A Cumulative Case for Christianity

[polymath257]

Well, let's look at that phrase 'begins to exist'. Does that mean, as would be natural, that there was a time when the thing did not exist and a later time when it did? This means two things:
1. We are only talking about things once time begins.
2. We are talking about things within the universe.

Of course, the vagueness of the term 'explanation' needs to be addressed. If you mean a 'cause', then we are talking about the laws of physics and we  are, again, within the universe.


This I deny. According to the meaning of the first assertion, to 'begin to exist' means there is a time before it exists and a later time when it does. But time is *part of the universe*, so there was no time when the universe did not exist.

So, no, the universe did not 'begin to exist' in the relevant sense.

No, I am not talking about things only within our universe. This is easily understood using the concept of a multiverse. If something was responsible for our universe coming into existence, it existed prior to the universe (and the time dimension with in). This metaphysical time has been explained to you already. Causation sets up a obvious 'prior to' relationship. You are not going low enough in examining the nature of causation as a feature of reality and not a feature of our particular universe. By asserting causation is part of the universe, you are asserting that the universe is all there is and ever was. That is not a fact in evidence. 

If you want to invoke the multiverse, simply replace the word 'universe' in my posts with 'multiverse' and it still applies.

In this case, time is infinite into the past (the multiverse did not have a beginning) and the multiverse does not have a cause (again, because time cannot have a cause).

In this case, we *can* potentially have a cause for our *universe*, but the overall argument then simply shifts to the multiverse. The 'infinite regress' now happens in the multiverse. And no deity is required to 'explain the multiverse'.

And, for that matter, no deity is required to explain the universe since the universe would have come about through the action of physical laws within the multiverse.

And, as I have explained to you, your notion of 'metaphysical time' is simply nonsense. There is *physical* time in the universe/multiverse and ALL causality depends upon that notion of time.

Sure. The universe exists because it cannot 'not exist'. If anything exists, the universe does.

Why? The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that our universe came into existence. 

There are two common notions currently:
1. The universe began about 13.7 billion years ago with no precursor (and no cause).
2. The universe is part of a larger multiverse that is, itself, uncaused.

Neither helps your case.

No, it is hardly evidence. It is a piece of bad reasoning that goes *way* beyond the actual evidence and falls into idiocy.

Let's go closer to what the real evidence provides:

P1: Everything that begins to exist is within the universe came about through the action of natural laws (those being the explanations) on things that also existed within the universe.

P2: All causality is within time and so, is within the universe.

P3. The universe is not within the universe.

C: The universe cannot have a  cause.

If you say that it is idiocy, you conclusively prove you are unfamiliar with it. Dozens and dozens of philosophers, including atheists have engaged the argument for centuries. Entire books have been written to explore it or include significant sections dealing with it. The most prominent just from the atheist side:

David Hume (1711-1776)
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Daniel Dennett (1942-Present)
Graham Oppy (1960-Present)
J.L. Mackie (1917-1981)

Regarding your syllogism, P1 and P2 are just assertions of your conclusion rooted in the confusion I pointed out early in this post.

Irrelevant. We *know* that causality is suspect because of quantum mechanics (and, yes, it does have a huge impact on discussions of universal causality).

And no, both P1 and P2 are what we can deduce from our observations. To go any further is going beyond what can be supported and is, thereby irrational. It is you that wants to go beyond what observation and logic allow.

[Dancefortwo]

Zues is untestable.

Zeus.

By the way, his cousin Dzus is very much real, and like all religious figures, can be bought for practically nothing.

Fixed it.  I type too fast sometimes.

[polymath257]

The problem is that the world view needs to be justified. An *objective* assessment would consider *both* naturalism and supernaturalism and assess which is more reliable and accurate.That would include determining whether one or the other falls into known logical traps, for example.

In other words,

4. You can put aside your own world view and still determine the other world view is a bunch of BS.

Reliability nor accuracy has nothing to do with it. By introducing those standards you are confusing science with naturalism. They are not the same thing. Science is a method of collecting and cataloging facts about the natural world. Naturalism is a claim that only the physical world exists. I can grant every single thing that science tells us and still believe in the supernatural because there is no overlap--by definition.

You could disprove the supernatural by showing it is illogical (impossible)--but you would be the first to do that.

Your only legitimate option to support naturalism is to claim that the existence of the supernatural lacks convincing evidence. Fine. But that is a matter of subjective opinion and not itself an objective fact. You seem to think it is objective, but that is because your incorrect application of science to examine a thing that cannot be examined by science.

Your proposed (4) misses the point. I was addressing the quality of the evidence. You have demonstrated in other posts that you cannot do (3). You insert the hidden premise there is no God in your reasoning.

No, I do not. Instead, I simply don't *add* the hypothesis that there is a God to my system. Do you see the difference?

Next, I am NOT confusing science and naturalism. I am simply saying that the scientific method could be used for a 'supernatural' if that supernatural left any traces that could be used to test hypotheses.

