To Prove God Exists

Posted by:

I want to take a few minutes to address the question of whether it is the purpose of this website to prove God exists.

Generally, in a discussion, if two people have opposing views on any topic it is assumed that at the start the balance is roughly 50/50 and, as the arguments are presented, the balance will end up leaning more towards one side or the other.

When it comes to the conversation between theists and atheists however that is seldom the case. In most instances the atheist comes to the discussion with the conviction that both logic and science have already sufficiently shown that the possibility of god is extremely, extremely small. So much so that for anyone to think otherwise implies the person is either seriously brainwashed, severely uneducated or just plain dumb. (Yes, theists at times have the same attitude toward atheists, but for different reasons)

Under these circumstances it would be a complete waste of time for me to start talking about my reasons for believing a god exists. There is nothing I could say during the timespan of a common discussion that will not be perceived by the atheist as utterly insufficient to counteract the mountain of evidence in his favor. Rather, if logic and science suggest that the possibility for god is so extremely small, we should begin with an explanation of HOW the atheist arrived at that conclusion.

In a debate, if one side makes an attempt to poison the well, it becomes necessary to pause the current discussion and address THAT claim first. Otherwise, further arguments in support of the original position will become severely weakened. In the same way, the atheist cannot frame a discussion as already leaning strongly in his favor even before it starts and then expect that the theist will just accept this humongous burden of proof without some justification. Therefore, before engaging in a conversation about whether God exists, the atheist needs to first explain how he arrived at the conclusion that this possibility is so small.

Interestingly enough, although atheists are so good at convincing themselves and their audiences that debates should be framed under the assumption that science and reason already lean strongly in their favor, it has been my experience that when asked to explain just why, they’ve got nothing. Rather, for the most part what they have is:

a) Flawed or circular reasoning

b) A poor understanding of science and how it works

c) Misunderstandings about theism or Christianity (or at least an understanding of only certain groups of theists whose position is also considered irrational by the other theists)

d) Or worse, when pressed it turns out there is no logical or scientific reason at all but simply a purely faith-based belief that things are so. Or, similar to this, one person believes it because they have surrounded themselves with a community of people that also believe it. And they believe this community is smarter than the average population and therefore more likely to be right. And, this community is smarter BECAUSE it believes that which is more likely to be right. (I’m always amused when atheists call themselves the free-thought community and set up conferences with names like Reason Rally)

In any case, if that got you a bit rattled up, here’s the thing:

1) If you want to talk with me we either agree to start with a completely blank slate where we know nothing at the start and then begin to present arguments for one side and then the other

Or

2) If you feel that things really are leaning that much in your favor and you cannot pretend like the possibility of God is 50/50 at the start of the debate, you then need to demonstrate how you arrived at that conclusion first.

As far as the articles I have already written and continue to write on here, they will almost always be a response to claims made by atheists rather than claims I am making myself. Making any claims in favor of theism at this point is just premature.

17

Comments

  1. jonP  February 2, 2014

    1) If you want to talk with me we either agree to start with a completely blank slate where we know nothing at the start and then begin to present arguments for one side and then the other

    Or

    2) If you feel that things really are leaning that much in your favor and you cannot pretend like the possibility of God is 50/50 at the start of the debate, you then need to demonstrate how you arrived at that conclusion first.

    As far as the articles I have already written and continue to write on here, they will almost always be a response to claims made by atheists rather than claims I am making myself. Making any claims in favor of theism at this point is just premature.

    Challenge accepted. This is the point where the concept of prior probabilities from bayesian statistics becomes necessary.

    To arrive at the 50/50 starting point, we first need to assume that there can only be exactly one god. We also need to assume that we have no prior knowledge at all. No science, no bible, no stories from other cultures, and most importantly no information regarding the characteristics of this god. Without any prior knowledge regarding the existence of this only god, then in our maximally ignorant state P(god) = P(no god). Limiting it to one is the ONLY way to get 50/50 probability.

    To describe this in bayesian terms, this is the probability that god exists, given that we know that there can only be one. But at this point, we can never know which god. We are arguing that there is either no god or any possible god. As the number of all possible gods approaches infinity, then the probability that one of them exists approaches one. Now we have a situation where either god does not exist (P=0), or god certainly does (P=1). We are back to 50/50.

