There have always been wars around the world, most of which are driven by race or religion. There has also always been a significant gap between the super-rich and the poor, many of whom cannot afford healthy food or proper healthcare, or live with very few opportunities. Additionally, sudden health problems or deaths in families often cause catastrophic and lasting trauma for the relatives. Unhappiness, failures, sadness, misery, sorrow, and other forms of suffering affect people regardless of whether they are Christian or not. So, why pray if, for thousands of years, prayer has seemingly changed nothing? Nothing at all. It appears that religion can resemble fanaticism or even perpetuate slavery because, if something isn't working, why would intelligent people continue with it? This is especially relevant when it comes to praying to God.

St. Thomas Aquinas presents a good logical proof on how a being called god exists: He is what I assumed he said [this is in my own words]: > Everything in the universe has a cause, without a cause nothing will take place [like Newton's first law]. If we try to question the existence of anything present on the earth, the causes of the causes will lead us to the very creation of earth. Reasoning more, will lead to the formation of the universe. Now the universe, needs a cause for its production, which is, God. Now how do I prove that God is good, or God "is active," or "interferes in human activity"? With this I mean that God [son of God, who is in fact God but a different manifestation] comes onto earth, does miracles, and punishes and blesses, and tells everybody that they are subject to a future judgement. How do I prove that God is not a Deist God, which means that God is merely transcendent in relation to the universe, who doesn't interfere in its working? Some people may reason that since God is the creator, he has a fundamental power to morph things in the universe, but some may ask why. In my atheist friend's language—"Why does god check on the actions of people? why doesn't he chill?" This is all part of some kind of thought experiment to prove logically that God is as He is portrayed in the Bible. Since St. Thomas Aquinas started this "logical thinking" and was a Christian, I decided to ask it in the Christianity Stack Exchange. I myself am not a Christian, but I love studying Christianity and pondering over it.

If there is a god then he probably wouldn't let us have 100% proof that he is real, so that we can have faith in him instead of just having physical proof. so we cant know for sure that he is or isn't real. But if there isn't a god, then eventually we should be able to find 100% proof that he isn't real, and that people are just bending reality to fit their religion. but we don't have that proof yet. So, how can I know if he exists or not?

> In contemporary philosophy, a **brute fact** is a fact that cannot be explained in terms of a deeper, more "fundamental" fact. There are two main ways to explain something: say what "brought it about", or describe it at a more "fundamental" level. For example, a cat displayed on a computer screen can be explained, more "fundamentally", in terms of certain voltages in bits of metal in the screen, which in turn can be explained, more "fundamentally", in terms of certain subatomic particles moving in a certain manner. If one were to keep explaining the world in this way and reach a point at which no more "deeper" explanations can be given, then one would have found some facts which are brute or inexplicable, in the sense that we cannot give them an ontological explanation. As it might be put, there may exist some things that just are. > > To reject the existence of brute facts is to think that everything can be explained ("Everything can be explained" is sometimes called the principle of sufficient reason). > > ... > > **Bertrand Russell took a brute fact position when he said, "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all." Sean Carroll similarly concluded that "any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation."** > > Source: [Brute fact - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact) Postulating that the universe *just is*, as a *brute fact*, devoid of an ultimate cause or explanation, is a viewpoint often embraced by naturalists and non-theists, exemplified by figures like [Sean Carroll](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll) and [Bertrand Russell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell) . However, this notion runs contrary to the Christian faith's premise of a Creator God serving as the ultimate explanation for the universe's existence. How might a Christian effectively persuade a naturalist non-theist, such as Sean Carroll, that it is metaphysically impossible for the universe to be a brute fact? --- *Bonus for the interested reader with about one hour of free time*: [God is not a Good Theory (Sean Carroll)](https://youtu.be/ew_cNONhhKI)

Context: before answering this question, I highly recommend reading the answers to [Is Christianity testable?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105659/66156) and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97877/61679 . --- Some Christians believe that Christianity is testable. At least John Lennox [does](https://youtu.be/fSYwCaFkYno?t=2687) . According to such Christians, what is a step-by-step guide on how to perform such a test? I'm putting on my scientific hat here. Specifically, I'm interested in the following points: 1. Is there a set of clear, specific, measurable, non-ambiguous conditions that need to be satisfied for the test to become successful? 2. Is there a set of clear, specific, non-ambiguous steps that need to be carried out in sequence for the test to become successful? 3. Are there clear time frames for each step of the test, or for the test as a whole? 4. Are there clear, specific, non-ambiguous, measurable standards for evaluating the success or failure of the test? 5. Is [falsifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) on the table? That is, if the conditions of the test are perfectly satisfied and the steps are performed precisely as instructed, and yet the expected outcome of the test fails to take place, would that falsify the hypothesis underlying the test?

