An Abductive Argument for Theism

[Scotsmanmatt]

This is a work in progress abductive argument for the existence of God composed as an alternative to Sigfried's 12 Observations that seeks to provide abductive argument against the existence of God.

Abductive arguments seek to provide the best explanation for something or somethings.

In this argument there at thirteen things proposed for which the claim is that they are best explained by the existence of God.

The format is to first define God, then provide the thirteen things claimed to be best explained by the existence of God, with summary of how that would be supported.

In the argument God is being minimally defined as 'any currently existing seriously proposed God by established theisms'.
This definition is to exclude ad hoc invented gods being constructed for arguments sake.

Theism gives the best fit for all of the following:

1. the three fundamental laws of thought: law of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity [absolute in extents, discovered, not invented, invioable and necessary, reflecting the rational mind of God]
2. the power of mathematics to accurately describe the universe [to the extent we can make theoretical mathematical models that are then confirmed experimentally, sometimes with the latter being years after the former again reflecting the rational mind of God]
3. knowledge itself, for with theism it has an external source for how we can know anything and, indeed reason, things which on atheism have no readier explanation [supported by the transcendantal and other arguments]
4. Consciousness – which remains a mystery even in science but has ready explanation with theism [On theism, since we are created in God's image, a ready source and explanation for consciousness]
5. Intentional states, giving account of how we can think about things, even ourselves and our own thoughts. [argument can be provided]
6. The origins and beginning of the universe, supported from philosophy and science. [Kalam Cosmological Argument]
7. Why something exists and not nothing [Liebnizian cosmological argument]
8. The fine tuning of the fundamental constants for life and discoverability [telelogical arguments]
9. Objective moral laws and duties [argument can be provided]
10. Accepted facts about Jesus by the majority of scholars on his life. [minimalist facts about Jesus argument]
11. The human condition, why we never get to a perfectly good life. [On theisms with original or propensity to sin due to our nature, best explained than anything from atheism/naturalism]
12. The universal predispotion of humans towards some kind of god. [argument from innate theism]
13. Religious experience, miracles, answered prayers [examples in plentiful supply]

This is but the summary argument but I think a) this list could be added to and at least doubled in number b) a good case can be made for each point better than what has been produced by the abductive argument for atheism

[theophilus]

Why do you waste your time presenting arguments for God's existence when God himself has provided proof of his existence?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(Romans 1:19-21 ESV)

Anyone who rejects God's revelation isn't likely to be convinced by human arguments. Rather than debating those who reject the truth it would be better to pray that God will open their minds to accept the truth they already have. Jesus said that no one can come to God unless he is drawn by God.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
(John 6:44 ESV)

[Scotsmanmatt]

Why do you waste your time presenting arguments for God's existence when God himself has provided proof of his existence?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(Romans 1:19-21 ESV)

Anyone who rejects God's revelation isn't likely to be convinced by human arguments. Rather than debating those who reject the truth it would be better to pray that God will open their minds to accept the truth they already have. Jesus said that no one can come to God unless he is drawn by God.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
(John 6:44 ESV)

I don't consider it a waste of time to present reasons for the hope that is within me or to earnestly contend for the faith, especially on a forum called onlinedebate

[SadElephant]

I don't consider it a waste of time to present reasons for the hope that is within me or to earnestly contend for the faith, especially on a forum called onlinedebate

I trust that you know that no one disputes your personal beliefs or faith! That said, if that's all you have, then how can you possibly hope to persuade others that don't already have a pre existing personal belief or faith?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scotsmanmatt]

I trust that you know that no one disputes your personal beliefs or faith! That said, if that's all you have, then how can you possibly hope to persuade others that don't already have a pre existing personal belief or faith?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Read the OP and you'll see that's not all I have

[SadElephant]

Read the OP and you'll see that's not all I have

I don't really see anything more than speculation and thoughts and philosophies and ideas. There's a serious lack of any argument that's based on something material, which is odd considering we are talking about a material thing - the universe.

Unfortunately, you have already revealed the secret: which is that these are reasons to justify a pre-existing belief. Your very definition of God alludes to believers and faith holders.

I have no problems with that - you're entitled of course to justify your world-view in any way you wish and you may well have a good argument for justifying theism - the belief in God. But let's not confuse that with actually showing God actually exists. All you're really doing is saying that believers exist and they have reasons to justify their pre-existing beliefs. What else is there to say, other than, good for you!

Nevertheless, I would be interested to see how the fine tuning argument really works. In my other current dialog with MindTrap (best name ever!) he appears to show it to be based on an appeal to incredulity and a possible misunderstanding of evolution.

[Sigfried]

Why do you waste your time presenting arguments for God's existence when God himself has provided proof of his existence?

What do you say to the billions of people searching for god but god reveals to them that his nature is different than god reveals to you?

---------- Post added at 08:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

ScotsmanMat: I was kind of excited by this but a little disappointed. Without being familiar with any/all of these (mixed bag for me) I can't really comment on them. Its not really clear how they fit theism especially well. I'll see what I can do none the less. It will no doubt take a lot of research on my part. (not always a bad thing, just not too convinient for me)

[Scotsmanmatt]

What do you say to the billions of people searching for god but god reveals to them that his nature is different than god reveals to you?

---------- Post added at 08:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

ScotsmanMat: I was kind of excited by this but a little disappointed. Without being familiar with any/all of these (mixed bag for me) I can't really comment on them. Its not really clear how they fit theism especially well. I'll see what I can do none the less. It will no doubt take a lot of research on my part. (not always a bad thing, just not too convinient for me)

Each of them, are in isolation arguably best explained by the existence of God and each of them has philosophical arguments in support of them.
That immediately makes them superior to anything you offered which was bereft of such philosophical supporting arguments
All of them taken together provides a foreceful case that the best fit for these very important matters (many of them) is God with naturalism or atheism being vacuous in even attempt to provide explanation for them.

That's how the reasoning goes, whether it stands up to logical scutiny is another question

[Sigfried]

I'll do these one at a time, though not promising to address them all. Some of these topics have spawned their own piles of well-worn debate arguments and each is really a host of observations, assumptions and claims packed into one definition. You are steeped in classic philosophy, I am not. So I'm at something of a disadvantage in understanding in more common terms what you are claiming. I'll none the less try, but on my own terms.

1. the three fundamental laws of thought: law of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity [absolute in extents, discovered, not invented, invioable and necessary, reflecting the rational mind of God]

So you observe that two contradictory things cannot both be true, that a think with an identity is not also another identity, and that something must either be true or not. You then say that this is a good fit with a rational existent god.

For starters, I have a question...
1. What would preclude an entirely rational universe from existing of its own accord? What principle states that anything that exists must be patterned on another thing? Why cannot a thing be a unique example of some property?
(It seems to me, without some established principle we have no reason to say that a rational world follows from a rational god, much less nessesitates one. We know a rational human painter can create an irrational painting. An irrational person is also capable of creating rational order by chance or circumstance.)

Rebuttal 1: Quantum uncertainty is contrary to these logical truths
Identity is a question of property, and the properties of quantum objects are ingerently uncertain, thus their identity is uncertain. The properties of possition and momentun are such that its exact momentum and possition is both true and not true simultaneously.
This renders the observation non universal which is its claim.

Rebuttal 2: Natural reality explians these logical laws as well as anything. (Quantum uncertainty aside for now) These observations of logical truth follow from expereince as much as anything. I am either here or not here. I am me, not anyone else. A given rock is this rock and not another. THe rock cannot be here and not be here at the same time and so on. The only way we know these are truths is they are never violated in our expereince. This could be true simply in a universe that has this state and was not created by any intelligent agent. It may in fact be that without mind, everything must always be intrisicly true to what it is. Only with uncertainty or illogic can something be false and these seem to be properties exclusive to thinking minds. Why would the only thing capable of illogic be responsible for a world in which logic is steadfast?

Rebuttal 3: (related to my question): I would contend from ovservation that a logical mind can create illogical things. So a logical god could create an illogical universe as easily as a logical one. No principle we know prevents this. Thus it doesn't follow there is any especially good fit.

Rebuttal 4: Since we have no principle by which like must create like, or like can only be made from like, (in fact we ovserve this can in fact be defied), occams razor, the principle of the simplist solution calls that a universe that simply exists in the state we find it is a simpler therefore better explination than it was created from some other more complicated and wonderous entity.

---------- Post added at 09:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------

That immediately makes them superior to anything you offered which was bereft of such philosophical supporting arguments

How can you demonstrate that a philisophical argument is better than some other type of argument?

[Bannedfrommany]

1. the three fundamental laws of thought: law of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity [absolute in extents, discovered, not invented, invioable and necessary, reflecting the rational mind of God]

could be a random phenomena that we got lucky to have, and from an evolutionary perspective this would support adaptation.

2. the power of mathematics to accurately describe the universe [to the extent we can make theoretical mathematical models that are then confirmed experimentally, sometimes with the latter being years after the former again reflecting the rational mind of God]

could be argued that we simply used mathematics to explain a random universe

3. knowledge itself, for with theism it has an external source for how we can know anything and, indeed reason, things which on atheism have no readier explanation [supported by
the transcendantal and other arguments]

to know? or simply explain the process of thought in simplistic nature: as thought could be seen as a chemical process.

4. Consciousness – which remains a mystery even in science but has ready explanation with theism [On theism, since we are created in God's image, a ready source and explanation for consciousness]

You got me there

5. Intentional states, giving account of how we can think about things, even ourselves and our own thoughts. [argument can be provided]

or an illusion that we control our emotions when it was simply a chemical calming us down.

6. The origins and beginning of the universe, supported from philosophy and science. [Kalam Cosmological Argument]

it could have been the concept of mass came about into existence out of opposition to void, god not needed there.

7. Why something exists and not nothing [Liebnizian cosmological argument]

why nothing exists and not something though...like in impossible equations. Or the concept of something being eternal to prove nothingness.

8. The fine tuning of the fundamental constants for life and discoverability [telelogical arguments]

the one in a millionth still exists unfortunately for there to be the same in nature through chance.

9. Objective moral laws and duties [argument can be provided]

terrorism.

10. Accepted facts about Jesus by the majority of scholars on his life. [minimalist facts about Jesus argument]

same amount on the other side

11. The human condition, why we never get to a perfectly good life. [On theisms with original or propensity to sin due to our nature, best explained than anything from atheism/naturalism]

lack of empathy from population issues...

12. The universal predispotion of humans towards some kind of god. [argument from innate theism]

like addiction?

13. Religious experience, miracles, answered prayers [examples in plentiful supply]

Observational, non-clinical.

I'm christian BTW, and the only thing here is consciousness, as that is out spirit. This soul is what God cares about, and therefore only gave the proof for IT and HIM, and nothing else in my opinion. but a prayer not be prayed on this forum...at least from anyone skeptical...