    This is exactly where some positive evidence for the existence of exactly one god is necessary. If we have evidence for the existence of this god, then we change the prior probability of it’s existence. Evidence for god is the only way to increase the strength of the theist position beyond just guessing.

    reply
    • Unapologetics  February 3, 2014

      My approach to this is as follows:

      Imagine you are an intelligent entity in our Simulated Reality Model (SRM). What you want to know is whether your reality is self-explanatory or whether it was intelligently engineered. It does not matter at this point whether it was made by one individual or by a group of scientists. You just want to know if your reality is all there is or part of a greater reality.

      There is actually a third option as well. There is the possibility of a supernatural impersonal unintelligent force that had something to do with making the existence of this universe possible. I think most other imaginable options can be subcategories of these three.

      I cannot say what the initial probabilities are. I don’t know if they would be exactly 1/3 each but I don’t think any of them should be completely ignored right off hand before any arguments are presented.
      —-
      This post was somewhat of a reaction to a frustrating conversation I was having at the time which reminded me of several other frustrating conversations.

      Many times when talking to atheists they come to me from the start with the attitude that I have a major burden of proof to meet. This is usually for one of two reasons:

      1) Because of Carl Sagan’s adage, ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ or simply that, because I am making the claim that god exists, I have the entire burden of proof.

      And, like I mentioned to you on the RD blog, I believe two extraordinary claims are being made and both have the burden of proof.

      2) Because they believe recent science has provided sufficient reason to disprove god. In this case they have a mental list of various scientific discoveries, like evolution, which they think incompatible with god but which might not even be applicable. The problem is, I cannot read their mind and know what all these things are so either they start first and tell me what their reasons are or we start with a blank slate and present our arguments together. Otherwise I end up just shooting in the dark while they sit there and tell me, ‘sorry, not good enough.’

      reply
  2. jonP  February 2, 2014

    Addendum:
    If we drop the one god assumption, we still end up at 50/50. That is the probability that at least one god exists as the number of possible gods approaches infinity also equals 1. There is either at least one god or there are no gods.

    reply
  3. jonP  February 4, 2014

    I think most other imaginable options can be subcategories of these three.
    The key words here are MOST and IMAGINABLE. There may be other options that you are not considering, and possibly some that you can’t even imagine. It doesn’t matter though, because without any actual evidence, the only thing you are doing is just guessing. If you know there are only three choices, I choose A, you choose B, and Lausten chooses C, then one of us is right, but without any evidence, we would never know who.

    There is an additional problem if you don’t know all your choices. We may all be wrong, and we would have no way of knowing that we were all wrong.

    Many times when talking to atheists they come to me from the start with the attitude that I have a major burden of proof to meet.

    You do have a major burden of proof to meet, and I don’t know why you would think you wouldn’t. It’s not only the two reasons you cite. I was attempting to explain why using Bayes theorem. This is where we need evidence to increase (or decrease) the probability of a specific claim. Otherwise it’s just guessing.

    I believe two extraordinary claims are being made and both have the burden of proof

    You seem to not quite understand the burden of proof concept. We have two competing, mutually exclusive ideas: Theism vs. Atheism. They both can’t be right, and one of the must be true. One is a positive claim: there is a god. The other is a negative claim: there is no god. The positive claim can be proved with positive evidence. It is not possible to prove the negative claim. The best that can be said is that we fail to prove the positive claim.

    We have a major problem if the positive claim is not testable. This is the whole problem with theism. What test could be done that would prove god’s existence? It doesn’t need to be an experiment, although that would be stronger evidence. Without a way to test a claim, the best that we can ever do is guess.

    Imagine you are an intelligent entity in our Simulated Reality Model (SRM). What you want to know is whether your reality is self-explanatory or whether it was intelligently engineered. It does not matter at this point whether it was made by one individual or by a group of scientists. You just want to know if your reality is all there is or part of a greater reality.

    Let us go back to your example. I believe you are attempting to use the idea of a reality simulator to find out if it is possible to determine if it’s possible to determine if a CREATOR god exists. I would say stop me if I misunderstand you, but it won’t matter, because eventually you need to make this claim (otherwise, what are we talking about, and why is the simulated reality part of the discussion?)

    Now we need to add another assumption about god: 1. that it exists, and 2. that it created the universe. If we have no evidence and need to guess, then god either exists or does not exist; and, if god exists, god is either the creator or not the creator.

    P(exist) = 0.5, and P(creator)=0.5. P(exist and creator) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25. Now we have the probability of a creator god = 0.25, and the probability of no god = 1-0.25 = 0.75. The creator god now becomes the more extraordinary claim, and more evidence will be needed to prove THIS god. It gets much worse if we consider the set of all possible claims about god made in the bible. Especially for all the claims that are impossible to test, because those claims will ALWAYS be just guesses.

