The strength I see in materialism is that it doesn't require us to believe in any specific unseen variable, especially one whose existence could not be empirically or logically demonstrated.
When has materialism empirically or logically demonstrated that the Universe has a material cause? When has materialism empirically or logically demonstrated that living beings arose from non-living matter? When has materialism empirically or logically demonstrated that Intelligence arose from non-intelligent matter? How does materialism empirically or logically demonstrate that the Laws of Logic are products of the human mind?
Your worldview rests on assumptions. You assume that since the universe exists, it must have a materialistic origin. You assume that life exists so it must have its origin from non-living matter. You assume that we are intelligent beings so intelligence must have originated from non-intelligent matter. The Laws of Logic exist so they must exist because human's developed language to express them. However, all of these are not based on anything that can be empirically or logically demonstrated.
The Christian worldview isn't resting on an unseen variable. The Christian who has experienced God, knows of His existence. I am not claiming that is anything at all to the unbeliever. I am only showing the Christian worldview as it relates to the reality of the universe. So as a Christian that has the knowledge that God exists, there are certain things that would be seen in the universe according to the Theology of Christianity. We should see a universe that had a beginning which came from nothing.
Translated into statements about the real universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself begins at this point. Paul Davies.
We should see a universe that is governed by Laws and is uniform, orderly, and intelligible.
I won't provide anything for this since we both agree with this.
We should see God's design in the universe.
“In order to make a universe as big and wonderful as it is, lasting as long as it is—we’re talking fifteen billion years and we’re talking huge distances here—in order for it to be that big, you have to make it perfectly. Otherwise, imperfections would mount up and the universe would either collapse on itself or fly apart, and so it’s actually quite a precise job. And I don’t know if you’ve had discussions with people about how critical it is that the density of the universe come out so close to the density that decides whether it’s going to keep expanding forever or collapse back, but we know it’s within one percent.”
George Smoot in an interview with Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 168
“If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”
Milton Rothman
“What Went Before?”
Free Inquiry, vol. 13, no. 1 (Winter, 1992/93), p.12
Context: George Smoot commenting on the discovery by the COBE Science Working Group of the expected “ripples” in the microwave background radiation. He called these fluctuations “the fingerprints from the Maker.” Smoot draws attention not only to the fact that his team had provided more evidence for the creation event, but for a “finely orchestrated” creation event. Stephen Hawking was so impressed with this finding that he called it “the most important discovery of the century, if not of all time.”
Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, p. 177
Now for some that don't have the religious bias.
“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron …. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”
Stephen Hawking
Paul Davies has moved from promoting atheism to conceding that "the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." (Superforce, p. 243) He further testifies, "[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all ... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming." (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)
Paul Davies
Superforce, p. 243
The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203
The point is that the appearance of design is there. Which is what we should see within the Christian worldview.
We see the Laws of Logic which are invariant, absolute and universal. In Christian theology we are made in the image of God and think His thoughts after Him. You agree that these laws are invariant, absolute and universal. Christianity has a reason for this to be the case.
The universe is comprehensible. In Christian theology, considering we think after God we should be able to understand the universe. Why in a materialistic worldview, would human kind have the ability to understand the universe? What connects man's mind to the comprehensibility of the universe?
We design in the same ways that we find in the natural world. Even before we find them in nature. Like I used before the flagellum motor.
Add to this, we should see Jesus being a person in history that was crucified.
Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.... Tacitus
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. Pliny the younger
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy." Babylonian Talmud
he Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. Lucian Samosata
Its weakness is, as you have recognized, that it does not soundly provide an account for the peculiar experience of consciousness. However, I find this weakness to be a lesser one than that of a paradigm that does require belief in something that cannot be empirically or logically demonstrated, and uses that to solve certain conundrums of philosophy and science. Either one is going to end up justifying itself circularly, but mine is the more conservative option. This applies to every point you’ve brought up in support of Christianity, ie design, intelligibility of the universe, fine tuning, etc. You may have an elegant and desirable solution to the questions of the universe, but it has no advantage over an incomplete, nontheistic worldview if it can't be demonstrated to be true.
I should have just had this in the above quote. I can demonstrate how the Christian worldview has more likelihood of being true according to what we find in reality vs. materialism. Yes, both suffer circular argumentation, but rather than yours being a more conservative option, yours rests on a foundation of assumption. Why in materialism is there a universe that exists? Why in materialism is the universe intelligible to human kind, why in materialism does the universe appear to be designed, why in materialism is there life, why in materialism is there intelligent life? Why in materialism are there LOL that must be obeyed? Unfortunately, none of these questions can be demonstrated by the materialistic worldview to be answered at all. In fact, reality..i.e that a universe exists which also appears to be designed (no reason from materialism), that there is life yet it must be somehow produced by non-living matter in materialism, intelligence exists but intelligence must arise from non-intelligent matter(in materialism) and LOL which are invariable, absolute and universal must come from variable, non-absolute and individual humans in the materialistic worldview. Materialism doesn't comport with what we find in reality.
