Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » A cumulative case for the God of the bible

A cumulative case for the God of the bible

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 A cumulative case for the God of the bible on Sun May 25, 2014 2:06 pm

Admin


Admin
A cumulative case for the God of the bible

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-theism



We  have no access through our senses  to prove empirically what ultimate reality is. If God exists, or not, cannot be known scientifically.  Thats why it  makes no sense to ask for proofs of Gods existence. All we can do, is evaluate, and figure out the preponderance of the evidence, where it leads to.

The steps of progression to elaborate a epistemologically solid world view goes as follows:
1. Starting point with  the recognition that agnosticism or ignorance has no  justification in the age of information.
2. Defining a solid epistemological framework, excluding scientism or verificationism, and permitting a holistic examination of evidence including philsophical and theological considerations. The best methodology to  make meaningful inferences and conclude the best, most accurate world view is based on the current wealth of  knowledge of operational and  historical sciences , philosophy and theism.
3. Disposition  to analyse the evidence as much honest and unbiased as possible, permitting it to lead wherever it is.  A unbiased startingpoint for inquiry of world views and explanations of origins is essential in order to come as close as possible to gain a realistic understanding of reality  that includes physics and metaphysics. That means proper understanding of science, philosophical and theological explanations and searching for truth without  eliminating possible theistic implications a priori.
4. Research of falsifiable scientific evidence and philosophical considerations which after careful evaluation point  to Intelligence as a better mechanism to explain our origins than naturalistic explanations.
5. The inference of intelligent design / creationism  leads to deism, theism or pantheism.
6. Philosophical considerations lead  to agnostic theism
7. Specifics about various evidences leads to the conclusion of Infinite Creator.
8. Comparative religions and historical evidence points to God of the Hebrews/Abraham.
9. Internal evidence constrains the choice of Judaism. Islam, Christianity, and born-again Christianity.
10. How we proceed in the cumulative case for Christianity is a much more detailed step. Ultimately we are not talking about "proof" like in repeated experimentation...but rather a preponderance of the evidence. There's no empirical proof for the Resurrection or the Virgin birth. These too are based on faith and the cumulative case made for Christianity. Ultimately it is the conviction of the Holy Spirit to believe in the miracles of Jesus and His Lordship/Deity.
11. Finally, born again christianity is the most consistent view.


Atheists err when asking for material evidence to prove God's existence
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2256-atheists-err-when-asking-for-material-evidence-to-prove-god-s-existence

The steps of progression go as follows:
1. Starting point with  the recognition that agnosticism or ignorance has no  justification in the age of information.

Limited causal alternatives  do not permit to claim of " not knowing "
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1810-limited-causal-alternatives-for-origins

2. Defining a solid epistemological framework, excluding scientism or verificationism, and permitting a holistic examination of evidence including philsophical and theological considerations. The best methodology to  make meaningful inferences and conclude the best, most accurate world view is based on the current wealth of  knowledge of operational and  historical sciences , philosophy and theism.

Positivism and the Presumption of Atheism
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1759-cientism-and-verificationism?highlight=verificationism

3. Disposition  to analyse the evidence as much honest and unbiased as possible, permitting it to lead wherever it is.  A unbiased startingpoint for inquiry of world views and explanations of origins is essential in order to come as close as possible to gain a realistic understanding of reality  that includes physics and metaphysics. That means proper understanding of science, philosophical and theological explanations and searching for truth without  eliminating possible theistic implications a priori.
4. Research of falsifiable scientific evidence and philosophical considerations which after careful evaluation point  to Intelligence as a better mechanism to explain our origins than naturalistic explanations.

These include the inquiry of:

The ontological argument is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality as well as the basic categories of being and their relations
http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/#13

The origin of the universe (sometimes called the Cosmological Argument: if the universe had a beginning, who is its Beginner?)
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1297-the-universe-most-probabaly-had-a-beginning

The Teleological argument (sometimes call the Design Argument )considerations based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world, which includes :

The fine tuning of the universe
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

The origin of chemical elements, galaxies, stars and planets
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1922-chronology-and-timeline-of-origins-of-the-universe-life-and-biodiversity-the-lack-of-explanatory-power-open-questions-and-refuted-claims-of-naturalism

The origin of life (a scientifically intractable problem)
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

The origin of biodiversity
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from

The Argument from Reason (how can we reason if reason did not produce us?)
http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/the-argument-from-reason/

The Moral Argument (we all recognize a moral law; who then is the moral Lawgiver?)
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1369-the-moral-argument-for-gods-existence