    No god (atheism) never has this problem, because there are no other necessary assumptions.

    I will discuss the reality simulator in that thread.

    reply
    • Unapologetics  February 4, 2014

      Alright, so I think the best thing for me to do is focus on resolving this issue before responding to any other comments.

      I have a list of about 5 major misunderstandings in the Theist/Atheist debate that make most conversations extremely unproductive. On that list, this point is item number one.

      So here is my take on it and please feel free to point out the flaw in my reasoning:

      You seem to not quite understand the burden of proof concept. We have two competing, mutually exclusive ideas: Theism vs. Atheism.

      No. The two competing concepts are Theism vs. Naturalism. Atheism is not a thing. If someone wants to introduce the unintelligent force argument, then there are three competing concepts. If there ARE other possibilities anyone is free to bring them up. Otherwise we can work with what we have. Each concept that is introduced has its own burden of proof.

      In the end, each individual ends up having to make a decision for themselves as to which of these concepts is most likely the correct explanation for why we exist. Is it naturalism, is it theism or something else?

      If you don’t like this setup, I can turn the tables on you. I can say, hey, I’m not really a theist. I don’t have an opinion about the existence of god. What I am however is an a-naturalist. I don’t believe naturalism could be correct.

      And, since we have two competing ideas, naturalism vs a-naturalism and since naturalism is the positive claim, the burden of proof is entirely on you. Also, naturalism is quite an unbelievable claim and therefore requires significant evidence.

      reply
    • jonP  February 5, 2014

      No. The two competing concepts are Theism vs. Naturalism.

      This was not the premise in your original post on proving that god exists.

      This is what I was attempting to do:

      Rather, if logic and science suggest that the possibility for god is so extremely small, we should begin with an explanation of HOW the atheist arrived at that conclusion.

      I almost completely agree with your last response, and you lead into the final point that I have on this topic. I agree that atheism is not a thing, in the same way that anaturalism is not a thing either. This becomes in issue when we want to discuss theism vs. naturalism.

      And, since we have two competing ideas, naturalism vs a-naturalism and since naturalism is the positive claim, the burden of proof is entirely on you. Also, naturalism is quite an unbelievable claim and therefore requires significant evidence.

      Yes! If I want to argue that naturalism is the correct position, then the burden of proof IS on me. The anaturalist position is the easier one. If I have no evidence at all for naturalism, then I’m just guessing, and I have the same P=0.5 of being correct as the theist.

      The a-position, in both cases is the null hypothesis. Scientifically, the only thing we can do is to collect enough evidence until we are confident enough to reject the null hypothesis. The aposition is extremely useful as a null hypothesis because we are certain that it is the mutually exclusive position. If I can reject my null hypothesis, then the alternative hypothesis is true. This is the burden of proof for the positive claim.

      With the theism vs. naturalism discussion, we end up with (at least) two alternative hypotheses, and We can assign a probability to each claim. If we are both just guessing, then P(theism) = 0.5 and P(naturalism) = 0.5. No way to know. When we add in more assumptions that require guessing then we need to revise our prior probability down. Generally, the one with the fewest assumptions is more likely to be true (Occam’s razor).

      There is no way to definitively prove who is 100% correct. If you have strong evidence for theism, then P(theism)>0.5, and if I have strong evidence for naturalism, then P(naturalism)>0.5. The most rational position (in my opinion), is to accept the claim that has the highest probability.

      The reason that I believe this is still a debate is that it is not always possible to quantify how much the evidence changes the prior probability. This is subjective. I believe the correct conclusion, at this point, is:

      In the end, each individual ends up having to make a decision for themselves as to which of these concepts is most likely the correct explanation for why we exist.

      reply
  4. Unapologetics  February 6, 2014

    Ok. I understand now where you are coming from in your response. And I think we’re pretty much on the same page.

    I do agree that there IS a point to a debate framed as theism vs. atheism. It gives one side a chance to make their entire case without distraction. If such a debate is then followed by another framed as naturalism vs. a-naturalism, that much the better. The debate becomes problematic however when it is always framed as theism vs. atheism and, if the theist does not meet the burden of proof, people feel it is then safe to conclude that, theism is irrational, atheism IS rational and naturalism is correct. In reality however we have to determine what is most rational based on how it measures up with other competing options.

