Probabilities of existence and our flawed brains

Below is part of a dialogue I have had with an atheist, so I am putting you in the middle of a conversation. I apologize for there not being the full context, but I think it is helpful regardless. I hope to write more on these subjects in the future. . . .

Part of this written dialogue is below:

At this point, I think it would be helpful to clarify where our approaches agree and disagree, so I will summarize from my perspective, and you can comment on anything you think I got wrong. This will be a long post, so I have broken it up. Here is the outline

1. WHAT IF QUETZALCOATL WROTE, “I AM GOD IN THE STARS”?
   1. Summary: God showing up would not be enough. “Empiricism” alone will not tell you whether or not God exists.
2. WHAT DOES SCIENCE TELL US?
   1. Summary: We agree that there is an all-powerful, all-creative, infinite non-contingent cause
3. WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT IF THE CAUSE WAS PERSONAL?
   1. Summary: A personal non-contingent cause must also be relational for us to know him.
4. SHOULD WE BRING OUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS
   1. Summary: Because we have flawed brains, we should not bring our assumptions into the question of God’s existence.
5. WE CANNOT ASSUME GOD’S GOAL IS FOR US TO BELIEVE HE EXISTS
   1. Summary: God’s goal is not for us to believe, but instead to have a relationship with him through the Gospel.
6. GOD IS RELATIONAL AND SPEAKS
   1. Summary: God has given us a means to test the veracity of his existence – the Bible. And this is the pivotal point where we disagree.
7. WHAT ARE THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS FOR GOD FOR ME
   1. Summary: At the moment, atheist arguments are the strongest proof for me that God exists
8. YOU MUST PROVE GOD EXISTS
   1. Summary: Blind skepticism will not accept evidence, but seeks a way to not have to deal with the evidence. Christian scholars because of the eternal consequences work hard to face the strongman arguments atheists have.
9. BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EVIDENCE
   1. Summary: The Christian God is the best explanation given the evidence that when all are added together approaches 100%.

WHAT IF QUETZALCOATL WROTE, “I AM GOD IN THE STARS”?

I appreciate your understanding that we cannot trust our brains alone. Although I do not hold to solipsism, where we agree is that our brains are severely flawed and that we are often faulty interpreters of the world around us. I think this is why you hold “empiricism” in such a high esteem. The scientific method is something outside of ourselves though not independent of the brain that helps to hold us accountable and helps to mitigate these flaws. Though not perfect it provides checks and balances and helps us to get a better foundation on what is true. Because of this we both believe that the scientific method is a reliable means of finding truth. But “empiricism” alone has its limits. You asked, “What if the stars read, ‘I am Quetzalcoatl, the flying serpent, creator of all’? would you accept this?” No, I would not. I have told you that I understand this skepticism that atheists have. My point in presenting this example of atheists saying that even if God showed up they would not believe was not to show that a certain amount of skepticism here is inappropriate, but that “empiricism” alone could not tell you the difference between whether or not this being was God or just a vastly superior being with greater technology or whether you have gone mad or not (although mass hallucinations like this don’t happen, so this really is not possible). The “Three Body Problem” fictional story even posits that a sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to alter our ability to do science. So, regardless of what “miracles” were performed or what great physical feats were presented “empiricism” will always allow for a means to not believe in God. Or in other words the “science in the gaps” will always allow for another possible explanation. If you have the perspective that as long as one can provide a “science in the gaps” argument, that that one should not believe in God, then “empiricism” will always lead to atheism. This kind of criterion is not an open-minded query, nor does it allow for the best explanation based on the data. We have both demonstrated this weakness of “empiricism”. Given this fact, it would be unwise to hold onto only “empiricism”, for it can only lead to one closed conclusion. It is clear that we need to look to more than “empiricism” to fully explore this question. In order to explore a question, one must allow for the full range of possibilities. I do believe that science provides evidence that is consistent with and points to the Christian God. But I would also argue that scholarly arguments outside of science but are well established and accepted lines of inquiry and evidence in academia provide sound evidence that the Christian God exists and give us a fuller picture of what that might mean and is a fuller explanation of the data we find, without having to appeal to an “in the gaps”.

