Signs of God?
Andy Wineman writes:
[S]ince God is infinite and we are finite, if God wanted to make himself known he would have to make his presence clear. So, are there any signs that point to the reality of God? Winfried Corduan put it this way, "...we can look at the world and see if the world is constructed in such a way that it is reasonable to believe that there must be a God." Just as the hunter follows the trail of an animal that he has yet to see--paw prints, clumps of fur, broken branches--we are looking for the fingerprint of God in the physical world.
Of course, when a hunter tracks his prey it's usually pretty clear what he is tracking. You don't typically have a hunting party in the forest where one person thinks they are following a zebra, another is certain that they are following a duck, and the third is convinced that the other two will burn in hell for all eternity for not recognizing that they are hot on the trail of an albino eel with three eyes and a pink moustache. That, however, is very much the situation we have with religion today.
So much for this alleged god making its presence "clear."
First, the world seems to work according to the universal law of cause and effect. That is, every observable effect must have had an initial "push" by some agent or cause. Every "thing" (a highly scientific term) that we observe is dependent upon other "things" for its existence. For example, children are dependent on parents and the earth is dependent on the sun. Thinking all the way back to the first event, it could be asked, who was the cause? This is where it appears that there must be a being that is "uncaused." Philosophers like to call this a necessary being. Could that be God?
I find it interesting that a document purporting to demonstrate the existence of "signs" or "evidences" of God would start out by offering something that isn't in any way, shape, or form a "sign" of a god. What we have here is the First Cause Argument, a logical argument for the existence of some First Cause that Christians today like to identify (for no good reason) with their god. This argument is no more a "sign" of their god (or any god) than is the Ontological Argument. These arguments rely upon the persuasive power of reasoning and logic, not the presence of empirical evidence.
I say that I find it "interesting" because for the author not to realize this basic fact casts a pall over the entire piece. I'm not sure he understands what he should be doing here.
A second sign that should be considered is what scientists today are calling the marks of Intelligent Design. The suggestion is that the universe exhibits purpose, design, and intent.
Since when do "suggestions" become "signs" of the existence of a god? It's correct to say that some people are suggesting that the universe exhibits things like purpose and design, but such suggestions are debatable at best — in truth, it's difficult to credit them with much substance at all.
A third mark has to do with the moral foundation of the universe. C. S. Lewis referred to this as the "law of human nature." This is not to say that people everywhere are in agreement on all moral values, but that everyone does tend to live by certain common moral principles.
Insofar as there is commonality in human moral principles, this isn't necessarily a sign of any gods. To claim this, one must first demonstrate that any other candidates (like evolution, common human nature) are either definitely untrue or, at the very least, highly unlikely.
Read More:
Comments
I would like to first say that reading this article was a complete waste of my time. When I first read the title I thought I would be educated in understanding an atheist’s view of God, however, I was deeply disappointed. Austin Cline quotes and critizes Theists without reading they’re work. For instance, the passage from Wineman was stating that an hunter looks for evidence of they’re prey’s existence, yet Cline interrupts that as the hunter doesn’t know what they’re hunting for and is simply hunting for anything. Cline also takes passages from an author and goes off talking about how incompetent they are and refuting they’re evidence. Furthermore, throughout this article Cline never gives any evidence of that would reject Theists’ proofs of “signs” of God.
Why?
I don’t believe that God exists — that’s my view of God. This article, however, clearly isn’t about “God” but rather about a particular theistic argument.
Can you support this claim?
How is this a “for instance” of how I have not read the work in question?
Yes, I do refute what the author says — in particular, I point out that the author doesn’t actually provide any evidence, which is what we should expect in an article purporting to offer “signs” of some god.
A refutation of alleged proof of a “sign” of a god would depend upon the nature of the alleged go in question and the alleged signs in question. No simple article like this could possibly do what you seem to expect. If you are interested in particular atheistic arguments and/or refutations of particular theistic arguments, I can show you were they are located.
Why did I think it this was a waste of my time?
I gained nothing by reading this article. Whether this article is about God or not, that’s fine I really didn’t think too much about it.
Can I support my claim?
Yes, I can. If you had read the first passage you quoted, you would have noticed (like I said before) that hunter does know what they are hunting for. Whereas you said:
“Of course, when a hunter tracks his prey it’s usually pretty clear what he is tracking. You don’t typically have a hunting party in the forest where one person thinks they are following a zebra, another is certain that they are following a duck, and the third is convinced that the other two will burn in hell for all eternity for not recognizing that they are hot on the trail of an albino eel with three eyes and a pink moustache.”
However, I could have misinterpreted what you meant and your tone of voice about this, but if that’s the case I don’t understand what you’re getting at then. Should this Theist not make examples like that or what?
“No simple article like this could possibly do what you seem to expect.”
Why not? It would be great if you could show me where I could find atheistic arguments and refuations of particular theistic arguments.
What did you expect to gain, and why?
Of course a hunter knows what they at tracking. I said so. This is different from the situation with religion, though, because the “hunters” (religious believers) all think they are tracking completely different things. It’s like a hunting party where one thinks they are tracking a duck, another thinks they are tacking a zebra, and a third thinks they are after salmon. This is why the analogy being offered is not only bad, but very bad.
Why: because the article would have to address alleged signs of every alleged god. That’s a topic too much for a single book, much less a single article.
Well, on this site you can follow the Does God Exist? link where you will find links for Arguments for God and Arguments Against God, among other things. Internet Infidels also has quite a lot.
Defining events after they have occurred, (after the fact or “a posteriori”) will be inherently biased by the person’s belief system. For example, two people out of 200 are the sole survivors of a plane crash. One person feels that he was spared by God. One person feels that it was just plain luck that spared him.
Who’s right?
This is a nonsequitor. A question that should not even be asked. The real question should be, “Can an objective observer provide a valid and reliable test of both theories?”
Can one prove that an outcome was due to luck; i.e., a chance event, or was a deterministic or stochastic event?
Absolutely!
The probability of any event occurring by chance alone, no matter how rare, can be calculated. Where people err is to think that extremely small probabilities are evidence of God at work when they could easily be explained by random events.
On the contrary, the evidence for God is found in high probabilities of specific events occurring in sequence. Meaning, that one has to be able to predict them, with high probability, on the basis of a set of rules that defines how God works. These rules would make a clear distinction between God-initiated and Nature-initiated events.
Can you cite any examples?
This assumes that we know of some “god” such that we can say anything about how it is supposed to “work.” Do we?
I was born in Devils Lake ND. The first thing I remember in my life I was 4. It was a house fire in Minot ND. It was an American Indian family. I remember the terrible smell and the mother crying for her baby. I had nightmares for a while then there was a flood and my nightmares stopped.I almost 43 and I reside in the Eden Valley now in Wyoming. Easter Sunday I started recieving knowledge of Jesus from the Holy Spirit. He told me Im a tool to help people believe when Jesus comes again. Im positive there is a God and we will be finding out soon all about Him and Jesus Christ.
I’m sorry but i really didnt’ follow your article. It didn’t really make any sense at all to me. idk maybe i just didnt’ click with you about what you were talking about. I believe in God and i believe in signs and that everything happens for a reason but your example sucked.