It appears you disagree that God's existence cannot be logically demonstrated, and the first step in your logical proof is that the LOL are absolute, necessary, and universal laws that we must obey to have rational thought. I agree with this premise in the general sense that we can't be rational without applying the laws of logic, and they are axiomatically true, but this is an analytical proposition. Analytical propositions are all about definitions and relationships between different concepts, not anything that exists concretely in reality. The Laws of Logic are labeled as "true" in the same way that definitions are labeled "true." We have to label them such in order to use them. That doesn't make them true in any sense beyond their utility. Any objection you could have to the LOL not being true would have to appeal to their utility to be at all compelling. So, I don't think you can draw any logical conclusion regarding the existence of God from a pure recognition of the truth of the laws of logic, but I'm all ears.
So labels make them true? You are stuck in the use of the LOL rather than the origination of them. We don't just decide or accept that we are going to label true as true or define true as the definition of true. True is the reality of truth.
So, we have conclusive evidence that evolution took/takes place. That’s uncontroversial in the scientific community. We observe varying degrees of rational behavior - which we infer is the result of rational thought - in other animals, as the article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy I provided earlier explains. This, paired with the correlation between brain function and cognitive faculties in humans and other animals leads to the inference that consciousness, like any other trait, is evolutionary in origin.
So we observe rational behavior, how does that equate to a full blown consciousness. There is a big gap between other animal species and our own consciousness. There has not been found a correlation between brain function and consciousness in humans let alone any pathway from other animal behaviors to human consciousness. What you are doing again is assuming. You assume that since genetic evolution happens, animals seem to exhibit some behavior that we observe to be rational (although, we have no way of assessing their thoughts) it must be assumed that we evolved consciousness. It doesn't necessarily follow. We don't have a correlation between brain function and consciousness, that is the first assumption. The second is that if evolution is true it must have evolved, the next assumption is that they think like we do, the thoughts we think we observe in other animals have no empirical method to determine what and if they think thoughts the way we think thoughts.
These two subjects actually swallow up a lot of what we’ve been discussing throughout so I’m going to skip past a few paragraphs. Feel free to bring up anything you feel I’ve neglected to address.
No problem.
I used to use a similar kind of “well, it’s your funeral if you don’t believe me” rhetoric when I was a Christian, and looking back it’s become clear to me that this move was less about my concern for my interlocutors and more about my own fear of being persuaded away from the faith that promised eternal life and threatened eternal damnation. I’m not saying that’s the case for you, but your reply evoked a blast from the past for me. For the record, just as I’m discussing it with you, I’m fully prepared to explain to any creator deity why I didn’t have sufficient reason to believe in him/her should the time come.
I understand. Well I say I understand but in fact, I wasn't ever faced with a belief that was passed on to me. I didn't come from a Christian/religious home. So if I didn't know that God exists, I would feel what you feel when told that.
So you’re saying the earmark of design is mathematical structure? How do you determine this? How could you determine the difference between design and nondesign if you can’t identify examples of each?
Is mathematics conceptual?
The most common atomic elements of life happen to be the most common chemically active elements in the universe, and we know where each of them comes from. We have observed that under the right conditions (and in fact the exact conditions believed to have existed on Earth a few billion years ago) the basic amino acid chains required for RNA synthesis are able to form all on their own. This places a naturalistic abiogenesis squarely within the realm of possibility.
This sounds promising and many scientists are proponents of the RNA world hypothesis but most of them are very aware of the problems with it. A problem with the catalytic versatility is even more problematic with the changing temperature of early earth. We then have to look at the hurdles needed to progress from the purely RNA world to a protein/RNA world and then on to living things. For every amino acid that exists in the gene-protein it would take an individual miracle event for each of them to occur.
So possible, perhaps, but once again it isn't as if the RNA replicating itself is sufficient, the limits it has from where that replication begins towards what is necessary for life itself is significant and might be impossible for RNA alone without some co-evolution with proteins. That has not been shown. It might be impossible to be shown. Regardless, evolution is just a process and evolution didn't evolve. The origin of life using the elements of the universe as evidence that life must have evolved is begging the question.
I have to ask, how is it you can say you know something when you admit you cannot demonstrate it? To me, demonstrability is a requirement for knowledge of things outside the self.
What I am trying to show is the Christian worldview comports best with the reality of the universe. The items I've presented support the Christian worldview vs. the materialistic worldview which doesn't comport to reality and is no better in empirical evidence than the Christian worldview.