Meyer has said that you If you can explain all the workings of the universe with materialistic causes then the best explanation is is there is no God. Which is absurd. Plenty of non scientific arguments can be made.
Gauger once told me if I can’t detect empirically god’s action in the evolutionary process then it’s just faith that he was involved. But of course there are numerous philosophical arguments from evolution that suggest God’s involvement. Things like beauty, arguments along the lines of Conway Morris, etc… I see ID Proponents flirt with scientism so much.
I think it is because scientism is a conclusion, not just a position. If the world operates entirely blindly, as far as we can tell by our most rigorous and empirical source of knowledge, then scientism is a pretty sensible conclusion. ID provides a scientific methology that opens the door to other conclusions.
Thank you all who replied to the Kalam question. I think I was mistaking that Kalam’s argument is about the beginning of the universe but it had to do with the universe’s past? I still new to philosophy so forgive me if I am not getting it.
Well the kalam does depend on the universe having a beginning. To defend that claim it’s proponents will point to Big Bang cosmology, impossibility of actual infinities, thermodynamics.
I’m not a expert on Kalam by any means. For a fact i think everything I’ve read of him is second hand quotes.
But from what I read I did believe his push was everything had to come from something and a something as infinite as the universe and time had to come from a being even greater which is god.
I thank and commend you for being transparent about your struggle. Your humility and willingness to listen and learn are as valuable as (or more than) a great deal of knowledge. It seems to me that you desire to have faith in God, which itself demonstrates a measure of faith already. Rest assured that if you desire God’s salvation so that you faithfully seek Him, He will not let you slip away from His grasp (see John 6:39, for example). So, before reading anything about modern apologetics, I would ask you to read the Gospel of John –John 10 especially comes to mind. And when you do so, take your questions, doubts, and fears directly to Jesus. He can handle them! He will not turn away from any who genuinely seek Him.
That said, I think apologetics is quite valuable, too. I also believe it is important to keep it in proper perspective. Each person approaches apologetic questions with some set of presuppositions. As much as people like to think they are neutral, no one truly is when it comes to “religion.” From the outset, some people simply want Christianity to be true, and some don’t. Of course, one’s attitude will greatly affect the subsequent understanding/evaluation of evidence. Indeed, much of the “new atheism” holds Christianity to an epistemological standard far above that of its own atheistic worldview, apparently to help its subscribers to feel justified in rejecting Christianity.
Another danger of apologetics is to dupe the apologist into thinking that he/she is in a position to judge the evidence in the first place, as if humans were the judges to whom God must present His case. That is quite backwards. If God exists, the ultimate standard of truth must be His and His alone; He is not obligated to justify Himself to humankind (though He graciously offers us various evidences and revelation anyway!). Apologetic studies can help us learn more about His character and to “think His thoughts after Him,” but that is certainly a different outcome. Feeling the self-sufficient need to judge for oneself based solely upon “neutral evidence,” but in reality being swayed significantly by one’s own presuppositions, partially explains how different intelligent people can see the same evidence and come to exactly opposite conclusions.
Certain individual arguments or evidences can have value in convincing a sinner of their need for Christ’s redemption, but apologetics is far from a “purely intellectual” exercise. Recognizing this will help to frame whatever studies you undertake. But frankly, it’s a rare person who believes in God only because of a philosophical argument, and a rare person who disbelieves God because of the perceived insufficiency of such an argument (though they may claim that to be the reason). Saving faith, at its core, is from a different source: from God Himself. So I encourage you to seek relief from your apologetic wrestlings from Him.
Noah, this statement is the Truth. It is God who reveals Himself to those who search for Him with all their heart. Read post 11 (i think) to remind yourself what Jesus said about knowing Him and the Father.
I don’t know if it did or not. But let me play atheist advocate. An uncaused first moment is no more absurd than creation from no pre-existing materials. They both go against our every day experience and intuition. This is why I prefer contingency arguments.
Something that helps shut up all the voices that try to distract me from loving and following Jesus, is knowing that without Him I am utterly lost. I can do nothing without Him. There is no life outside of Him. Without Him I am wicked and totally lost. I can’t make a proper decision unless He tells me what I should do. I can’t have proper relationships unless He shows me how. I can’t please God unless His Spirit guides me in the way that is pleasing to the Father.
Jesus is my only hope.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
78
What’s scientific about it? ‘our most rigorous and empirical source of knowledge’, i.e. science explains nature completely.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
79
There is no coercion in love. Communism arose in a very specific culture in crisis, Russia. A C20th industrializing feudal autocracy losing a war. It arose because of the acute and chronic lack of social justice. It’s interesting to see your two false dichotomies have the same structure. There is no love in damnationism.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
80
Exactly. He has no concept of uniformitarianism in eternity.