A Piece on Philosophy and Christian Theism

Does God Exists?

Here's another piece--hopefully not a redundant one. I don't expect to write the best piece in philosophy concerning Christian theism, but I hope to achieve something of a synopsis of what I think is the best answer to an atheists objection towards the rationality of Christian theism.

When I conduct debates with atheist, the common objection I face mostly is the idea of insufficient evidence. This argument already presupposes what the be used as evidence to begin with, thus begging the question--a logical fallacy. When I discussed this with an atheist, she stated that evidence is that which is verifiable by observation. This is only true if you depend mainly on the senses for what is deemed as evidence. In this sense, abstract notions like "laws" and "logic" in a sense cannot exists, because what can be known (epistemologically) can only be deduced or induced by the mere properties of the senses. Therefore, the notion of "evidence" is preemptive in its form, namely, if the Christian theist falls into this trap, he lost already.

My argument for God's existence (TAG): The more I read Bahnsen, Van Til, and Plantiga (& Wolsterstorff), I find that there are things in nature that avail to 'evidence' without the use of tangible things. For Dr. Bahnsen, abstract realities, like logic and laws, can exist and presuppose the existence of God. In this sense, God exists in se. Furthermore, there is this notion of proof that allows abstracts to constitute as proof. Again, when I debated with the atheist, she said that logic is a method of doing things. A Method? Well, in actuality, she was giving me a tautology. She didn't explain what logic is, but rather she told me what it acts like. My question was an ontological one: where is there such a thing as logic? I'll pose three laws:

(i) The law of identity: A=A

(ii) Non-contradiction: A is not -A

(iii) Law of Logical Certainty (a law based on possible certainty depending on ii).

Take rule 2 for instance: it always follows that one thing is the case while not the other case. Say I went work and I parked my car in a certain parking spot. In my mind--and in reality too--it is the case that my car is in that spot I parked it in and it's not the case that I parked it anywhere else (I'm assuming that my faculties are in order and reliable; I'm also using law iii.). If someone asks me, while I'm at work, where I parked my car I will use the evidence (laws ii and iii) to show that my car is parked in a certain spot.

But the atheist can't do that. In an atheist universe, he needs to account for abstracts like laws and logic, and he or she needs to do that through the senses; for the senses verify all evidence.

More misnomers of the "insufficient" evidence argument:

1. How much evidence is needed

2. What epistemic justification are we giving the evidence

3. What amounts to 'knowledge' in the epistemology of atheism

Notice the order I'm giving the 'evidence' argument. This is the method traditionally held that proves a proposition as knowledge. There are varying degrees that allow for nuances in each school of epistemology (proper, founheretism, nondoxastic, etc.), but this basic format I think even atheists will have a hard time disagreeing with.