Arguments for God's Existence

I have to say, I was a bit disappointed with today's lecture. The content was great, don't get me wrong, but it really wasn't what I was expecting. The first half was just more logic and argument stuff- which is great, but I was hoping for more actual arguments. He does go into one of those, but not until the second half.

A. How high should our standards be? 

Not too high. We shouldn't expect everyone to be convinced with our arguments.
Be prepared to meet people with overly high standards. Some people are biased to the point of ignorance.
When confronting those people, try asking, "What sort of argument will satisfy you then? What sort of evidence would you like me to provide?" And then tailor your argument from there.

No philosophical beliefs are based in perfect arguments. (That doesn't change that Christianity is right, it just means that no argument that we come up with will ever be perfect).

In law cases, we demand certain degrees of certainty.
Civil damage requires a different amount of evidence than a Capital crime. When it comes to apologetics, it's the same way. Certain topics require more "proving" or evidence than other issues. The existence of God is a pretty hefty topic, but remember, it doesn't need to be 100%. We're building a case, trying to reason with someone, not create a perfect argument.

B. Cumulative Arguments 

Many small arguments are better than a huge knock out argument by itself. It enhances the acceptability of a position. 

C. Deduction or Induction? 

1. Deductive: in reference to the existence of God, the premises refer to a finite being, and the conclusion jumps to an infinite being. (Remember back to my previous posts, Deductive reasoning has to do with being concrete, 100%, mathematical almost. As Nash said before, that sort of thing doesn't work here). 

2. Inductive: Building a cumulative case with premises, conclusions, and arguments allows you to put together a strong case. 

Antony Flew's Leaky Bucket Analogy: 

If one leaky bucket cannot hold water, ten won't be able to hold water either. If one fails at Deductive reasoning, the rest do as well. 

Richard Swinburne's Rebuttal:

If you arrange the buckets in such a way so that each bucket helps to stop up another one's hole, the thing as a whole can hold water. Each bucket supports one another- even though on their own, they cannot hold water. 

Same with inductive and deductive arguments. 

We do the same thing with law cases. 

For example: 

Smith has blood on his hands. 

He has motive to kill. 

He was seen at the scene of the crime right after TOD. 

Each on its own doesn't really help anything- but string them together, and it's pretty obvious that Smith's the perpetrator. 

D. Scientific Explanation VS. Personal Explanation 

Scientific Explanation: One that relies upon the laws of science. Pretty self explanatory. 

Personal Explanation: One that relies upon personal experiences (the senses). Refers to human reasoning, and action. Mind, Design, and Purpose. 

Example: 

You find a nail in your tire. No big deal. There's a scientific reason for it- you drove over it, and the laws of physics explain how it wound up releasing the air in your tire. 

Scenario 2: You find 20 nails in each tire, jammed all over in odd angles. Science doesn't really explain this. Personal experience says that it took an intelligent mind to stick all those nails there, for one bizarre reason or other. 

(This next thing is sort of random, Nash just throws it in here).  Referring back to yesterday's #1 argument-- you can substitute any eternal "idea". If its eternal and unchanging, and an idea, it must exist in an eternal and unchanging mind. 

E. Recent Advances in Science 

(This is the one argument for God's existence that Nash offers today)

1. Hugh Ross- Astrophysics

In the last 15 years, the content of Natural Theology has expanded exponentially. Why? Because of new technologies. Example: Hubble Telescope, and Kobe Satellite.  

2. Michael Bene- Microbiology 

Just as we've expanded out horizons to bigger things in the last decade, we've also been able to explore smaller and smaller things as well. 

Darwin didn't know about the cell. Without that tidbit of information, his evolution theory sort of works. But when you throw in the inner mechanics of a cell, it'd be pretty crazy NOT to see the hint of intelligent design. 

Cells use machines. They have rods and pulleys, highway systems, factories for making more chemical machines, and so and and so forth. There really isn't any scientific explanation for this. (Sure, you can say molecules interact in certain ways, or compounds are formed, or proteins collide, etc. But when it comes down to it, who made all that happen? How could a system that intricate just pop out of nowhere?! Answer- It couldn't). 

Two kinds of "Orders" 

a.  Natural Order

b. Intelligent Order

These are generally applied when observing something, and trying to decide if it points to intelligent design or not. 

The first explains things through science. (Pretty basic). The second one can't explain things with science, so it defaults to pointing to Intelligence. 

Example:
Sheep shaped rock from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It's uncanny how life-like it is, but it's completely natural- not sculpted by human hands. Seeing that doesn't point to a Natural Order, it suggests something more- an Intelligent one. 

3. Information Systems

(Nash just explains this part with examples) 

Language- takes intelligence, a mind, design, thought, etc. My own example: If the guys on the moon saw sentences or runes written out on the surface of the moon, their probably not going with Darwin and assuming that it evolved to be that way. Most likely, their hightailing it back to earth, because stuff like that takes intelligent design. I think this analogy is the result of too many sci-fi movies. Oh well. 

On the train from Britain to Whales, there is a series of white rocks that have been placed to form the phrase, "Such and Such Train Station Welcomes you to Whales", or something like that. You'd have to be a fool to look out the window and say, "Oh, I bet they just fell like that". Of course not! There is certainty of intelligent design here. Therefore, you can draw a conclusion from knowing that it was "created" by an intelligent being-  the information must be true, or have credibility. If the rocks didn't just fall there, reasoning says that you must really be entering into Whales at that point, and not entering Timbuktu. 

To simplify that train of thought- If you believe something was created or formed intelligently, the information conveyed has purpose and meaning- and is generally true. 

So, for naturalists, when you apply this sequence of logic to the senses, technically, they shouldn't give any weight to what they experience through their senses. If their sense organs just happened to evolve, then the message is purely coincidental, and has to weight. If however, the sense organs were designed and graciously given to us by an intelligent creator- we can give credence to the information conveyed through them. 

Human Cell- living proof of intelligent design. If you can look at a grouping of rocks that spells a few words, and know that there was some sort of intelligent design, then the inner workings of a cell are exponentially more convincing. DNA in itself is a language, composed of letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs. It works just like our language does, perhaps better. Each word, each sentence has a purpose, and carries out a task. The words number enough to be a book, and quite literally, it is the story of who we are. A system as intricate as that is mocked by people who entertain the notion that it just "happened" to come about. 

A negative of this argument, as solid as it may be- it's really hard to summarize. Sometimes arguments take sitting down and going through. There really isn't a quick fix for someone looking to prove to existence of God. Granted, don't confuse simple with short. This argument isn't necessarily complicated, it's just that it takes a while to build a solid case for it. 

Lots of stuff today. Maybe not exactly what I was looking for, but useful nonetheless. 

I'd love to hear thoughts and comments. Thanks for reading. :)