The [2020 PhilPapers Survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4842) includes the following result: # God: Atheism or Theism? As shown, the majority of philosophers are non-theists, with only 18.93% accepting or leaning toward theism. From a purely statistical perspective, it seems that engaging in philosophy is more likely to lead one away from theism than toward it. **Does Christianity consider philosophy a threat to the faith?** --- **Question:** > Were the total number of respondents 1,770? That's literally that the website says. Screenshot below: --- **Question:** > Did the target group include all 30 plus branches of philosophy? The target population is described [here](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/population) : > ## Target Population > > The Survey's target population includes 7685 philosophers drawn from > two groups: (1) From Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, > and the US (6112 philosophers): all regular faculty members > (tenure-track or permanent) in BA-granting philosophy departments with > four or more members (according to the [PhilPeople > database](https://philpeople.org/departments)) . (2). From all other > countries (1573 philosophers): English-publishing philosophers in > BA-granting philosophy departments with four or more > English-publishing faculty members. An English-publishing philosopher > is defined as someone with one or more publications in the [PhilPapers > database](https://philpapers.org/) in a wide range of English-language > venues, including English-language journals and book publishers. > > For meaningful longitudinal comparisons, we also designated a > [100-department target > group](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/comparison-departments) > in the same regions as the 2009 survey, based largely on rankings (all > Ph.D.-granting departments with a 2017-2018 Philosophical Gourmet > Report score of 1.9 or above, plus two leading departments with MA > programs and a selected group of European departments based on expert > recommendations). This group of 2407 philosophers was used only for > longitudinal comparisons. > > We also allowed any PhilPeople user to take the survey, regardless of > whether they were in the target populations. These populations cannot > be considered controlled, but results for all respondents and for > graduate students are given in some tables on this site. > > > Lists of departments > * [Target departments for the survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/target-departments) > * [2020 departments used for longitudinal comparison](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/comparison-departments) > * [2009 departments used for longitudinal comparison](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/design/comparison-departments?old=true)

I was came across an Atheist YouTuber and one of his arguments against the existence of G-d is Schellenberg's non-resistant divine hiddenness argument and its three premises. How would you address this argument and the premises of this argument from a Christian perspective? The syllogism is as follows (see [SEP entry](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/#ArguNonrNonb)) : 1. If a perfectly loving God exists, then God would ensure that all capable individuals who are open to a relationship with God are aware of God's existence (non-resistant seekers). 2. There are some non-resistant individuals who are capable of a relationship with God but do not believe in God's existence. 3. Therefore, a perfectly loving God does not exist.

God is supposed to be perfect. If the world is the work of a perfect god, it should be, as Leibniz argued, the best possible world. But it is not very difficult to imagine a better world than this. How is this argued from the point of view of classical theism?

[Leonard Susskind - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind) : > Leonard Susskind (/ˈsʌskɪnd/; born June 16, 1940) is an American theoretical physicist, Professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University and founding director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. His research interests are string theory, quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology. He is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, an associate member of the faculty of Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and a distinguished professor of the Korea Institute for Advanced Study. Susskind was interviewed for the program [Closer to Truth](https://closertotruth.com/video/susle-002/?referrer=8041) , where he explained his reasons for *agnosticism* regarding the question of God’s existence. The video lasts 7 minutes (you need to click on the *Long Video* option in the *FORMATS* section), but below is my attempt to summarize the essence of his reasons for being agnostic: > Susskind is agnostic about God because, if God exists, He remains hidden behind a metaphorical "curtain" of knowledge. In front of this curtain lies all the scientific understanding we have accumulated from studying nature, while behind it are open questions we have yet to answer—such as the origin of the universe, what happened before the Big Bang, and so forth. Susskind believes we currently have no way to investigate these mysteries, including the concept of God. For him, God is a hypothesis that cannot be confirmed or falsified by any known scientific means. Since the question of God remains undecidable and beyond our current ways of acquiring knowledge, Susskind remains agnostic. Are there Christian responses to this agnostic perspective, which views God as a mysterious hypothesis hidden "behind a curtain" and beyond the reach of scientific investigation? What might Christians suggest to someone like Susskind, a theoretical physicist, as a meaningful way to "investigate" God beyond the limits of scientific inquiry?

