Eps 1: Does God exist

Does God exist

Host image: StyleGAN neural net
Content creation: GPT-2, transformers, CTRL

Host

Vincent Jensen

Vincent Jensen

Podcast Content
In this essay, Dr. Craig offers three reasons life is meaningless without God, and then presents five powerful arguments in favor of the existence of God, showing how it is rational to believe God exists. The atheistic conclusion is that both arguments and evidence suggest there is not sufficient reason to believe any God exists, and personal subjective religious experiences reveal something about human experience, not about the nature of reality itself; thus, one has no reason to believe a God exists. It is certainly possible that the arguments in favor of Gods existence may offer some evidence for the existence of gods, in the sense that the arguments enhance the likelihood or plausibility of claiming God exists, even though the arguments themselves provide not sufficient support for full-fledged belief in the existence of God.
Like the other moral arguments for the existence of God, this argument could be stated very simply in a propositional way, and I think Swinburne is correct that this argument is better understood as a probabilistic argument appealing to God for providing a better account of moral knowledge than is possible in a naturalistic universe. God provides a better explanation for the existence of objective moral facts. The argument is that, absent God, moral values are not objective in this respect.
Without God, there is no absolute right or wrong which is forcing itself upon our consciousness. It is true that if there is no God, no creator to establish rules, we are left morally in limbo. Perhaps we cannot hope for happiness to properly proportion with virtue in the real world if there is no God, but our duty then may only be to achieve happiness to the extent possible by moral means.
If there is no God, there is, in the end, no hope for relief from the deficiencies of our finite existence. Or, alternatively, if there is no God, there is no hope for salvation from aging, sickness, and death. If the lawgiver does not exist, believers and nonbelievers are in the same boat: each is losing.
As I mentioned at the outset, belief in God remains perfectly rational and rational, even in the absence of such evidence. Even though our proofs for the Lawgivers existence prevent us from seeing, touching, or hearing God, there is a strong case for believing He exists. When it comes to the likelihood that God exists, Scripture says there are some people who have seen enough proof, yet have suppressed the truth of God.1 On the other hand, to those who wish to know God, whether he is present, God says, You shall search after me, and you shall find me; and when you search after me with all your heart, I shall find him. Even though the evidences for and against the existence of God are exactly the same, I believe the rational course is to trust Him.
Whichever way you look at it--the evidence in the Bible, the impossibly complex, organized information found in living things, or the origins of the Universe--belief in the one, powerful, all-knowing Creator God revealed in Scripture makes sense, and is the only plausible explanation. Some agnostics argue that there is really no way to know anything about God with certainty, that all we can do is speculate. Other people think that it is really hard to know for sure, or to prove that there is a god -- that is what agnostics are called. Others believe there is something outside of the natural world, although we cannot fully comprehend it, a god or gods who are responsible for everything - they are called theists.
Others prefer to look outside science, but they also, for a variety of reasons, do not believe in a supernormal entity or force. For instance, some doubt that there is a good God in a world with evil. Most thoughtful people realize this, so those who think there is no god choose to describe themselves as agnostics instead of atheists . In other words, the presuppositionalists do not think the existence of God can be proven through appeals to uninterpreted, raw, or raw facts, and these are the meanings the people who hold radically different views would make, since they deny such conditions are even possible.
Our claim is that people who deny that there is any god either do not see evidence for it, or have adopted bad science and/or bad theology, making science and faith enemies. What is right is to point to human experience, logic, and empirical evidence in order to inform an answer. Arguments for the existence of God typically begin with logical arguments. For most of its history, Christianity, in particular, has been preoccupied with whether Godas existence can be established on rational grounds or by religious experience or revelation, or whether it has to be accepted as a matter of faith.
That Christianitys essential nature, which emerged from Judaism, has shown such remarkable resilience despite the phenomenal political, economic, intellectual, and other radical changes of the modern era is one more reason that I propose to believe that Gods existence is highly probable. It is plausible to assume that human morality is a fingerprint from the moral God who created us. As an atheist, the other leading philosopher does not suggest a religious faith as an alternative, but I would suggest that the supernatural nature of human conscious operation provides grounds to increase the likelihood that there is a supernatural god. Arguments meeting these standards may be valuable for making belief in God plausible to some, and indeed in giving knowledge about the existence of God to some, even if it turns out that some premises in the arguments could reasonably be rejected by others, and so the arguments do not work as evidence.