Theism is like evolution"There probably is a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn’t." -John von NeumannThe unfortunate task of the creationist is explaining an old world as if it is young, a world with biological life shaped by evolutionary forces without invoking evolution. The creationist’s error is not minor; they believe that the forces that were most fundamental inshaping the world are not real, and must invent implausible, gerrymandered explanations of many features of the world. The creationist’s worldview is implausible on two fronts; there are both things that their theory wholly fails to explain without utterly absurd stipulations, like the universal genetic code, and there are so many things that their view explains poorly, that it makes terrible sense of the world.The implausibility of creationism doesn’t just come from the things that the creationists are totally unable to explain, though there are many things like that. It comes from the fact that evolution naturally explains almost everything in biology, so creationists are reduced to ad hoc stipulations to explain hundreds of different biological features.
>>41639790The creationist is not special in this regard. One who tried to explain the features of a car without invoking design would be in for mammoth explanatory inadequacy, for there are so many features of a car that make no sense except in light of design. While believing in design won’t necessarily clear up all the mysteries perhaps one still wonders why features of the car are set up a certain way, especially if they’re not a mechanic it vastly reduces the mystery of the car.I claim that the atheist is in a rather similar situation. The atheist denies the existence of the fundamental cause of all things as a result, the implausibility of atheism comes in two forms. The first is simply the fact that there are some phenomena that atheism has no remotely plausible explanation of, that are so puzzling on an atheistic worldview that they single-handedly provide substantial reason to abandon atheism. The second is that, even if the atheist can explain lots of specific features of the world without invoking God, there are so many features of the world that are better explained by theism that atheism’s inability to explain them cumulatively costs them dearly. Just as the young earth creationist is left scrambling to explain dozens of separate features of biology, so too is the atheist left scrambling to explain dozens of separate features of the world.Many theists are doubtful of this approach. Ed Feser, for example, worries https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-thomists-middle-ground-in-natural.html about ‘arguments that treat God’s existence as at best the most probable “hypothesis” among others that might account for such-and-such empirical evidence’ on the grounds that they ‘fail to get to God, strictly speaking, as opposed to a “designer” of some possibly finite sort.’
>>41639800This seems like a spurious critique even if each particular argument is consistent with several different theories, the view that best makes sense of all the features of the world is theism. This is like worrying about advancing arguments for an old Earth, in support of arguing for evolution, on the grounds that they don’t prove evolution beyond an old Earth. While this is true, establishing that the Earth is old enough to sustain robust evolution is a key ingredient in any case for evolution, particularly because it rules out the most popular alternative to evolution, that being young earth creationism. An argument like fine-tuning that points to a designer (and, as I’ve argued, a perfect being specifically) is perfectly kosher.Feser also worries that these arguments, ‘are distractions from the more powerful arguments of traditional metaphysics, and thus can make the grounds for natural theology seem weaker than they really are.’ This is an area of substantive disagreement that I cannot explore in any detail in this post, beyond arguing that the abductive arguments for theism are quite good. I find Feser’s arguments almost maximally unconvincing, ranging from employing premises I’m confident are false to employing premises that might very well be true, but lack strong reasons to accept them (I mostly agree with what Joe Schmid says about these arguments in his excellent book). https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2
>>41639803It would be quite a shock if these abductive arguments were not good, if Feser is correct. The ultimate explanation of the world should best explain many features of the world, just as the ultimate explanation of biological life (abiogenesis+evolution) should best explain many features of biology. It would be an unparalleled miracle if almost no features of reality convincingly evidentially support the true theory of ultimate reality particularly when that theory is radically different from alternatives. It’s not hard to get a priori arguments for evolution it follows trivially from the existence of different genes affecting one’s chances of survival but nonetheless, when arguing for it, one should note that it best explains the world.Before I present the case, I’ll address just one more line of criticism. People are often suspicious of the idea that theism can be confirmed by explaining things we already know rather than predicting future phenomena. But this is how almost all explanation works. The reason to believe in dark matter an invisible, undetectable entity is that it explains things we do observe like the gravity exerted in certain regions in space. If we’d discovered the evidence for dark matter before formulating the theory, it would still make sense to believe in dark matter.