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism#Apathetic_agnosticism) defines *apathetic agnosticism* as follows: >### Apathetic agnosticism >A view related to apatheism, apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans; therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs. This view has also been called *Pragmatic Agnosticism*. The Wikipedia article also provides a reference to a [source](https://web.archive.org/web/20070807021506/http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/ourchurch/faith.html) which further elaborates upon the concept: >### Commentary on the Articles of Faith > This section contains all that is really important. All the rest of this extensive website is mere expansion on these fundamentals, or filler and amusements. (That is not intended to imply that you would not find it interesting to explore some of the other sections.) If you understand and accept these Articles of Faith, then you are an Apathetic Agnostic, whether or not you can be bothered to actually join the Church. > > **1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.** > > To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know. > > **2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.** > > All events in our Universe, including its beginning, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants. > > **3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.** > > If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being. However, our apathy to the question of God's existence does not necessarily mean we are apathetic about promoting agnosticism. What reasons does Christianity offer to reject one or more main tenets of *apathetic agnosticism*? For instance, are there compelling reasons to *care* about (rather than remain apathetic toward) the question of a Supreme Being's existence? Or, are there reasons to reject agnosticism (*we don’t know*) in favor of a more definitive stance on either side (*theism* vs. *atheism*)?

I am convinced that none of Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God are sufficient to proving his being. All of these have been thoroughly destroyed, underwritten, decimated by secular philosophers, starting with Hume, and then Kant, who argued that the concept of God must be believed only because he wanted moral stability within society. Kant was right in saying that the idea of a 'metaphysical science' is absurd. This might be a contested statement, but I believe the bible affirms this too, by giving no real understanding to the reader of metaphysical concepts except through vague sentences. So, because I was so discouraged with the knowledge that I cannot prove God's existence, I realized that he is not the same as I first envisioned Him to be. I approach the issue with a look at truth. I think there is one statement that we can, universally, regardless of dispute, agree upon. This I lay before the reader: Truth is. There are no implications of this statement. There ought to be no disagreement over this statement. I am not arguing that “Truth is existent”. Nor am I arguing that “Truth is non-existent”. Neither of these arguments are possible to argue. Truth is; but what it is, how it is, when it is, even who it is, is irrelevant. To add anything to this statement is like adding a paper tag to a metal airplane and arguing that the paper tag is the airplane. It simply is ridiculous. Thus, the conclusion of this argument about truth is not that we can recognize its ‘particulars’, nor that we can somehow cross the barrier of the noumena to access it. Rather, we settle upon this, a modest yet incredibly profound idea. If the only thing we can say about truth is that ‘I don’t know’, then what shall I say? Shall I argue about it at all? Shall I simply fall back on the centuries old maxim created by Kant that subjects our whole study of philosophy to the study of cognitive structures? Shall we follow the path of Plato, arguing that there exists a world of forms that is beyond our understanding, but is perceived by a select few; a world whose existence is totally impossible to prove? Should we simply trust God, and believe, as Locke and Descartes did, that our senses are good enough to find the truth? Or should we completely subject ourselves to skepticism, relativism, and nihilism? What shall we say? What is truth? We hardly know if we know that we do not know anything. Notwithstanding the uncertainty of defining truth, of showing that it is, or is not, there is one more thing, a simple thing, a thing that is impossible to prove, but a thing that is necessary: Truth is. God is. These are one and the same. Perhaps this is a bold assertion. The words I use to make it are certainly not enough to encapsulate what I am trying say. I think it is impossible to fully encapsulate with words what I am trying to say. I think it is impossible to fully understand what I mean by saying this. Yet I think this one statement, this one idea, which no one can really understand, is so necessary, so critical, to our knowledge, to our purpose, to our existence, that nothing can more fully show this. That truth is, is both undeniable and unproveable, but necessary; that God is one and the same with this truth, is foundational, I think, to not just theology, but philosophy. When Abraham spoke to the burning bush, he asked it, “Who are you?” And God answered, I AM THAT I AM. The importance of this cannot be overstated. It cannot even be understated. It is something profound, unknowable, unreachable; yet it is something that is. It is something that cannot be overstated because it is so necessary; but it is also something that cannot be understated because that is simply impossible. In dealing with the idea of God, we ought not to subject it to any rational or empirical review; there is no ‘transcendental logic’ robust enough to evaluate this. But, by taking this theory, that ‘Truth is. God is. These are one and the same’, are we subjecting ourselves to Simon Blackburn’s critique that we are “stepping outside our own skins and essaying the mythical transcendental comparison” (Blackburn 180)? Are we evaluating truth by proposing a “second-order, philosophical, subtle and elusive theory called realism to explain [truth’s] success” (Blackburn, 180)? No; rather, we take the same view as Blackburn, who, notably, said “Science explains the success of science” (Blackburn 181). The only thing that differs in my argument is my choice of words. Truth is only ‘mystical’ in the sense that we cannot understand it. About truth we can only say ‘it is’. Perhaps this is because ‘it works’. Perhaps ‘science explains the success of science’ in the same way ‘truth explains the success of truth’; or we could simplify this to say, ‘Science is science’ and ‘Truth is truth’. And this I put a label on and call God--that is, ‘God is God’. God is merely a label put on truth. In many instances it is put on something that is not really what it is. An enormous misconception of God has beleaguered all attempts of God-believing people to prove the existence of God. There is this odd idea that God is merely an ‘all-powerful, all knowing, all-good’ being as if God were a human granted superhuman powers. Simon Blackburn, in the book, ‘Truth’, referencing an analogy Bertrand Russel composed, compared the idea of a deity to the possibility of a teapot floating in orbit around the sun. “Bertrand Russel…[compared] religious belief with…factual kinds of belief, which were as improbable, scientifically, as anything could be: the belief there is a china teapot floating around the sun, for example…Now imagine, however, that this teapot undergoes a sea change. Suppose it becomes an authority (out of its spout come forth important commands and promises) …it answers prayers, adopts babies, consecrates marriages and closes grief…Is there a difference between animation and belief? Is there really a space for theology without onto-theology, and if so, how does one tell the difference?” (Blackburn, 19). Blackburn and Russel rightly question the trustworthiness of religious belief. Why is a ‘belief’ or a ‘feeling’ enough to prove the idea that God exists? Religious belief, in these men’s minds, is an imagined, cultlike fantasy. What is the difference between a deity and an imaginary friend? This is my personal opinion: Secularists, which dominate the educational community, have dismissed the significant implications of a deity by replacing the true deity with a fake one, a straw man that was put in place so that atheism could easily topple it. Theists, however, have actually given to atheists the strawman that atheists have used to deride theism. Atheists are only right in their denial of God because theists have failed to aptly define God. How should Christians define God in light of these issues?

