist, and why I think Christian belief is the only perspective that leads to ultimate truth:

1. When I look at the various cosmological, ontological, teleological, and axiological arguments for the existence of God, the case is stronger than the case against the existence of God, so I firmly believe that theism makes more sense than atheism. It has more evidence in its favor, and is more logically consistent.

Weighing and comparing the major religions of the world, there seem to be only two that really rise to the top: Christianity and Hinduism. Islam (and many others like Mormonism) is just a cult, or distortion, of Christianity. Buddhism (and others) is just a cult of Hinduism. Confucianism is really a philosophy of lifestyle, not a religion per se. When I weigh Christianity and Hinduism, Christianity seems to far outweigh Hinduism in its realistic portrayal of God, reality, evil, pain, salvation, life, and death.

Islam is the greatest of the Christian heresies (to use a phrase from C.S. Lewis). Mohammad took Christianity and changed it, removing Jesus from deity, and putting Mohammad as its greatest prophet. But it still has Abraham, Moses, etc.

One of the things about Islam that doesn't make sense to me is the radical transcendence of Allah: the distance between man and God is impossible to cross. Repetition and submission are the rule, not any kind of a relationship. And there is no certainty of heaven for the common person. It is all "the will of God," they say. One's destiny is left at the mercy of an unknown and unknowable will. Zacharias says, "When relationship is swallowed up by rules, political power and enforcement become the means of containment." We've seen that to be true.

Islam is a religion of the Book, as opposed to Christianity, which focuses on the person of Jesus. But how does one hold that the written text is perfect (which it is not; there are textual variants)? Also, Jesus didn't come to give a certain group of people ethnic worth. That's Islam. Jesus loved the world and came to save the world.

Truth has to correspond to reality, and so at least on this fundamental level, correspondence to reality is what anyone would look for in "proving" any religion. But I'd also say, before we go on, that very little (if anything, when it comes right down to it, depending on your philosophical viewpoints) can be PROVEN. Most of the time we use adductive reasoning: inferring as wise as we can the most reasonable conclusion. In both of these areas I think Christianity has strength.

2. Though I know there are many disagreements, YHWH is the kind of God we would expect if a God truly exists, and Jesus is the kind of person we would expect to see if God visited the planet. Their beings conform to our highest reasonings of theology and philosophy. God must be all-knowing, all-powerful (without self-contradiction), completely other (transcendent) and yet completely engaged (immanent), loving but just, judging but merciful, maintaining standards and yet full of grace, never-changing but flexible to human situations, communicative, good but can crack a whip when that is called for, eternal, creator, able to work wonders, and yet knows how to play by his own rules at the same time. This is the God we would expect to see, and this is the God we see in the Bible. As far as Jesus, we would expect compassion, power, kindness but doesn't take guff from detractors, fearless, relational, words of authority and truth, knowledge of people and situations, knowledge of the past and future, sacrificial and not self-oriented, and full of patience but not a pushover, meek but not a doormat, assertive, humble, and yet confident. This is exactly what we see. It corresponds to reality.

3. The Bible presents a world that we see. It presents a world where evil is real (as opposed to other religions like Hinduism), and where God lets things take their course but intervenes to keep his plan of redemption on track. It portrays humanity as noble but hopelessly lost, moral but corruptible, both good and evil, torn between self and others, having a conscience, knowing purpose, aware of morality, acknowledging beauty, capable of creativity, but in some ways animalistic and capable of horrific behavior. We see all these things in real life.

4. The Bible portrays "religion" not as a way to earn a place in God's graces, but as God reaching out to us, to love his way into our hearts. To me this corresponds to reality, because if we have to earn our way, we are all in hopeless trouble. But if God would just reach out to us, invite us into the kingdom, pay any sacrifices himself, and make a way for us to find him, come to him, and be redeemed, this makes sense as the only possible way someone could ever find salvation, and this is what the Bible teaches.

5. A true religion must engage the whole of the human nature, not just the mind and not just the emotions. It can't possibly just be about swaying to the music, entranced and brainless, caught up in the rhythms, spells, notions and potions. By the same token, it can't possibly just be about deep philosophy, ironing out theological conundrums, connecting intellectually with the mysteries of the universe and transcending humanity to enter the divine. True religion engages the mind and can fulfill the most intellectual queries, but at the same time enjoy expression, joy, uplifting emotions and the pull of our hearts. True religion is for the scholar and the child, the patrician and the plebeian, the civilized and the barbarian, the slave and the free, the man and the woman, the scientist and the poet. Christianity conforms to these categories.

6. A true religion must make sense out of history. It doesn't function above it or without it, compete against it or necessarily endorse it. Christianity (in contrast to Hinduism and Buddhism) is a historical religion where God works in history and among history, accomplishing his purposes, involved in people's lives, bringing out the redemption of all creation.