Fulfilled prophecy in the bible
http://www.100prophecies.org/

The resurrection of Jesus Christ
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1764-evidence-of-the-ressurrection

The occurrence of miracles
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/miracle.html


5. The inference of intelligent design / creationism  leads to deism, theism or pantheism.
6. Philosophical considerations lead  to agnostic theism
7. Specifics about various evidences leads to the conclusion of Infinite Creator.
8. Comparative religions and historical evidence points to God of the Hebrews/Abraham.
9. Internal evidence constrains the choice of Judaism. Islam, Christianity, and born-again Christianity.
10. How we proceed in the cumulative case for Christianity is a much more detailed step. Ultimately we are not talking about "proof" like in repeated experimentation...but rather a preponderance of the evidence. There's no empirical proof for the Resurrection or the Virgin birth. These too are based on faith and the cumulative case made for Christianity. Ultimately it is the conviction of the Holy Spirit to believe in the miracles of Jesus and His Lordship/Deity.
11. Finally, born again christianity is the most consistent view.

Can Science Identify the Intelligent Designer?
http://www.reasons.org/articles/can-science-identify-the-intelligent-designer

Is the Bible Historically Accurate?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1974-is-the-bible-historically-accurate

The Cumulative Case for Christianity
http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com.br/2014/03/the-cumulative-case-for-christianity.html

The Evidence for Christianity
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1373-the-evidence-for-christianity



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:37 am; edited 24 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Revisiting the cumulative case argument for "how we KNOW that there is a Creator." (first 10 steps moving toward the conclusion of the God of Abraham)
1. concluding the difference between non-contingent Self-existence and Aseity verses finite gods, fairies and stupid stuff. Concluding that there is a first a "difference" between logical candidate Creators (Higher Power, deistic type Creator, infinite force, Infinite Creator) and unicorns, invisible dragons, mythological gods and flying spaghetti monsters.
2. concluding that just because people have different beliefs "about" the Creator and some people have worshiped myths does NOT mean that the Creator has to be a myth. (especially if there is a cumulative case for "a" Creator based on evidence given and reason which separates it from mythology).
3. concluding that "lack of belief in God or gods" is superior to the foolish belief "that there IS no God" Explicit atheism to Implicit atheism. Many here still argue for explicit with no evidence for it... and the lack of understanding that you would have to be omniscient about points one and two in order to make a valid positive claim that there is no Creator.
4. Concluding that you should not start with circular assumptions about the empirical/natural world. Removing circular assumptions and positive claims of materialism and being open minded about the possibility of creation or even a divine sustaining power behind the natural order (which could be concluded through cumulative case).
5. Concluding that you might be able to make a valid conclusion of a Creator. Recognizing that a classical agnostic position of "I don't know yet" is superior to "I can't know" which is a positive claim which is excluding possible evidence.
6. Concluding that you should allow the identification of features in ALL known systems which require known causes which are not present within such system(s). Concluding that you should not have a bias against the best logical explanation for identifying features.
7. Concluding that you should logically remove the bias of methodological naturalism and requiring explanations to fit circular assumptions. Concluding that you could be excluding the best most logical conclusion/explanation by wrongfully requiring natural explanations for features which do not and should not require it.
8. Concluding that there are features in biological systems which clearly come from Intelligence. Concluding that there is indeed EVIDENCE of Intelligent coding, Intelligent engineering and Intelligent designing in biological systems. Evidence:
Exhibit A. Information in biological systems
Exhibit B. Molecular and protein machines
Exhibit C. Cellular Metabolism as a whole and protein synthesis
Exhibit D. IF-THEN algorithmic programming
Concluding that identification of features which come from Intelligence is clearly a different scientific premise from later possible or probably conclusions of theism.
9. Concluding that science should be an observation of the facts and a search for the truth and not exclude implications of a Creator. Concluding that theistic implications should be allowed in science. Concluding that a Creator of the all that is within the universe should be allowed as a logical Candidate for such "Intelligence." (in point )
10. Concluding that the universe contains features (including features in biological systems) which are best explained by a Creator. Concluding that there are too many features in the universe to deny the logic of some sort of Infinite force; some sort of Higher Power; some sort of Cosmic Designer; or some sort of possible Infinite Creator that best explains the universes origin and first cause. Concluding that because of earth's special location in the galaxy and because of the all the forces which would need to be fine tuned in order to have conscious observers... that the best and only logical conclusion is that there is indeed some sort of Higher Power and First Cause which is required to explain the origin of the universe. Concluding that you CAN indeed know that there is INDEED a Creator... because it is the only logical conclusion to explain both features in biological systems which come from Intelligence and features in the universe which demonstrate the need for cosmic purpose, order and intentionality.
This is the cumulative case argument for the first conclusion of "General agnostic undecided theism." This cumulative case argument only applies to logical candidate Creator concepts for explaining the origin of the universe.