I am just confused about the Holy Trinity, Jesus said that the Spirit is God, however how can the Holy Spirit be God if it is also said that the Holy Spirit created God? Wouldn’t that mean that there was nothing and then instantly both God and the Holy Spirit just happened? Such as there isn’t and then there is, or another way to put that would be there’s nothing and then there’s something. Because I can’t see how/why Jesus would say that the Spirit is God when also the Bible says that the Holy Spirit created God. So how can God create himself before even being created?

The *teleological argument* is defined as follows: > The teleological argument (from τέλος, telos, 'end, aim, goal'; also known as physico-theological argument, argument from design, or intelligent design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, **that complex functionality in the natural world which looks designed is evidence of an intelligent creator**. > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument I'm aware of at least two Bible passages that seem to resonate a lot with the teleological argument: > The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. (Psalm 19:1 NKJV) > 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 **because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.** 20 **For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse**, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:18-25 NKJV) However, secular mainstream science tells us a different story from the theistic one, emphasizing naturalistic explanations such as [abiogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) and [evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) . This perspective excludes the notion of an intelligent creator, largely due to science's steadfast commitment to [methodological naturalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism) . Advocates of this naturalistic approach in scientific research argue that supernatural explanations are not viable because they cannot be tested, falsified, or subjected to empirical investigation. Moreover, there are atheists like Richard Dawkins who champion the theory of evolution as their trump card against the teleological argument: > "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." > > *Richard Dawkins (2015). “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design”, p.18, W. W. Norton & Company* In response to the question [Is the teleological argument for God completely refuted?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/7050/66156) , this [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/7054/66156) asserts: > **The teleological argument is effectively dead**. The last gasp at it was by William Dembski and Michael Behe with "irreducible complexity" (the intellectual core of the intelligent design movement), and they simply failed to understand the actual problem and/or came up with handwaving to state that certain things were impossible, when in fact they were not only possible but there were examples of them. > > **That evolution provides the mechanism to produce all the complexity of life seen today is no longer in serious doubt; and that simple physical laws suffice to produce all the complexity of the universe is also no longer in serious doubt**. The only area not completely nailed down is fine-tuning of universal constants, and that makes for an incredibly weak teleological argument since all we know about reality with different constants is that our familiar physics doesn't work. We cannot predict whether there'd be some other complex physical reality admitting evolution, so we can't tell if the numbers are actually finely tuned and thus whether we should be surprised by them. Or in response to the question [How does the theory of evolution make it less likely that the world is designed?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/100494/66156) , the most upvoted [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/100513/66156) states: > When Laplace wrote his Newtonian, materialist explanation of the universe, Napoleon asked him where God fit into the scheme. "I have no need of that hypothesis, Sire," was Laplace's famous reply. > > Your question is fair enough, but employs a common misrepresentation of science. You can take any scientific theory and then add on God, as if inviting a "plus one." Many scientists do, but only on their own time, so to speak. > > To jettison redundant hypotheses is simply a critical working scientific convention, wielding Ockham's razor. You can always add God back in, but not into the published, peer-reviewed science. > > If you want to use God as part of your causal explanation of physical events, you must offer some experimental way to falsify that hypothesis. And this is where believers usually have a problem. > > Exactly what repeatable experiment would falsify the God hypothesis? A non-biased, double-blind series of unanswered prayers? **It is not so much that evolution "disproves" God. It is simply that it offers a compelling, verifiable explanation of observations that does *not require* God.** > > If some scientists do indeed seem hostile to the idea of God, it is more properly a hostility towards undecidable claims that muddy the waters, subvert the scientific method, and then tend to backload a lot of moral implications and assertions. Even concerning abiogenesis, whose evidential support is arguably much weaker than that of neo-Darwinism, we encounter statements such as the following: > **Is abiogenesis proven?** > > No. It is not proven. > > Regarding evidence, we know there was a time when Earth did not have life, now it does. So life did get started somehow. **There is no evidence of intelligent agency involved and no other problem in science has been solved by invoking non-human intelligence. Thus the operating assumption is that OOL was a natural event.** > > As to how it can happen, that is an open and active area of research. And while it hasn't been solved there are promising avenues of research. > > **Could God have done it? We can't say he couldn't have, but there is no reason to think he did.** > > Source: [Is abiogenesis proven? - r/DebateEvolution](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/13435wt/is_abiogenesis_proven/?rdt=37529) In an era where the teleological argument for God encounters significant challenges from advocates of abiogenesis and evolution, how do Christians who present it navigate these obstacles to make the argument more intellectually compelling to those who don't believe in God?