    Over the past 2 decades or so I have participated in or observed literally thousands of discussions between theists and atheists and, over time, I started to notice the same problems emerge again and again. Now I will be the first to admit that there are many more problems on the theist side of things. But I have noticed several systemic problems on the atheist side of the argument as well. Framing debates in such a way that it places the evidential responsibility unevenly on the theist is one of those systemic problems.

    I agree that applying Occam’s razor favors naturalism. But it does so in a procedural sense. In other words, the option with the fewest assumptions is not always correct but it make sense to go with that option first when studying a subject.

    As far as the statistical probabilities, you can, on the one side say that, given any version of god, there are an infinite number of other versions of god and therefore the probability of any given one infinitely small. On the other site you can say that there is an infinite number of imaginable explanations for a naturalistic origin to the universe as well. If we take all these together however we can summarize it as created vs. natural. I think that’s pretty much what you said as well.

    So I want to give you a brief overview of how I think people should reason through these topics but I’ll have to do it later in a different post.

    reply
    • jonP  February 6, 2014

      On the other site you can say that there is an infinite number of imaginable explanations for a naturalistic origin to the universe as well.

      This is science. We need to determine which of the infinite explanations best account for anything that we observe. We can explore the universe, and figure out how it works. THAT’S the incredible part. I think the only real assumption for naturalism is that the only things that exist are everything that exists. It seems sort of self-evident, and it is tautological. We know nothing about the existence of things that are not observable, but they must exist.

      t doesn’t say much about the existence of god(s), spirits, ghosts, goblins, elves, leprechauns, kobolds, gnomes, or any other creature from the human literary canon. If there were evidence for any of these things, then they would just be moved to the natural category.

      I will add a new point to make, but this is really a different discussion.

      The presence of things in stories is never evidence that those things exist, even things we know exist. The presence of cats and dogs in stories is not the evidence that they exist. Actually seeing cats and dogs is the evidence. Know one ever claims to be an acatist or adogist. If a god were as obvious in our daily lives as cats and dogs, then we would never be debating something as fundamental as its existence.

      reply
  5. Unapologetics  February 7, 2014

    So in order for what I am trying to say to make more sense, I need to give you a brief overview of how I reason through this entire thing. Think of it like a bird’s eye view of my entire presentation on theism from start to finish.

    First I set up the discussion like this:

    1) We exist. We must have gotten here somehow. What I conclude about how I got here could affect how I will live my life. What then is the more plausible option? (The reason why the third sentence is important is that while science has all the time in the world to figure out the answer, I don’t. I end up choosing even if I don’t want to by how I live my life.)

    2) The main contenders these days seem to be Theism and Naturalism. If someone has something else they are welcome to place that idea on the table as well, as long as they are willing to back it up.

    3) We restrict ourselves for the time being to only two sources of authority: reason and science. We start with a blank slate; no leaning one way or the other before the arguments are presented.

    4) We use the SRM (Simulated Reality Model – thanks for the fancy title) to ask questions about what we expect to be able to determine on this issue using science and reason.

    5) We split the question in two by asking first what we can determine about a deist god. After, we come back and look into the interventionist god. I do this to isolate specific problems with each scenario.

    6) In the case of the deist god, who created the universe but has made no attempt to reveal himself to us what can we determine about his existence? The only thing we can do is to work backwards and ask if a god is NEEDED to explain the existence of our universe. (In other words, we must focus on proving or disproving naturalism as this would disprove or prove god respectively) So if there is some part of reality we can’t find a naturalistic explanation for, then that part of reality might require a supernatural explanation. (Such a god does not need to create everything since, as we’ve talked about before, he could set up many things to develop on their own.)

    (Also, just because we can’t think of a naturalistic explanation, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. But, just because this is true, doesn’t mean there IS one either. The more our attempts to figure out a naturalistic explanation for something fail the more likely a supernatural explanation is true.)

    7) Given that at this point we are still a long way from a complete understanding of our universe, we have to ask which option is more likely to be true.

    Under normal circumstances we would conclude using Occam’s razor that naturalism is more likely.

    I believe there are two things that offset that likelihood to some degree:

    a) We are quickly becoming technologically advanced enough to create a universe ourselves. So while this will show that the creation hypothesis is valid, we don’t have a way to show a naturalist model is as well.

    b) Naturalism has a major problem with the starting point. While there are other issues with naturalism that still need to be figured out, the starting point seems to defy the very laws of physics.

    Thus, at this point, even if naturalism is still more likely, theism (actually deism) is fairly close behind and cannot yet be dismissed.