It does NOT provide a cumulative case argument for fairies, unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters.... It only provides a cumulative case argument for logical candidate creators of general theism. Question everything... (as we look at the next cumulative case argument to connect agnostic theism to the God of Abraham in considering the logic of those candidate creators).

1. concluding the difference between non-contingent Self-existence and Aseity verses finite gods, fairies and stupid stuff. Concluding that there is a first a "difference" between logical candidate Creators (Higher Power, deistic type Creator, infinite force, Infinite Creator) and unicorns, invisible dragons, mythological gods and flying spaghetti monsters.
2. concluding that just because people have different beliefs "about" the Creator and some people have worshiped myths does NOT mean that the Creator has to be a myth. (especially if there is a cumulative case for "a" Creator based on evidence given and reason which separates it from mythology).
3. concluding that "lack of belief in God or gods" is superior to the foolish belief "that there IS no God" Explicit atheism to Implicit atheism. Many here still argue for explicit with no evidence for it... and the lack of understanding that you would have to be omniscient about points one and two in order to make a valid positive claim that there is no Creator.
4. Conclusion that you should not start with circular assumptions about the empirical/natural world. Removing circular assumptions and positive claims of materialism and being open minded about the possibility of creation or even a divine sustaining power behind the natural order (which could be concluded through cumulative case).
5. Concluding that you might be able to make a valid conclusion of a Creator. Recognizing that a classical agnostic position of "I don't know yet" is superior to "I can't know" which is a positive claim which is excluding possible evidence.
6. Concluding that you should allow the identification of features in ALL known systems which require known causes which are not present within such system(s). Concluding that you should not have a bias against the best logical explanation for identifying features.
7. Concluding that you should logically remove the bias of methodological naturalism and requiring explanations to fit circular assumptions. Concluding that you could be excluding the best most logical conclusion/explanation by wrongfully requiring natural explanations for features which do not and should not require it.
8. Concluding that there are features in biological systems which clearly come from Intelligence. Concluding that there is indeed EVIDENCE of Intelligent coding, Intelligent engineering and Intelligent designing in biological systems. Evidence:
Exhibit A. Information in biological systems
Exhibit B. Molecular and protein machines
Exhibit C. Cellular Metabolism as a whole and protein synthesis
Exhibit D. IF-THEN algorithmic programming
Concluding that identification of features which come from Intelligence is clearly a different scientific premise from later possible or probably conclusions of theism.
9. Concluding that science should be an observation of the facts and a search for the truth and not exclude implications of a Creator. Concluding that theistic implications should be allowed in science. Concluding that a Creator of the all that is within the universe should be allowed as a logical Candidate for such "Intelligence." (in point 8  )
10. Concluding that the universe contains features (including features in biological systems) which are best explained by a Creator. Concluding that there are too many features in the universe to deny the logic of some sort of Infinite force; some sort of Higher Power; some sort of Cosmic Designer; or some sort of possible Infinite Creator that best explains the universes origin and first cause. Concluding that because of earth's special location in the galaxy and because of the all the forces which would need to be fine tuned in order to have conscious observers... that the best and only logical conclusion is that there is indeed some sort of Higher Power and First Cause which is required to explain the origin of the universe. Concluding that you CAN indeed know that there is INDEED a Creator... because it is the only logical conclusion to explain both features in biological systems which come from Intelligence and features in the universe which demonstrate the need for cosmic purpose, order and intentionality.
This is the cumulative case argument for the first conclusion of "General agnostic undecided theism." This cumulative case argument only applies to logical candidate Creator concepts for explaining the origin of the universe.
It does NOT provide a cumulative case argument for fairies, unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters.... It only provides a cumulative case argument for logical candidate creators of general theism. Question everything... (as we look at the next cumulative case argument to connect agnostic theism to the God of Abraham in considering the logic of those candidate creators).