7. A true religion must makes sense out of science. It doesn't function above it or without it, compete against it or necessarily endorse it. Christianity teaches principles of cause and effect, beauty, regularity, predictability, beauty, purpose, design, and a world in which science is possible.

8. Christianity teaches purpose, significance in humanity, forgiveness for wrongs, life out of death, hope for the hopeless, redemption, fairness, love, beauty, a God who is there, knowledge, conscience, renewal, and meaning. I think it addresses all of these (#s 1-7) with far greater satisfaction than other religions to such a great extent that I consider Christianity to be true.

I haven't even mentioned such things as the beauty, power, and authority of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus, and the life changes that Christianity brings to so many. Such things are convincing to me, but objects of scorn to others.

> When is not making an assumption the most reasonable option?

When the evidence is inconclusive or contradictory.

[Jeweler]

Isn’t this evidence inconclusive if the foundational justification for belief in the unproven claims of Christianity is the higher likelihood to known alternatives?

For instance, if we were trying to identify the first homosapien and the oldest fossil remains we have of one are from 300,000 years ago would it be reasonable to claim that no homosapiens existed before 300,000 years ago?

Just because it seems like the most accurate information doesn’t make it accurate without some sort of justification. I don’t find the assumption of truth in the absence of proof to be justification for any claim that is fundamental to other claims since every additional assumption increases the likelihood of uncertainty.

[jimwalton]

> Isn’t this evidence inconclusive if the foundational justification for belief in the unproven claims of Christianity is the higher likelihood to known alternatives?

This question doesn't make sense to me. It sounds as if you're saying, "This evidence is inconclusive if the justification for the claims of Christianity is more likely."

Just to clarity, I'm saying that there are plenty of evidences for both theism and Christianity that are far stronger than opposing cases, so if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, Christianity is by far the more logical conclusion.

As I mentioned before, such cases are not weighed in claim of "If it's not 100% proven we don't consider it true." That's not the way most truths are decided.

> For instance, if we were trying to identify the first homosapien and the oldest fossil remains we have of one are from 300,000 years ago would it be reasonable to claim that no homosapiens existed before 300,000 years ago?

No, it would not be reasonable to claim such. The only thing we could reasonably claim is that the earliest knowledge and evidence we have of homo sapiens is 300,000 years ago. It would not be logical to claim, "Therefore no homo sapiens existed before 300,000 years ago."

For instance, we have no evidence of the historical existence of a man named "Homer," the presumed author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, other than his attachment to those works. We cannot reasonably conclude from the evidence either "Yes, he did exist," or "No, he did not exist." His name attached to those works is no proof of his existence, because it could be a pseudonym. But the lack of further historical corroboration is no proof that he didn't exist, either.

> Just because it seems like the most accurate information doesn’t make it accurate without some sort of justification.

Except that both logic and evidence leads us very strongly in the case of theism and Christianity, and therefore it should be given not only very serious consideration, but also acknowledgement of the strength of its case, and not just casually tossed off or discarded on the basis of bias.

> I don’t find the assumption of truth in the absence of proof to be justification for any claim that is fundamental to other claims since every additional assumption increases the likelihood of uncertainty.

If you are honest and consistent about this, then you are going to reject almost all of what we know from history and most of what we know from science. Otherwise, you are just being hypocritically prejudiced against Christianity and your negative assessment is resting on illegitimate grounds.

> since every additional assumption increases the likelihood of uncertainty.

And what might these additional assumptions be?

[Jeweler]

That was a confusing way to phrase it. My fault. The emphasis should have been that the ONLY justification for belief in the unproven claims of Christianity is the higher likelihood to known alternatives. I think “a higher likelihood to known alternatives” is a good reason to believe that something COULD be the case. I don’t think it’s a good reason to claim something IS the case without further justification. ESPECIALLY if that claim will be assumed to be correct and then used to justify additional claims. Also, a claim that is extraordinary should require not just standard justification like an ordinary claim, but should require additional verification to accept the extraordinary as truth. At least, that’s my process to avoid belief in a claim that isn’t true. Does your process differ from mine?

I’m glad we agree about the claim of the oldest homosapien. That’s kind of related to how I view the universe. You may know more about this than me, but my understanding of the “beginning” of our universe is that we use information from the cosmic microwave background to estimate how long ago the Big Bang event was. The math and the physics are theoretical, but the consensus seems to be that our universe emerged something like 14 billion years ago. It was infinitely dense and started expanding and it then stars and planets formed and here we are. This is really long, I promise there’s a point. Again, my understanding is that scientists can’t assert anything for certain other than the universe’s initial state and age. This makes the theory of God creating the universe a candidate. To me, assuming God created the universe would be like assuming the oldest fossil is the first homosapien. Meaning, if we could prove the universe actually existed eternally and the Big Bang event was either a local event or a repeating event then the claim of God being a creator, as it’s believed now, would be rendered invalid. It’s just as valid of a theory as God to me because if either our universe is a local event in a larger multiverse or it repeatedly undergoes collapsing and expansion we could exist in those scenarios exactly as we do now. There would be no way to prove that isn’t happening and it could fit logically because we can’t prove the multiverse doesn’t exist because we can’t observe anything outside of our universe and we can’t prove that the universe doesn’t undergo different physics at either end of its cycle since we are in the middle of it and basing our knowledge on how physics works in our environment and through observation.