WHAT DOES SCIENCE TELL US?

What can we know with science? I think it would be helpful to qualify what we both agree we can know through science about the creation or eternal existence of our universe. The more we learn about our universe, the more we discover that our universe has fine-tuning and design. Despite that this has been used to bolster the argument for God, an argument that has its beginnings long before we knew what we know today in science, but has grown stronger the more and more we do learn about science, because of the repeatable and measurable evidence for fine-tuning it is something that is generally agreed on within the scientific community, though the terminology may be different. This growing evidence for fine-tuning has forced atheists to address this issue and grapple with what it means. Saying fine-tuning exists doesn’t establish a cause and obviously the atheist and theist have come to different conclusions.  But both atheists and theists would agree that there must either be an eternal non-contingent cause or an eternal cyclical cause and effect. And this is where the atheists and theists look to try to explain fine-tuning. Another condition that must be met is that this non-contingent cause must be able to explain the probability that we see within the fine-tuning and design within our universe without falling into the gambler’s fallacy. This gets into a more complicated argument than we have room for here, but all this is without calculating the probabilities needed for evolution to occur or for the information found within the universe, which from what we can tell most likely cannot be preloaded into the universe at the beginning and so would be outside of the physics and cosmological constants that existed at the beginning of the universe. Here is a summary of the probabilities that must be overcome:

• Must be able to explain fine-tuning at every step.
• Must be able to overcome the gambler’s fallacy.
• Must be able to explain the directive nature of evolution and information, which from what we can tell cannot be pre-loaded into the universe at the beginning.
• Must be able to explain the information found in our universe.
• Must be able to explain design or apparent design at every step.
• Must be able to explain either the beginning or eternal aspect of nature

But to put it simply there are a lot of odds to overcome that go beyond the beginning of our universe without falling into the gambler’s fallacy. But here we come to another point where both atheists and theists agree. In order to overcome this, the non-contingent cause must be all-powerful, capable of creating infinite universes, but not only infinite universes but be able to generate a full spectrum of universes in sufficient amounts to overcome the probabilities. This can be done by either having a full spectrum infinite multi-universe generator or using a process that weeds out all other possibilities but our own before creating our universe. Currently with what we know the first option could be both impersonal or personal. The second option is most likely personal. But let’s pause on where we do agree for a moment. We both agree that our universe was created by an invisible, eternal, all-powerful force. Interestingly, this conclusion reminds me of a quote from the agnostic Robert Jastrow, “He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers” (1978), p. 116; (p. 107 in 1992 edition). What we can agree on and what we know to be true reminds me of the verse that says, “By faith we understand that the world has been created by the word of God so that what is seen has not been made out of things that are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). Neither the atheists nor theologians have specific 100% proof within science for their positions here. We just don’t know enough about science yet. But despite not having 100% proof both the scientist and the theologian believe or have faith that something eternal, all-powerful, and invisible created our universe. We agree that our universe “has not been made out things that are visible”. And we both believe that our universe was made out of something eternal and infinite. Science shows us that there is an all-powerful, eternal, invisible cause to our universe, but we still have to ask ourselves whether or not there is a personal cause behind this. Atheists believe that evidence will come to show that a self-existing multi-universe generator is possible. A directive force or a specific beginning is not something that atheists at this time support. Theists are open to either a self-existing multi-universe generator or a directive force behind our universe. I do think there are good arguments that show that science does point to God and has stronger explanatory power than that the atheist’s position, but I feel that I am not yet equipped to argue these points yet. I am still in the middle of my research, so I would rather leave the argument here, where I feel like we both have agreement. Regardless, the question remains whether or not the initial non-contingent cause of our universe is impersonal or personal. We cannot prove a non-personal or a non-relational personal cause, but if the cause is not only personal, but is also relational, we would suspect that this non-contingent cause could be found and known. But then we must ask how would this personal and relational non-contingent cause reveal himself?

WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT IF THERE IS A PERSONAL GOD?