    8) The interventionist god. Given that god has not chosen to reveal himself openly, science cannot say much more about this god either. (See my post, ‘Have supernatural claims been proven false’ for an explanation)

    9) This is as far as science can take us and, because the probabilities for the two options are still fairly close, the only logical position is agnosticism.

    10) We can go a few steps further using reasoning by arguing that certain god concepts like the omni-characteristics are incompatible. Because I don’t have that view of the omni attributes I don’t waste time there.

    Other logical arguments can be made, like the one from suffering, but without the omni attributes they are a lot weaker. You know my response there.

    11) That brings us to the end of scientific and logical arguments. We now have to ask if other arguments can be acceptable. I still need to make a case for this. I don’t have anything written on this point.

    12) If other types of evidence are now permissible, consider if any of these add additional weight to the possibility of god. Personal experience could go here as well as a few others.

    13) If as a result of #12 the scales are now tipping in favor of a god, how do you determine which god.

    Again, the various propositions (religions/philosophies) are placed on the table and we have to ask which is more likely true if any.

    14) If by the end of #13 we get to Christianity, we need to figure out which version is more likely true.

    We also have to respond to the many issues raised against the bible which, if unable, could take us back to #12.

    I realize that you probably see issues with every one of these points but this will provide a map of my process. It will also show what I am arguing for and what I am not yet arguing for at each point along the way.

    reply
  6. jonP  February 9, 2014

    You seem to be trying very hard to create a (false) dichotomy between naturalism and theism. This will allow you to privilege the conclusions that you prefer.
    The only thing we can do is to work backwards and ask if a god is NEEDED to explain the existence of our universe.
    How would you answer this?
    So if there is some part of reality we can’t find a naturalistic explanation for, then that part of reality might require a supernatural explanation.
    How would we know the difference between something that is not explained, something that is impossible to explain, and something for which supernatural is the explanation?
    The more our attempts to figure out a naturalistic explanation for something fail the more likely a supernatural explanation is true.
    I think you are wrong about this. I can’t quite figure out why though. I think this is just an unsubstantiated claim.
    a) We are quickly becoming technologically advanced enough to create a universe ourselves. So while this will show that the creation hypothesis is valid, we don’t have a way to show a naturalist model is as well.
    I don’t agree here. We may be able to create a simulation of a universe, but it is not a universe. It would still need matter and energy from the real universe in order to function. It will not show how the universe in which the simulation is running came to be.
    Naturalism has a major problem with the starting point. While there are other issues with naturalism that still need to be figured out, the starting point seems to defy the very laws of physics.
    This is argument from ignorance. It may not be anyone’s personal ignorance, it is the ignorance of humanity, and limitations to our knowledge of physics. This does not imply theism.
    11) That brings us to the end of scientific and logical arguments. We now have to ask if other arguments can be acceptable. I still need to make a case for this. I don’t have anything written on this point.
    I want to know what the other types of arguments are. Is it just making stuff up? How else would you determine if any statement was likely true or likely false?

    reply
    • Unapologetics  February 16, 2014

      I think you are wrong about this. I can’t quite figure out why though. I think this is just an unsubstantiated claim.

      First, let me explain why I think I am right about it and then let me go back and explain why, even if I’m wrong, I think that is more a problem for you than for me.

      Imagine for a second that one day scientists come out and tell the world that the theory of evolution is wrong after all. It does OK in explaining some things about living organisms, but falls short in explaining some of the more complex aspects. And, since evolution was the last naturalistic option that had any hope of successfully explaining life, they have nothing better to offer in its stead.

      Do you think if this were to happen that it would cause a decrease in the overall number of atheists? (We actually don’t have to guess about this since, before Darwin, it was far more likely for someone to become a deist than an atheist)

      In essence, for naturalism to be true it must explain various aspects of reality. And, the less it does this, the less likely to be true. This might not, in and of itself prove Theism or Deism, but, given the failure of Naturalism, we would have to ask what other options there are and which is more likely true.

      Another way to look at it is if you were doing a test where you were presented with a series of objects you had not seen before and were asked whether you thought those objects were naturally occurring. Let’s say one of those objects was the Stonehenge. You would probably say that it is unlikely that the Stonehenge occurred naturally and that it was more likely man made. I can’t see why you would say instead that maybe it is just an unexplainable natural occurrence.

      But let’s say I am wrong and disproving naturalism is not a valid way to prove that something was created. How WOULD you prove something was created?

      So given a deist god scenario, do you have a better way to determine creation rather than naturalism?