[jimwalton]

> The emphasis should have been that the ONLY justification for belief in the unproven claims of Christianity is the higher likelihood to known alternatives.

OK, thanks for the clarification. What I believe is the (1) the arguments for theism and Christianity are good all by themselves; (2) there is evidence for what we believe, and (3) the arguments are stronger than the arguments of the opposing side.

So I'm not saying the ONLY justification for belief is its higher likelihood compared to alternative perspectives.

> Also, a claim that is extraordinary should require not just standard justification like an ordinary claim, but should require additional verification to accept the extraordinary as truth.

With this I disagree. An extraordinary claim requires only the same evidence as any other claim: a reliable source of information. As long as the source is reliable and true, any claim can be substantiated.

> my understanding of the “beginning” of our universe is that we use information from the cosmic microwave background to estimate how long ago the Big Bang event was.

Yes, cosmic microwave background, but also parallax shift, the speed of light, Olbers's paradox, quasars, and redshift.

> our universe emerged something like 14 billion years ago.

Yes, agreed. We go with the science and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

> if we could prove the universe actually existed eternally and the Big Bang event was either a local event or a repeating event then the claim of God being a creator, as it’s believed now, would be rendered invalid.

I don't understand this argument. Perhaps you can explain. Of course the universe actually exists, but that's no argument against God. In many ways it's an argument for Him, because everything that begins to exist has a cause outside of itself; nothing can self-generate out of non-existence.

And if the BB were a local event, the same logic rules. It has to have had a causal mechanism outside of itself, i.e., outside of nature, since the laws of physics did not yet exist.

As far as a repeating event, that's not really possible. The philosophical argument: It is impossible to traverse or cross an actual infinite number of events by successive addition. An actual infinite (in contrast to a potential infinite) is actually infinite. An actual infinite has no room for growth. Therefore the past must have been finite. Like Kalam’s law, if there is no beginning, there is no present.

There are also several scientific arguments to show the BB is not a repeating event.

• The second law of thermodynamics. In a closed system, the amount of energy is always decreasing. Applied to the universe, the universe is becoming less organized. It is burning up. It will eventually die. How can the universe exist in a state of quantum flux without itself suffering decay? Quantum fluctuations would cause everything to literally fall apart at the quantum level.
• Red Shift. Space is expanding. Around 15 years ago, everything—space, time, and energy—was all compacted into a mathematical point with no dimensions.
• Because of the density of the universe, there was only one initial creation, and there will be no contraction or further explosion in the future. https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/ChristinaCheng.shtml

Therefore the idea that God created the universe from nothing a finite time ago is eminently reasonable.

> multiverses

The main problem with the theory of multiverses is that there is absolutely no empirical evidence for them. They are 100% speculative. This is no way to build a scientific, mathematical, or logical case.

The idea that that might exist because we can't prove they don't is scientific and logical nonsense. It's like saying unicorns might exist because, even though we haven't perceived them in the rings of Saturn, and there is absolutely no evidence for them, we can't prove they're not there, and so their existence is possible.

[Jeweler]

You said even an extraordinary claim just requires a reliable source. So what’s the reliable source?

What do we know about the thermodynamics of dark matter?

How is God not excluded if multiverses are?

[jimwalton]

> So what’s the reliable source?

I'm quite sure you know the answer to this question. A reliable source is one that can be corroborated as true, or that the individual is a known and respected truth teller, or that bears all the marks of truth against competing explanations. We recognize some reliable sources in historiography, science, journalism, educators, financial advisors, pastors, salesmen, scholars—you name it.

> What do we know about the thermodynamics of dark matter?

I'm guessing you know the answer to this question. Dark matter has been observed only through calculations. It has never been directly observed, and its very existence is uncertain. There are evidences for and against its existence, and nothing is known about the thermodynamics of dark matter.

> How is God not excluded if multiverses are?

I'm quite sure you know the answer to this question. There are multiple evidences for the existence of God, and zero evidences for multiverses. There are many points of logic that show of the reasonability and plausibility of theism, yet there are none for multiverses. Many billions of people have experienced God, yet not a single individual has experienced any interaction with or evidence of another universe.

If we follow the evidence where it leads, many various evidences lead us to theism and even the Christian God; zero evidences lead us to multiverses.