>>41639811The methodology people often employ, according to which evidence for God must come in the form of advanced predictions rather than explaining past evidence would rule out much of our knowledge. It would rule out almost all historical inquiry which virtually never proceeds by making predictions in advance. No one predicted, in advance, the evidence confirming the existence of Julius Caesar. One of the main pieces of support for the theory of continental drift came from the fact that it explained something we’d observed namely, similar fauna between Africa and South America during the time they were thought to have broken apart. When one concludes that a criminal committed a crime based on certain evidence, they almost never make advanced predictions, but instead conclude the criminal committed the crime because it explains certain things they’ve already observed testimony, for example. Why should God be any different?This methodology would even throw physics into jeopardy. Physicists see it as a major advantage of a theory if it provides a deeper explanation of the laws we know about with fewer entities. This is what they’ve been looking for in a theory of everything! If one doesn’t take explaining exceptionless laws that we know about to be an advantage of a theory, the entire subfield involved in constructing theories of everything is a farce.Finally, such a method is clearly unworkable in the case of theism. If from the beginning of the world, the sky had spelled out “made by God,” that would provide significant evidence for the existence of God, even though it wouldn’t be an advanced prediction.
>>41639817A final worry people have about these arguments is that the things theism best explains are things that are required for us to exist. One might think that a precondition for creatures like us can’t be evidence for a theory, because if it hadn’t existed, we wouldn’t be around to notice it. But this is silly reasoning on several fronts:It doesn’t follow from the fact that had something not existed we wouldn’t exist that the thing existing can’t be evidence for some proposition. While people assert this strange method of anthropic reasoning as if its a platitude, it doesn’t follow logically.Imagine a firing squad of 100 people all shoot their guns at you, but their guns all jam. It’s true that had they not jammed, you wouldn’t be around to observe it. Nonetheless, that they jammed is evidence that, for example, someone is conspiring to protect you, or someone paid off the firing squad.From the fact that you exist, you get evidence your parents didn’t use effective contraception in the sex act that conceived you. But if you hadn’t existed, you wouldn’t have been around to observe it. Thus, if this anthropic reasoning were correct, we’d be unable to say that your existence gives you evidence that your parents didn’t use effective contraceptionREST OF ARTICLE HERE IT'S EXTREMELY LONG YES IT'S FREE AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO SIGN IN OR ANYTHING TO READ IT https://benthams.substack.com/p/god-best-explains-the-world
Bump on the floor
>>41639790>There probably is a God.What is a God?
>>41639790>God Best Explains The WorldYes. And the Demiurge best explains God. Otherwise you just cycle endlessly around the question why a perfect God would create such a shitty world.
>>41639790which god?, is he evil?
>>41639790Bullshit pseudo logic.There is no good evidence of God because this place is meant to be where we experience a realm without God.that is the purpose of this place. Do you really think you can thwart the machinations of God??
And then He says “this little boy gets raped by his brother and father and his mother will twist his nuts around” and all is well in His kingdom. Don’t get me wrong, arguments are nice? ( I didn’t read) You don’t need understand, He made it this way on purpose!