Also, if that hypothesis *cannot* be tested, then there is no good reason to make it. And, in fact, there is good reason to *reject* it for that very reason, just as we would any other untestable hypothesis.

Because I think we should be clear on our definitions and understanding our claims, I got this from the interwebs as a good reference when parsing these concepts:

Science and naturalism are related concepts, but they are not the same thing. Here's an explanation of the differences between the two:

1. Definition:
  - Science: Science is a systematic and empirical approach to understanding the natural world through observation, experimentation, and the formulation of testable hypotheses. It aims to develop knowledge and explanations for natural phenomena based on evidence and the scientific method.
  - Naturalism: Naturalism is a philosophical worldview or belief system that posits the idea that the natural world is the only reality and that everything can be explained by natural laws and phenomena. It rejects the existence of supernatural or metaphysical entities, forces, or explanations.

2. Scope:
  - Science: Science is a specific methodology or approach to acquiring knowledge about the natural world. It deals with observable and testable aspects of the physical universe and is limited to what can be studied using the scientific method.
  - Naturalism: Naturalism is a broader philosophical stance that extends beyond the scientific method. It encompasses the belief that the natural world is all there is, and there are no supernatural or metaphysical realities. Naturalism can influence one's worldview and approach to various aspects of life, including ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

3. Purpose:
  - Science: The primary purpose of science is to understand, explain, and predict natural phenomena based on empirical evidence. It is a tool for discovering how the natural world works and is neutral with regard to philosophical or metaphysical beliefs.
  - Naturalism: Naturalism is a philosophical position that often guides one's beliefs about the nature of reality and the rejection of the supernatural. It provides a framework for understanding the world in a way that excludes the need for supernatural or mystical explanations.

4. Compatibility:
  - Science and Naturalism: While science itself is neutral with respect to metaphysical beliefs, it is often practiced by individuals who hold a naturalistic worldview. However, it is important to recognize that one can engage in scientific inquiry without being a naturalist, and one can be a naturalist without being a scientist. Many scientists may compartmentalize their naturalistic beliefs while conducting scientific research.

In summary, science is a specific methodology for investigating and understanding the natural world, whereas naturalism is a broader philosophical stance that asserts the primacy of the natural world and the absence of the supernatural. While they can be related and may influence each other, they are distinct concepts with different scopes and purposes.

Nope, I reject the idea that science is limited to the 'natural' world. In fact, I don't believe the the notion of a 'natural world' is even coherent (try to define it precisely). There is simply the world. And we can use the scientific method to make hypotheses about regularities we detect and then test to see if those regularities continue to hold. This can be done whether or not the phenomena are 'natural' or not.

And, the fact of the matter is that the *hypothesis* that there is a supernatural is inherently untestable and should *because of that* be rejected as useless to understanding the world.

Unless and until there is a way to test ideas about the supernatural, so that people who initially disagree can do *something* and arrive at a conclusion as to who is wrong, there *can be* no truths about a supernatural realm. ALL that can be said would be opinion and bias.

[polymath257]

Perhaps it's more a case of imagining him rather than detecting him for these people?
If you're talking about detecting him through reading the Bible, that's exactly like imagining any character in any book.
If you're talking about feelings then chemicals can cause those warm and happy feelings without the need for a supernatural cause.

For Christians, the belief that God is an integral part of their daily life goes beyond imagination; it's a deeply personal and profound experience. It means that they strive to maintain a constant connection with God in all aspects of their existence. This entails seeking His guidance through prayer, finding solace in moments of solitude and reflection, and striving to embody the teachings of Jesus Christ in their interactions with others. It means that God's presence is not confined to the walls of a church but permeates every moment, decision, and relationship, serving as a source of strength, comfort, and moral compass in the complexities of daily living. This profound sense of God's presence and involvement in their lives provides Christians with a profound sense of purpose, hope, and a moral framework to navigate the challenges and joys of life.

You know, a heroin addict would say roughly similar things about his high.

Religion is an addiction. It warps the mind and leads to poor judgements and poor arguments. The only way to get better is to  decide to be skeptical and learn how to live without the high.

[Bucky Ball]

For Christians, the belief that God is an integral part of their daily life goes beyond imagination; it's a deeply personal and profound experience. It means that they strive to maintain a constant connection with God in all aspects of their existence. This entails seeking His guidance through prayer, finding solace in moments of solitude and reflection, and striving to embody the teachings of Jesus Christ in their interactions with others. It means that God's presence is not confined to the walls of a church but permeates every moment, decision, and relationship, serving as a source of strength, comfort, and moral compass in the complexities of daily living. This profound sense of God's presence and involvement in their lives provides Christians with a profound sense of purpose, hope, and a moral framework to navigate the challenges and joys of life.

So it is for every religionist, and their beligion.
You're not special Stevie.
Not at all.