      The whole point of the SRM is to think through a scenario where creation definitely happened so we can evaluate our methods for determining this. I am saying that the way to know is through a process of elimination. But if you’re saying that doesn’t work, does that mean there is NO way to know?

      So are you saying that even in a situation like the SRM where creation definitely happened, the scientific method somehow demands that we assume naturalism instead? It seems to me that it would not go well for science if scientists publicly admited that their methodology demands naturalism even in situations where creation is known for a fact to have happened.

      Now maybe you’re thinking that because the SRM requires matter and energy from our universe to function that it would be easier to tell. But if it was built from the fundamental level up, how would they (the Intelligent personoids) know that? They would perceive everything to be just as real as we do.

      So in essence, what I am looking for is an independent way to test our reasoning process. Imagine a detective who claimed to have a superior method for solving crime that was much more effective. So I might tell him, hey, I have several crimes where I know who the perp is cause it was caught on video. What if I don’t show you the footage and you use your method to figure things out? But what if his method worked really well in most cases but there was one type of situation where it consistently didn’t?

      reply
      • jonP  February 19, 2014

        You wrote a lot. I took some time to consider my reply. It ended up being too long. I have a series of questions regarding why I may disagree.

        I took a guess at answering the questions, but my answers are opinions, and may be wrong. If you have more answers, or more questions, then I would address those as well. But I need to organize it into smaller posts in response to this response. After reading, could you let me know if you want me to post my second question?

        Imagine for a second that one day scientists come out and tell the world that the theory of evolution is wrong after all.

        I disagree with you starting here.

        My first question is: what does it mean for a theory to be “wrong”?

        My first answer is: All theories are always wrong.

        I have a nerd joke to help clarify what I mean: What is the difference between theory and practice?

        In theory, there is no difference. Theoretically, there will always be a better theory that makes more accurate predictions. There will always be some unexplainable observations. There will be both measurements that do not support the theory, and extreme outlier measurements.Theoretically, the accuracy of a theory should improve over time (or at least stay the same). Anything that is offered should be better than what it replaces. Otherwise, the theory would not be replaced.

        Therefore, I disagree with your conclusion. Your example about evolution is irrelevant; I stand by my conclusion for every theory. The only thing we can possibly replace evolution with are: better versions of evolutionary theories. Otherwise we just keep evolution.

        reply
        • Unapologetics  February 19, 2014

          Yes and no. I’m trying to use this as an example to point out that there are a series of questions that naturalism as a proposition would have to answer to be taken seriously. For example:

          1) What caused the big bang?
          2) Once the big bang happened, how did the universe get to its current configuration?
          3) Given inanimate matter, how do we get self-replicating life forms?
          4) Given self-replicating life forms, how do we get human-level complexity?

          Evolution would be the answer to #4 and it is a crucial element in supporting the plausibility of Naturalism as an explanation for the existence of our universe.

          With my example, if we pretended for a second that evolution just didn’t work; that it did not explain how complex life forms got here AT ALL, that would be a major blow to naturalism, in my opinion.

          I think the issue that trips you up is that you are having a hard time differentiating between naturalism as a methodology of science and naturalism as a worldview.

          reply
        • jonP  February 20, 2014

          Your last comment segued nicely to my second question.

          …since evolution was the last naturalistic option that had any hope of successfully explaining life, they have nothing better to offer in its stead.

          In essence, for naturalism to be true it must explain various aspects of reality. And, the less it does this, the less likely to be true.

          My second question is: what does it mean to say that naturalism is “true?”

          My second answer is: I am not a philosopher (IANAP). My understanding of naturalism is unclear and poorly defined. Therefore, I have no personal basis for concluding whether or not it is “true”, and especially, the probability that it is true. I also do not know the specific claims that are required to be true for naturalism to be true. My understanding is that all of science is predicated, in part, on the assumption of philosophical naturalism. Therefore, if naturalism is not true, then all of science is probably wrong, and not just, cosmology, organic chemistry, evolutionary biology, and neuroscience.

          reply
          • Unapologetics  February 20, 2014

            Have you had a chance to read my last article? The response to M Boudry?

            That explains much of how I see the role of naturalism in science.

  7. Unapologetics  February 11, 2014

    Hey Jon, I am not ignoring this but I have a few things going on this week. Do you mind if I get back to you over the weekend?

    reply
    • jonP  February 12, 2014

      I don’t mind. You can do whatever you want. Take your time.

      reply

Add a Comment