The scripture does say that a person can deny the existence of God in their hearts, which I take to mean a ‘sincere disbelief’ not just the claim of disbelief: > 14 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” > They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; > there is none who does good. (Psalm 14 ESV) However, in many other places of scripture, it seems to declare that God’s basic nature is declared in a self-evident way. - Therefore is there such a thing as a real ‘pure atheist’ or is that just an imaginary person? - Is there anything in scripture that clarifies the tension between self-evident truth and the fool’s ability to deny that evidence? - To what degree is the denial possible? - Is there even such a thing as a real atheist?

Reliabilism is defined by several sources as follows: > Reliabilism is an approach to the nature of knowledge and of justified belief. **Reliabilism about justification, in its simplest form, says that a belief is justified if and only if it is produced by a reliable psychological process, meaning a process that produces a high proportion of true beliefs**. A justified belief may itself be false, but its mode of acquisition (or the way it is subsequently sustained) must be of a kind that typically yields truths. Since random guessing, for example, does not systematically yield truths, beliefs acquired by guesswork are not justified. By contrast, identifying middle-sized physical objects by visual observation is presumably pretty reliable, so beliefs produced in this manner are justified. Reliabilism does not require that the possessor of a justified belief should know that it was reliably produced. Knowledge of reliability is necessary for knowing that a belief is justified, but the belief can be justified without the agent knowing that it is. > > Source: https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/reliabilism/v-1 > One of the main goals of epistemologists is to provide a substantive and explanatory account of the conditions under which a belief has some desirable epistemic status (typically, justification or knowledge). **According to the reliabilist approach to epistemology, any adequate account will need to mention the reliability of the process responsible for the belief, or truth-conducive considerations more generally**. Historically, one major motivation for reliabilism—and one source of its enduring interest—is its naturalistic potential. According to reliabilists, epistemic properties can be explained in terms of reliability, which in turn can be understood without reference to any unreduced epistemic notions, such as evidence or knowledge. > > Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reliabilism/ > A broadly reliabilist theory of knowledge is roughly as follows: > >> One knows that p (p stands for any proposition—e.g., that the sky is blue) if and only if p is true, one believes that p is true, and one has arrived at the belief that p is true through some *reliable* process. > > A broadly reliabilist theory of justified belief can be stated as follows: > >> One has a justified belief that p if, and only if, the belief is the result of a reliable process. > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliabilism Do any Christians adopt a reliabilist approach to their belief in God and Christianity? That is to say, are there any Christians who believe that there is a *reliable process* through which one can reliably arrive at the conclusion that God exists and that Christianity is true? --- NOTE. There is a similar question concurrently asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange: [Can a reliabilist have a reliably justified belief in God?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/113311/66156)