Proof that the Bible is the Word of God:fcbaptist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Bible-proof.pdftruthischrist.com/seven/1 Cor 15:3-4: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” How to know you're saved youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."Rom 3:23: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”Jesus Christ is God who has come in the flesh from heaven. He died as a sinless sacrifice for the sins of the whole world to save you from eternal hell, the punishment for your sin. He was buried, then resurrected and then ascended to heaven. John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 10:28: "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." Rom 10:9: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."God wants to forgive you, but you have a choice: Do you choose the righteousness of God by receiving Christ? Your own righteousness can NEVER justify you or keep you saved because of your sin. Rom 5:9: “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, in His finished blood atonement. The gift of salvation can't be earned. Confess The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in prayer, that you trust in Him and believe He atoned for your sins on the cross.Eph. 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
>>41639790Yeah, also the evidence for God is overwhelming as well, He gave us an incredible book.Not one of the world’s major religions (Mormons, Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, Confucians, Jews and Christian Scientists) were able to put on paper one historical prophecy dealing with anything that would happen in actual history after their founders were dead.All genuine prophecies were already written beforehand – Luke 24:44. The Scripture of truth (Dan 10:21) does not fail to predict histories that deal with weather conditions, nations, military engagements, alliances, religions, apostasy, churches, and individuals, anywhere from 10-2000 years ahead of timeJesus Christ listed 10 details of His coming death, Mohammed didn’t. All of the ‘prophecies’ in the Koran that turn out to be ‘historical’ were stolen from a Book, ‘THE Book’ (i.e. THE BIBLE) that was complete (and in circulation) more than 900 years before Mohammed was born.The Bible is unlike all other ‘sacred books’ in that it bases its ‘authenticity’ and ‘authority’ on prophecy. All other ‘sacred books’ contain no predictions as to the future. If their authors had attempted to foretell future events, their non-fulfillment would discredit their writings and they would be classed as liars and fraudsters. Fulfilled prophecy is stronger evidence for the inspiration and ‘authenticity’ of the Scriptures than miracles. Prophecy is not a ‘haphazard guess,’ nor a ‘probability’ made up on uncertain data, prophecy is history written in advance. Two-thirds of the Scriptures are prophetic, either in type, symbol, or direct statement; and more than one-half of the OT prophecies, and nearly all of the NT, points to events that are future. It was because the religious leaders of Christ’s day were not students of the prophetic Scriptures that they failed to recognize Him when He came.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCsPy4CY6hIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcvFX5uIRb4youtube.com/watch?v=yS78mFJcvhQ
>>41642666satan speaks
>>41642686Unfortunately for him no one cares what he has to say because he is a deceiver. Good thing God gave us His word so we can learn truth
>>41642713>God(the Demiurge)>gave us His word so we can learn truth(deception)
>>41642747Wrong.When you put your trust in men and demons you tend to get the facts mixed up
>>41642766jews wrote the bible you have to accept it
>>41642772Yep, and God is the author of the Bible.
>>41642766When you put your trust in Archons you tend to get the facts mixed up. Christian doctrine is fake. Wake up and find gnosis.
>>41642777are you sayin jews are god?
>>41642798No, but God used the Jews to write for Him. God can use humans because He created them.2 Peter 1:17-21: "For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.">>41642792Source of that? Mine is the infallible word of God:fcbaptist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Bible-proof.pdftruthischrist.com/seven/youtube.com/watch?v=yS78mFJcvhQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcvFX5uIRb4
>>41642801and only the jews were allowed to write for god?
>>41642801God is a shit writer then.
>>41642801>Source of that?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XGAc_OqCbU
>>41642805I see, so your source is men, and whatever evil spirits told men. So if that's what to put our trust on, why not join whatever cult that claims "angels" spoke to them, like for example the Jehovas witness cult?The Bible is a miracle, you have no reason ignore the Bible and put your trust in something stupid like this
>>41641221An unlimited mind >>41642278>>41642282No https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-archon-abandonment-theodicy?utm_source=publication-search
Bump in
>>41642857no u , the gitas and upanishads are the real words of god and godmen
>>41639790Evolution is guided by laws that must first be imagined and implemented. The Creator authors all laws, draws all apparent distinctions from the One, effectuates all manifest experience.
>>41643731Read the entire article
>>41639790easy to understand =/= truthwhat makes 'most sense' at first often isn't true because we, as humans, frequently miss variablesOccam's Razor is a silly concept
>>41642666>the proof that the bible is the word of god is uh... the biblethe Super Retard strikes again
>>41643851Do you deny evolution and God?
>>41643933I believe everything everyone tells me everywhere. What's your point?
>>41643940It's wrong to have a different standard of evidence for evolution or dark matter then you do for God's existence
>>41644059Evolution and dark matter only concern the content of the simulation, not the ultimate reality in which the simulation is hosted.
>>41644059>have model of existence that explains most of everything observed very well>there's a spot here in the model that suggests something is there, but we havent found it>there's no hole anywhere that suggests a God, but you can pretend there's room for one outside the modelNo difference.