If the non-contingent cause is personal, we would only know this if that non-contingent cause chose to reveal himself. An all-powerful being could make a universe purely using science. Therefore, for us to know God, one of the things we could expect is that this God is both personal and relational. If this personal non-contingent cause were not relational, it would also probably be a moot point, since neither the atheist nor theist could have a relationship with this kind of god. So, I would argue that if there is a God, for us to have a relationship with this god, it would be important that this god be relational. And if the cause of the universe is relational, we have to ask ourselves, how would we come to know this creator? Afterall, we have both concluded that if God showed up “empiricism” would invalidate such an attempt. Though showing up would be a means of revealing himself, we would want more, since we are dealing with our flawed brains. So how would we come to know God given our flawed brains?

SHOULD WE BRING OUR OWN PRESUMPTIONS?

One certain way to not know this God is to trust our flawed brains. Since a non-contingent cause is powerful enough to create a universe that is so far beyond us, that we are just getting started in exploring its depths, we cannot assume we can fully understand this God on our own power with our flawed brains. We would need this God to condescend and reveal to us who he is. One of the flaws of the atheist is that they bring in their own presumptions to this question. They trust their flawed brains and determine for themselves what this God ought to be like. You will often here questions phrased in the format of

1. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving etc., then he would . . . (fill in the blank)
2. Since God has not done . . . (fill in the blank), God does not exist.

Some examples are (fill in the blank) God would . . .:

• not be hidden.
• God would be clear in his revelation of himself
• would reveal himself in such and such a way.
• want me to believe.
• find a way to get me to believe.
• Prove himself 100% through empirical means.
• provide one definitive argument for God.
• not allow . . .
• not allow for suffering or evil
• not have done this.
• has not made the church I believe he said he would.
• have perfect church without disagreements on theology.
• conform to my interpretation of scripture.
• fit my expectations of what a god ought to be.
• Etc.

Like “empiricism” this approach presumes or forces a conclusion rather than performing an objective and open query. God must meet these made-up arbitrary requirements in order to exist. This is a deeply troubling approach for a group that states that they have a scientific approach and who state that we cannot trust our brains because they are flawed. These presumptions are flawed because they start with what our flawed brains assume God would be like. In my communication on the topic of the hiddenness of God I demonstrated that these presumptions are flawed and cannot stand up to scrutiny (for more go here). A scientific approach would not presume that we could bring our presumptions into this query. An all-powerful, all-creative, infinite relational being is not a “one-dimensional” being that we can presume to understand either what he is like or how this being would reveal himself. We are having enough difficulty understanding the physical universe or relationships in our lives. These are flawed arguments from flawed brains. As in science we can’t start with pre-conceived criteria or have an unmovable conclusion and expect to get anywhere. Because we have such flawed brains in order to know God, we would need something outside ourselves which like the scientific method would allow for accountability, evaluation, and testing.

WE CANNOT ASSUME GOD’S GOAL IS FOR US TO BELIEVE HE EXISTS

We will get back to the question on how God has revealed himself, but first we need to address one of the errors atheists make first. They assume the goal God has for humanity is for them to believe that he exists. Or that there ought to be some definitive absolute evidence they can look to. This is a fallacious assumption. Atheists argue that God would know how to prove that he exists, with no effort. I agree, but that is not his goal. Atheists also argue that the Bible ought to be clearer. Again, you assume God’s purpose is to be clear. It is not. His goal is not for us to believe he exists or for the church to have perfect doctrine. His goal is to bring a people into relationship with himself through the power of the gospel. In our dialogue earlier on the “hiddenness of God”, I demonstrated that these assumptions atheists make would not be the goal of a perfectly loving God. I won’t go into it and rehash those arguments here. You can reread what I sent you (or go here). But for God to be both perfectly loving to those who come to him and to those who reject him, he must be “hidden”. And this fact in itself, his “hiddenness”, is evidence for God’s existence, for only a perfectly loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God could accomplish this.