> The anthropic principle, also known as the "observation selection effect", is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations could happen only in a universe capable of developing intelligent life. **Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, no one would have been around to make observations**. **Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the idea that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life.** > > There are many different formulations of the anthropic principle. Philosopher Nick Bostrom counts them at thirty, but the underlying principles can be divided into "weak" and "strong" forms, depending on the types of cosmological claims they entail. The weak anthropic principle (WAP), as defined by Brandon Carter, states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivorship bias). Most such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes from which to select. However, a single vast universe is sufficient for most forms of the WAP that do not specifically deal with fine tuning. Carter distinguished the WAP from the strong anthropic principle (SAP), which considers the universe in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. A form of the latter known as the participatory anthropic principle, articulated by John Archibald Wheeler, suggests on the basis of quantum mechanics that the universe, as a condition of its existence, must be observed, thus implying one or more observers. Stronger yet is the final anthropic principle (FAP), proposed by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, which views the universe's structure as expressible by bits of information in such a way that information processing is inevitable and eternal. > > Source: [Anthrophic principle - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) In essence, when theists marvel at the remarkable fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe, which enables the existence of intelligent conscious life, and suggest that this remarkable phenomenon demands an explanation (such as an intelligent designer), proponents of the anthropic principle often argue differently. They suggest that such fine-tuning isn't actually surprising—after all, we inevitably find ourselves in a universe capable of supporting life because, otherwise, we wouldn't be here to ponder it. If circumstances were different, we wouldn't exist, but since we do, it's not unexpected that the universe possesses conditions conducive to our existence. Does this effectively counter the fine-tuning argument for God's existence? How do Christian proponents of this argument address such objections? --- **Note**: Personally, I don't think so. See [Does the "sniper analogy" undermine the Anthropic Principle objection to the fine-tuning argument for God's existence?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/111278/66156)

Argument: > If God is the Creator, He cannot be perfect. For either God created the world desiring it or not desiring it. If he did not wish it, it implies that he does not have total control over his actions, therefore he is not perfect. If he wanted to, either the creation suited him in the long run or not. If it didn't suit him, then he lacked something that suited him, then he wasn't perfect. If it didn't suit him, he has acted against his ultimate interests, so he is irrational, and therefore not perfect. How can I counterargument this?

One presentation of this argument is put forward by Carl Sagan: > "If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct - what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created? How did that happen? In many cultures, a customary answer is that a "God" or "Gods" created the universe out of nothing, but if we wish to pursue this question courageously we must, of course, ask the next question - where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, **why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question**? Or if we say that God always existed, **why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed**? There's no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, with questions that were once treated only in religion and myth." > > Source: https://genius.com/Carl-sagan-on-god-and-gods-annotated > Or watch: [The uncertainty of God (Carl Sagan in cosmos series) - YouTube](https://youtu.be/KNzlfYJaaCg) Richard Dawkins makes similar arguments: > "If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist, whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop, simply *postulates* an already existing being of prodigious intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation, we might as well make a job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we know it! ***The Blind Watchmaker*, Chapter 11 “Doomed Rivals”" (p. 316)** > >"A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe *cannot* be simple. His existence is going to need a mammoth explanation in its own right." ***The God Delusion* (p. 178)** > > "God, if he exists, would have to be a very, very, very complicated thing indeed. So to postulate a God as the beginning of the universe, as the answer to the riddle of the first cause, is to shoot yourself in the conceptual foot because you are immediately postulating something far far more complicated than that which you are trying to explain. [...] If you have problems seeing how matter could just come into existence - try thinking about how complex intelligent matter, or complex intelligent entities of any kind, could suddenly spring into existence, it's many many orders of magnitude harder to understand." **Lynchburg, Virginia, 23/10/2006** > > "In the case of the cosmos, [...] even if we don't understand how it came about, it's not helpful to postulate a creator, because the creator is the very kind of thing that needs an explanation - and although it's difficult enough to explain how a very simple origin of the universe came into being - how matter and energy, how one or two physical constants came into existence - although it's difficult enough to think how *simplicity* came into existence, it's a hell of a lot harder to think how something as complicated as a God comes into existence" ***"Has Science Buried God?"* Debate, Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox, 21/10/2008** > > Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins How do Christians respond to the atheistic argument that postulating a God introduces an unnecessary and overly complicated extra step? --- **Note**: there is an ongoing related discussion taking place on Philosophy Stack Exchange right now, [Is God’s very existence the ultimate miracle?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/110945/66156)

