Evidence for the Truth of the Christian Religion?

This is a reply to a set of web pages by Rich Deem. They start here:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html

Arguments for God

He starts by saying:
Unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings, skeptics must rely completely upon physical evidence.
This is curious. Why must I rely completely upon physical evidence, when he freely admits theists do not?
Most skeptics who are atheists believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. This belief is based upon the observation of our world, in which cause and effect are observed on a daily basis, with rare exception, if at all. ... To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur.
There is belief and there is belief. When I say "I believe that.." I could mean that it is my opinion, but I may well be wrong, or I could mean that I am certain, I have conviction in the belief.

Sure, I believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes; that is, I think that it is probably true. But I do recognise the possibility of the supernatural. I wonder if the author recognises the possibility that Jesus was not resurrected?
Let me point out one major problem with the skeptical worldview in order to get you to the point of recognizing that not all the data really fits your worldview. The data we are going to examine is the origin of the universe. ... Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause.
No, Deem, your straw-man version of the atheist world view requires that. My world view does not.
The problem actually gets worse for the atheist. The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting some level of design (the evidence supporting this statement will be presented in part 2). If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.
We just do not know what caused the universe. That does not mean I am going to fall for any "God of the Gaps" argument. It is possible that this universe is one of many, all with different laws and/or constants, for example. I might just as well go for a "Multiverse of the Gaps".

Better however, is to accept with humility that we do not know.

Theist: We do not know, therefore God did it

Atheist: We do not know

This fine-tuning argument continues from the ends of page 1, right the way through page 2.

Arguments for the Christian God

The third and final part is specifically about the Christian God. Or so he says...

First he rejects Hinduism as it proposes an oscillating universe, which, he says is disproven by science. This, he says, is the way to tell if a religion is true:
Since most of the world's religions developed hundreds to thousands of years ago, it is a fairly trivial matter to examine their material for scientific and other errors. It would not be expected that ancient peoples would be able to accurately describe all modern scientific principles. Only those individuals who were given divine revelation would be expected to give an accurate account of our world.
So a religion that claims the sun was created some time after plant-life appeared on Earth can be rejected too, right? For some reason, Deem never thinks about that.

He does go on to reject Islam and LDS, as their claims have been disproved, and thus concludes Christianity is right.

Wait, what about Judaism? All the supposedly scientific claims he makes for the Bible are in the holy book of Judaism too. He never considers that. As far as he is concerned, if Islam, Hinduism and LDS are false, Christianity must be true.

It is notable that his reasons for believing Christianity do not involve Jesus Christ at all!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Southern Baptist Convention Position on Abortion

Evangelical Christians in the US are very strongly anti-abortion. However, it was not always so. As recently as 1970 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) - the largest Protestant denomination in the US - advocated for legalising abortion. A Complete Reversal The landmark law case in the US was Roe v. Wade, in 1973, and abortion has been legal since that time. Jane Roe was the pseudonym of the woman wanting the abortion; Henry Wade the district attorney who stood for the state, prohibiting it. Roe was represented by two attorneys; one was Linda Coffee, a member of the SBC. The Baptist Press interviewed her after the successful conclusion of the trial. The decision of Roe v Wade was generally regarded as a good one by the SBC. To evangelicals of that time abortion was seen as a Catholic issue. You can find a list of abortion-related resolutions made by the SBC from 1971 onwards  here . It is clear that in 1971 they saw abortion - quite reasonably - as undesirable, but it ...
Read more

Hinman's "Argument From Transcendental Signifier"

ETA (23/Jun/20): I have just heard Joe is in hospital. I wish him a speedy recovery. All the best, Joe. This is an argument for God that Joe Hinman has presented several times on various of his sites: http://www.doxa.ws/Ontological/TS2.html https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/01/premises-4-7-ts-argumet.html The argument is a seven step syllogism: 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops) 2. OP's summed up in TS 3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. 4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe. 5. minds organize and communicate meaning 6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS 7. Concept of God unites TS with universal m...
Read more

Kent Hovind: Third wife in three years?

Kent Hovind is, perhaps the very worst of the creationists, so it is with some interest I note that he is now on this third wife in three years. For many years he was married to Jo Hovind, who ended up going to prison for a year due to her involvement in tax fraud. Once Kent got released from his rather longer prison sentence, it was not long before Jo filed for divorce (early 2016) - possibly to distance himself from any further gaol sentences. A few months later, 24th Sptember 2016, and he married Mary Tocco - not a full marriage, but a covenant before God. It looks like she got various assurances that Kent's new business was entirely honest before she got married. However, she later cam to realise that that was not really the case, and, again to avoid ending up in prison , she left him in November 2017. http://kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind Less than a year later and he has a new wife, Cindi Lincoln, a former friend of Mary's. It is not clear if they ...
Read more