 GOD IS RELATIONAL AND SPEAKS

If God is relational, we can assume he would reveal himself. And I would argue he has in many sundry ways, some of which includes science, logic, philosophy, beauty, and personal experience. And for many this revelation is so extraordinary that it is enough for them to believe. But though he has revealed himself in these ways, these things alone can only tell us so much. For us to know God in a relational way, God must reveal himself in a relational way and in a way that does not violate his “hiddenness” which protects us. We intuitively know this in our own relationships with others. “Empiricism” is not relational. Even though we would not expect science to be inconsistent with God, if God were to reveal himself, certainly it would not be through “empiricism”, for as shown earlier “empiricism” would not be an effective means. We have both agreed that just showing up and even writing in the stars would not work. But we have also agreed that because of our flawed brains, we would want something outside of ourselves, something that can be evaluated, scrutinized, and tested. I have talked with my children on how personal experiences or hearing a “voice from heaven” would not be a valid means in of itself for God to reveal himself, since it is limited in the ways it could be evaluated or tested. People are flawed. There are conditions where people here voices that are not real. Many have “heard god”, only for it to be clear that they had not, whether from madness, selfishness manipulation, or from other voices. And our feelings and experiences as well can skew our thinking. And from these experiences there are many religions in the world. How do we know which one is true?

We must be careful not to take this too far and on the other side to say things like science and experience are not useful in coming to know God. Like science, experiences can point us to God, and we would expect these things to be consistent with God, but also like science because of our flawed brains we would need to be cautious. For example, the fine-tuning, design, and information arguments are extremely powerful arguments for God that have only grown stronger the more we have learned about science. But I think for the both of us, we would like to something more, we want something that takes into account our flawed brains, something that is subject to scrutiny and rigorous analysis and evaluation, after all how would we distinguish it from all the other religions as the true religion. Thankfully, God does not intend for us to rely on our flawed brains. The most powerful means by which God has revealed himself to us is through the Bible. The Bible is something that can be scrutinized, evaluated, and tested to see if its claims hold up and are true. It can be evaluated against other religions. It can be evaluated against science, logic, philosophy, and academia. It is something that can be evaluated outside our flawed brains. The reason I would not believe in Quetzalcoatl in the scenario above is because there is no such evidence. If Jesus showed up on the other hand I would already have enough vast and extraordinary evidence to believe.

And here is the pivotal point where we disagree. You do not believe that the Bible holds up to scrutiny. I believe it does. You don’t believe that the Bible conforms with the world you see around you, with science, or even is consistent with itself. I on the other hand do believe that the Bible is consistent with the world I see around me, with science, and is consistent with itself.

WHAT IS MY STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR GOD – ATHIEST ARGUMENTS

You asked me what my strongest argument for God is. For me it is the integrity of the Bible. A follow up question might be what for me is the strongest argument for the integrity of the Bible. At this moment, for me, the strongest argument for the integrity of the Bible are atheist arguments. I have mentioned to you before that I believe in putting the strong men in the ring and letting them fight to the death. Atheist arguments rather than doing this stick a strawman in the ring and fight against that. Within this group though I have not read everything posted, from what I have read, I have not seen one argument that actually attacks the Christian faith or the Bible. We have both determined that the brain is flawed and is often not a reliable interpreter of the data. There are both atheists and theists who believe in a “flat earth” and they claim to have science to back them up. You will say that they are not using science correctly. Bingo! This is my point. When atheists make claims against the veracity of the Bible, they fail to use the Bible correctly, just as flat earthers fail to use science correctly. This is why when coming to the scriptures we must rely on proper hermeneutics and rigorous scholarship and an open mind. It is clear when atheists talk about the Bible, they have no clue what they are talking about, nor does it seem that they are willing to do the arduous work to understand. You state that there are 1000s of inconsistencies in the Bible. Let’s be honest, we both know that there are only a handful worth talking about, and of those none of them touch doctrine or faith. What I have found in atheists’ arguments is a very narrow understanding of the Christian faith and a lack of engagement with the robust scholarship within Christian community to the point where most of the arguments I have come across can only be described as slander. Sure, perusing the internet or social media you will find poor Christian answers, but I am talking about the well-studied, professionally researched, scholastic work that has been done. The stuff that requires more than a casual engagement and requires years and years of challenging work. When I sent you a link to videos, you said there were a lot. The reality is you will probably not do the hard work. And I understand the challenge and the difficulty of what I ask, you are a busy person. And what I sent was basic stuff, it would only begin to touch the work done to answer atheists’ questions. But this is the type of scholastic work that atheists fail to address against the Christian faith, because they don’t have the inclination to do this kind of work. Because you have not done the work, you have not been able to present a legitimate argument against the Bible or the Christian faith.