To steelman the case for proving God's existence using reason alone, I think one of the best contemporary examples of how this could be done is found in Edward Feser's book [*Five Proofs of the Existence of God*](https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333) : > This book provides a detailed, updated exposition and defense of five of the historically most important (but in recent years largely neglected) philosophical proofs of God’s existence: the Aristotelian, the Neo-Platonic, the Augustinian, the Thomistic, and the Rationalist. > > It also offers a thorough treatment of each of the key divine attributes—unity, simplicity, eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, and so forth—showing that they must be possessed by the God whose existence is demonstrated by the proofs. Finally, it answers at length all of the objections that have been leveled against these proofs. > > This work provides as ambitious and complete a defense of traditional natural theology as is currently in print. Its aim is to vindicate the view of the greatest philosophers of the past— thinkers like Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Leibniz, and many others— **that the existence of God can be established with certainty by way of purely rational arguments**. It thereby serves as a refutation both of atheism and of the fideism that gives aid and comfort to atheism. > ## Editorial Reviews > > **Review** > > "A watershed book. Feser has completely severed the intellectual legs > upon which modern atheism had hoped to stand." **— Matthew Levering**, > James N. and Mary D. Perry Jr. Chair of Theology, Mundelein Seminary > > "A powerful and important book. The concluding chapter, where Feser > replies to possible objections to his arguments, is a gem; it alone is > worth the price of this excellent work." **— Stephen T. Davis**, Russell > K. Pitzer Professor of Philosophy, Claremont McKenna College > > "Edward Feser is widely recognized as a top scholar in the history of > philosophy in general, and in Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy in > particular. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in natural > theology. I happily and highly recommend it." **— J. P. Moreland**, > Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Biola University > > "Refutes with devastating effect the standard objections to theistic > proofs, from David Hume to the New Atheists." **— Robert C. Koons**, > Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin > > "Yet another fine book by Edward Feser. He replies to (literally) all > of the objections and shows convincingly how the most popular > objections (the kind one hears in Introduction to Philosophy courses) > are very often completely beside the point and, even when they're not, > are 'staggeringly feeble and overrated'." **— Alfred J. Freddoso**, > Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame > > **About the Author** > > **Edward Feser, Ph.D.**, is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena > City College in Pasadena, California. Called by National Review "one > of the best contemporary writers on philosophy", he is the author of > The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, Aquinas, > Scholastic Meta- physics, By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed, and many > other books and articles. For illustrative purposes, the following is a brief excerpt from chapter 6 of Feser's book: > ### The Nature of God and of His Relationship to the World > > We have now examined five arguments for the existence of God, which can be summarized briefly as follows. The Aristotelian proof begins with the fact that there are potentialities that are actualized and argues that we cannot make sense of this unless we affirm the existence of something which can actualize the potential existence of things without itself being actualized, a *purely actual actualizer*. The Neo-Platonic proof begins with the fact that the things of our experience are composed of parts and argues that such things could not exist unless they have an *absolutely simple* or *noncomposite cause*. The Augustinian proof begins with the fact that there are abstract objects like universals, propositions, numbers, and possible worlds, and argues that these must exist as ideas in a *divine intellect*. The Thomistic proof begins with the real distinction, in each of the things of our experience, between its essence and its existence, and argues that the ultimate cause of such things must be something which is *subsistent existence itself*. The rationalist proof begins with the principle of sufficient reason and argues that the ultimate explanation of things can only lie in an *absolutely necessary being*. Note that Edward Feser's five proofs never resort to evidence of design or complexity in nature. Those sorts of arguments, which look at nature for evidence of design (and, therefore, of a designer), are commonly referred to as [*teleological arguments*](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/) . In order to illustrate this point, and to present steelman versions of this line of reasoning, the following are two important books in this area: [*Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe*](https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505/) , by Stephen C. Meyer. > **The *New York Times* bestselling author of *Darwin’s Doubt*, Stephen Meyer, presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.** > > Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in *Signature in the Cell* and *Darwin’s Doubt*, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe. > > Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God. [*A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics*](https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910) , by Michael J. Behe. > In 1996 Darwin’s Black Box thrust Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe into the national spotlight. The book, and his subsequent two, sparked a firestorm of criticism, and his responses appeared in everything from the New York Times to science blogs and the journal Science. His replies, along with a handful of brand-new essays, are now collected in A Mousetrap for Darwin. In engaging his critics, Behe extends his argument that much recent evidence, from the study of evolving microbes to mutations in dogs and polar bears, shows that blind evolution cannot build the complex machinery essential to life. Rather, evolution works principally by breaking things for short-term benefit. It can’t construct anything fundamentally new. What can? **Behe’s money is on intelligent design**. --- What is the biblical basis for proving God's existence using reason alone? Moreover, if reason alone is enough for proving God's existence, what's the point of faith? How are faith and reason reconciled?