Even if you prove that this world comes into existence due to intelligence or higher power, you still have not "proved" the God of the Bible or the God of Abraham. That must be done through accumulative case argument...and even then... it is an argument via providing evidence....it is NOT the same thing as empirical proof.
The first problem we have is that "proof" requires honesty on the part of the person examining the proof or examining the evidence.
If the person being presented with the evidence does not allow the evidence by definition of a particular field of study, then you have a whole system which denies certain evidence.
In contemporary evidential apologetics (rather than presuppositional apologetics) we build cumulative case arguments starting with scientific
evidence. First we need to show that science can allow for identifying the work of intelligence, even if you don't prove what the Intelligence is.
Then we proceed to show evidence that biological systems are the result of intelligence, once such evidence is allowed. After this, we move from identifying that something is the result of intelligence to allowing for theistic implications in science. This is to propose various "candidates" for such intelligence which is evidenced in biological systems. Then through other arguments such as the fine tuning of the universe, we argue for agnostic theism. Agnostic theism is a step in the progression of the cumulative case argument for the God of Abraham...but you must first reach agnostic theism before you can proceed to "candidate creators" for such theism. Then we proceed to argue for self-existence (Aseity) and other arguments which substantiate an eternal Creator... from there we argue for infinite Creator...and then from Infinite Creator to monotheism and then from monotheism to historical orthodox monotheism being the God of Abraham. It must be taken in steps, but it requires honesty on the part of the person examining the cumulative case...and often involves removing the blinders of naturalism/materialism in science.


The Cumulative Case for Christianity
http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com.br/2014/03/the-cumulative-case-for-christianity.html

Have you ever seen a TV show in which a criminal is being brought to trial, and the cops or prosecutors are lamenting over the fact that their case is entirely "circumstantial"? Or maybe the defense attorney is confident in a victory because of that fact? These (fictional) scenarios portray "circumstantial" evidence in a very negative light. However, the fact of the matter is, if you have enough circumstantial evidence, then your case becomes nearly air-tight.

The evidential case for Christianity is a very strong case because it is based a panoply of circumstantial evidence. Each piece adds more weight to the Cumulative Case for Christianity. Denial of any one piece of evidence is like trying to remove a single stone from a mighty fortress: you may think you have done something until you realize the fortress is built on a massive foundation. Yet to deny enough of the evidence to try to shake the foundation requires such extreme (and unfounded) skepticism that such a position does not hold up well to criticism.

It is really impossible to list all of the evidences in favor of Christianity, and also those in opposition to naturalism, which I consider to be the zeitgeist and current "en vogue" challenger to Christianity, but here are a few important ones:

Each one of these, of course, has its counterarguments, but for each one the strength of the counterargument is that most would prefer a natural explanation to a supernatural one...even if the natural explanation is unsatisfactory, unsupported, and improbable (compared to the supernatural one). But there are only so many times you can plausibly deny pieces of the Cumulative Case before you have gone off the deep end into a hyper-skepticism that you would never apply to any rational decision you would make in any other area of life.

The Cumulative Case for Christianity is incredibly strong, is only getting stronger, and is here to stay. So hold on as we explore the depths of this Cumulative Case. Or, as Morpheus (quoting Carrol) said, "I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."


http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/CumulativeApologetics.html
1. If something is really true, it is true whether or not I believe it. Truth is bigger than me.
2. This is not an argument from nothing to something; rather it is an explanation of the evidence that we must admit we have before us.
3. Plausibility does not depend upon our comprehensive understanding of the details (e.g., one need not know and understand everything about electrical science in order to make use of electricity).

Michael Breck you should be able to just look at a snowflake under a microscope and conclude that it was formed by a designed process. Crystallization to me... is clear evidence of a Creator. Whether you look at a tree or any mammal or even insect or fish... you should be able to have some intuitive sense that it is not the result of accident or chance... but there is meaning and purpose in the universe. For those who do not see clearly... we have more persuasive arguments. The arrangement of codon triplets in specific order as to be used as a template for coding polypeptide sequences is clearly information. Information always comes from Intelligence. Random processes never put things in any useful order (unless such order is already present in the system). Mechanical working systems themselves are also clearly the result of Intelligence. The nano factory of the living cell that performs processes like protein biosynthesis is clearly the result of Intelligence. When we look at other features in microbiology such as gene regulation of the lactose operon in E. coli we see IF-THEN algorithms based on contingency built into the code: IF lactose is present, and IF glucose is absent THEN synthesize beta-galactosidase and permease. Someone clearly programmed this as they did all of the genetic code. These types of points are often made within a cumulative case argument for general theism once "identifying features in biological systems which are the result of Intelligence" are allowed. This step is actually distinct from theistic implication which comes later in the cumulative case. There are other ways in which we can know there is a Creator or an Originator... just using basic reasoning to honestly admit that you can't have an infinite regress... and that you must at some point have a non-contingent Originator (uncaused) which possesses the quality of "being" itself in order to have any sort of existence now is a good step toward a reasonable theism (but clearly this does not prove the God of Abraham...that is an additional distinct cumulative case argument).



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:28 am; edited 3 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum