Many atheists claim that the various proofs for the existence of God do not work. Why not? Because:
• "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Actually, this is a sound concept. If someone tells me that they just
met the real Santa Claus and saw him ascend with his team of reindeer, I
would require more than a photo as evidence. After all, photos can be
doctored.
However, this sound principle fails to work when applied to the theistic proofs. This is because the existence of a Creator God has only one other competitor – naturalism (everything was created naturally without any intelligence or design). Therefore, the question of God’s existence should be restated:
• Which is more reasonable and evidential – that this world is maintained and designed intelligently or non-intelligently?
In light of this restatement, I find naturalism more extraordinary than supernaturalism (ID). There is not one shred of evidence that anything has ever happened naturally (without intelligence), meanwhile, there is a lot of evidence that events or things have intelligent causes.
However, this sound principle fails to work when applied to the theistic proofs. This is because the existence of a Creator God has only one other competitor – naturalism (everything was created naturally without any intelligence or design). Therefore, the question of God’s existence should be restated:
• Which is more reasonable and evidential – that this world is maintained and designed intelligently or non-intelligently?
In light of this restatement, I find naturalism more extraordinary than supernaturalism (ID). There is not one shred of evidence that anything has ever happened naturally (without intelligence), meanwhile, there is a lot of evidence that events or things have intelligent causes.
No comments:
Post a Comment