Note: I'm interested in the Christian perspective on the question [*Can God's existence be established through reason and publicly accessible evidence?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/107660/66156) that I recently asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange. Feel free to read that question and the answers that people have posted for a broader context. --- I am curious to understand the perspectives within the Christian community regarding the use of reason and publicly available evidence to establish the existence of God in general, and the existence of the Christian God specifically. Are there prevailing viewpoints or consensus among Christians on this matter? **What I already know** I'm aware that at least some Christians frequently cite passages like [Romans 1:18-25](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A18-25&version=NKJV) and [Psalm 19:1-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+19%3A1-3&version=NKJV) as Biblical expressions of [teleological arguments](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/) for God's existence. This category of arguments has evolved in more contemporary discussions, adopting a renewed shape, notably through an emphasis on the intricate fine-tuning of the fundamental constants in the universe (see [fine-tuned universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument#Fine-tuned_universe)) , and an emphasis on the extraordinary complexity and specified information found in living organisms (see [intelligent design movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement)) . I'm also aware of the existence of disciplines such as [natural theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) and [apologetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics) , which in one way or another attempt to argue for the rationality of the belief in the existence of God and posit that there is sufficient evidence in the natural world to confidently conclude that God must exist. **What I do not know** One aspect that intrigues me, and about which I seek more clarity, pertains to the widespread acceptance or not among Christians of concepts such as natural theology, apologetics, intelligent design, and philosophical/scientific arguments for God's existence that hinge on reason and evidence. Do a majority of Christians align with these disciplines and share the perspective that the existence of God can be established solely through the use of reason and publicly available evidence, in a manner that any reasonable person should be able to study and verify? If there are available statistics on this matter, I would greatly appreciate them, although it's not strictly required to answer this question. As a point of reference, in the realm of philosophy, there are statistics available such as the following: #### God: theism or atheism? |Option|2009|2020|Change|Swing| |-|-:|-:|-:|-:| Accept or lean towards: theism|14.61%|12.5%|-2.11|-1.76| |Accept or lean towards: atheism|72.82%|74.23%|1.41|1.76| |Accept a combination of views|2.47%|0.31%|-2.16| |Accept an alternative view|0.86%|2.78%| 1.92| |The question is too unclear to answer|1.72%|2.01%| 0.29| |There is no fact of the matter|0.54%|0.31%|-0.23| |Insufficiently familiar with the issue|0%|0.15%| 0.15| | |Agnostic/undecided|5.48%|6.94%| 1.46| | |Skipped|0.97%|0.31%| -0.66| | |Other|0.54%|0.46%| -0.08| | N (2020) = 648 N (2009) = 931 (Source: [2020 PhilPapers Survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/longitudinal)) --- **A case for consideration: Blaise Pascal** Blaise Pascal serves as an illustration of a Christian who contends that the existence of God cannot be conclusively established through reason alone. While his perspective is just one instance, it raises the possibility that others may share a similar viewpoint. > Pascal maintains that we are incapable of knowing whether God exists or not, yet we must “wager” one way or the other. Reason cannot settle which way we should incline, but a consideration of the relevant outcomes supposedly can. Here is the first key passage: > >> “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? **Reason can decide nothing here**. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose… But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. > > (Source: [Pascal's Wager - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/)) --- **Another view for consideration: Reformed Epistemology** Reformed Epistemology is another viewpoint that exemplifies the rejection of evidence and intellectual arguments as necessary requirements for justifying belief in God. > Reformed epistemology is a thesis about the rationality of religious belief. **A central claim made by the reformed epistemologist is that religious belief can be rational without any appeal to evidence or argument**. There are, broadly speaking, two ways that reformed epistemologists support this claim. The first is to argue that there is no way to successfully formulate the charge that religious belief is in some way epistemically defective if it is lacking support by evidence or argument. The second way is to offer a description of what it means for a belief to be rational, and to suggest ways that religious beliefs might in fact be meeting these requirements. This has led reformed epistemologists to explore topics such as when a belief-forming mechanism confers warrant, the rationality of engaging in belief forming practices, and when we have an epistemic duty to revise our beliefs. As such, reformed epistemology offers an alternative to evidentialism (the view that religious belief must be supported by evidence in order to be rational) and fideism (the view that religious belief is not rational, but that we have non-epistemic reasons for believing). > > Reformed epistemology was first clearly articulated in a collection of papers called Faith and Rationality edited by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff in 1983. However, the view owes a debt to many other thinkers. > > (Source: [Reformed Epistemology - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://iep.utm.edu/ref-epis))