We tend to believe what we want to believe. Why? Well, if everything is all about “me,” why would we want to believe anything else? Would we want to believe the truth because facts are stubborn things?
The answer, I think, is that the Truth, not mere facts, is immovable and unchanging. When we refuse to accept the Truth, we suffer self-inflicted wounds; we create awful and obstinate problems for ourselves. God disciplines us by allows us to keep butting our heads into the immovable and unchanging until we give up our stubbornness.
What points does Ben Berwick make?
Point 1: An Atheist can call himself an Atheist because it is more difficult to prove there is a God using sacred texts.
Of course, I am being a bit sarcastic here, but what was the point of the paragraph that Berwick took issue with? When Atheists call themselves Atheists that implies, based upon the definition of Atheist, that they deny the existence of God. How can anyone prove that God does not exist? They cannot, of course.
What about Berwick’s assertion? Can Christians prove the existence of God using the Bible? Since they thought it self-evident that God exists, the men that God inspired to write the Bible did not try to prove the existence of God.
Point 2: The idea of a supreme creator is entirely faith driven, not fact-driven, ….. Every process in the known universe could have formed naturally. It is a question of probability, but it is far from impossible.
From what could everything in the known universe have formed naturally? What was the starting point? Nothing comes from nothing.
Can we prove the existence of God using science? That is what Atheists would supposedly have us do. My usual response to that is the existence of God is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. However, Silence of Mind likes to insist that we can prove the existence of God using science (see the dialog beginning here => https://citizentom.com/2022/11/02/that-defies-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-105159). Why is that?
One of the things scientists do is use inference to “prove” their hypotheses. When astronomers study things like the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies, they have no way of doing laboratory experiments. So, they make inferences from the data, and they make predictions they will find something out there that confirms their predictions. From the accuracy of their predictions, they infer that their theories are correct.
Several things suggest that our universe had a beginning and did not happen by chance.
- The Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests that our universe is running down. That suggest our universe had beginning.
- The Big Bang Theory posits a beginning for our universe.
- When astronomers do Big Bang calculations, they observe that the odds that the Big Bang would have occurred in such a fashion that our universe could support life as we know it were extremely low. That suggest the Big Bang was not a chance occurrence.
Whatever happened here we are, and we exist in a highly ordered environment. Life itself, even our DNA, is highly ordered. Your DNA and my DNA actually records how we were made. What does that suggest? Does it suggest chance created us or that someone, we call that someone God, wrote the record that is our DNA?
Did chance create us? What is chance? Chance is not anyone or anything. Chance is not a cause. Chance is the probability that something might happen. The universe was not created by chance. Nothing is created by chance.
What is God? God is a necessary Being. He is the First Cause.
Point 3: It is impossible to prove God’s existence from a logic-driven, observation-driven, scientific perspective.
What we call science is a product of the scientific method. Conservative and skeptical, I tend to think of scientific knowledge as knowledge we have verified via reproducible experiments. Given that I learned science primarily as an analytical chemist, I suppose that sort bias is explicable. That is, if it cannot be done in a lab, it isn’t science.
Nonetheless, much science cannot be done in a lab. So, scientists must turn to Philosophy for additional means to verify the models we use to explain how Creation functions.
Where did everything come from? Was there a Creator? Does God exist? These questions are usually addressed by theologians, not scientists, but both theologians and scientists turn to Philosophy for the same tools of logic. So, if we believe in theories like the Big Bang, The Theory of Evolution, Global Warming, and so forth, it is inconsistent not to believe in God.
What proof is out there? For my own edification I wrote GOD’S EXISTENCE AND THE PROBLEM OF PROOF. That provides a brief survey. However, there are plenty of other articles on the Internet that are better and no shortage of good books.
Point 4: As for a ‘first cause’, we simply don’t know, but just because we don’t have an answer at this moment, does not mean we’ll never find an answer. The absence of knowledge doesn’t automatically mean we apply any form of god to the equation.
When are we going to find a way to scientifically study God? We can study His Creation, but God transcends His Creation. That is, God exists outside of what He has created. We may find some answers to our questions, but that is only because God has chosen to give us answers.
If we want to understand the Creator — our Creator — as best we can, then we need read the Bible.