And this is why I believe the Bible; it has been tested. It has been tested by the harshest critics, the strongest strongmen atheists have to offer, and it has stood up to that test. You have not been able to provide not even one valid argument against the Christian faith but insist on believing that you do have a good argument. On the other hand, Atheist arguments have consistently demonstrated errors in logic and scholarship. Here are a few.

Places where Atheists violate proper literary textual analysis

• Authorial intent errors
• Cultural
• Wooden literalism
• Assumption of presentism
• Genre Fallacy
• Contextual analysis error
• Etymology error
• Synchronic meaning error
• Syntactic Fallacy
• Symantec range Fallacy
• Argument of Silence Fallacy
• Description is not prescription
• Assume a different definition
• Assume a static scene
• False dilemma
• Fallacy of false equivocation
• Elephant hurling
• Species fallacy
• Sweeping generalization fallacy
• Subset fallacy
• Genetic Fallacy

YOU MUST PROVE GOD EXISTS

You will say, “Well it is on you to prove to me that God exists. I have a lack of belief, It should not be hard to prove your case”. Have you ever tried to reason with someone who believes in a “flat earth”? The reason people believe in the “flat earth” is not because they are stupid. The problem is actually the opposite. The problem is that our flawed brains are quite intelligent and able to come up with arguments to support what we believe. Despite the evidence you give “flat earthers”, and despite the fact that it is common sense evidence, they are smart enough are able to come up with an answer to why that evidence is irrelevant, without having to actually address the evidence itself. And this is often how blind skepticism works. Most of the arguments you have given me are reasons why you don’t have to evaluate the evidence. If skepticism is your foundation, evidence becomes a lot less relevant in the discussion. Whatever evidence is produced, blind skepticism can explain it away or ignore it, without facing and addressing the actual arguments or evidence.

You might ask, “How do I know that I have not done the same with my arguments for God?” Because I and other Christian scholars work hard to try to understand the depths of atheists’ arguments and represent them fairly. If I have misunderstood one of your arguments, I want to know. Remember we have stronger eternal motives in wanting to convince atheists to believe in God. We cannot do this well if we don’t understand what atheists believe and actually address the questions they are having. Good Christian scholars work hard to put the strongest man for the atheists in the ring. Not only do they try to fully address atheist strong man arguments, but they also try to make atheist arguments even stronger. Christian scholars work hard to allow atheists to put the strong man into the ring. I don’t see the same rigor among atheists. Again, I have not seen one post in this group that actually attacks the Christian faith. After seeing the Bible time and time again put these strongman arguments to death, you start to develop a trust in its veracity. When time and time again you see atheists putting strawman and fallacious reasoning into the ring, the less and less you feel like you can take their arguments seriously. I believe the Bible because there are objective means outside my brain that allow me to test its veracity. Christianity is probably the most scrutinized religion and the Bible the most scrutinized book. Both have held against that scrutiny. And I am not talking about the fact that Christianity still exists. I am talking about the fact that Christianity actually addresses strong man arguments put up against it. Take our conversations, I have been able to demonstrate several points of fallacious reasoning within your arguments. I don’t think my arguments are perfect either, but you have not been able to do the same with my arguments.

BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EVIDENCE

Why do I believe in God. I believe in God because given the evidence in the science, in philosophy, in psychology, in history, in art, the presence of evil, morality, ethics, personal experience and the experience of others, and in the Bible, the Christian God has the fullest and best explanatory power for what I see in this world. I can’t give you one definitive proof that God exists, but all these things put together the probability that God exists approaches 100%.

How would I convince you that there is a God? I don’t know. I am not naive, just as “flat earthers” have their answers to evidence presented to them, so too atheists have their answers. The reality is I am not going to be able to provide you a one fits all definitive argument to suddenly convince you that God exists. This is not how our flawed brains work. This is not how you would convince a “flat earther” even though we both know that the evidence for the globe is overwhelming and is absolutely right. I think these things just happen over time as we dialogue.  But I suppose this is not surprising if God cares more about relationship than belief.