Season 5 Podcast 116, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, “Cause and Effect.”

Season 5 Podcast 116, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, “Cause and Effect.” 

Even the best of scientists do not always distinguish between cause and effect or among fact, inference, and judgment.  In analytical thinking it is critical to be able to distinguish between cause and effect, fact and inference.  The cause always precedes the effect. In fact, that is the problem with many of the unsupported theories that are attributed to evolution.  Evolution has become a catch-all phrase used to explain everything, yet the primary assumptions are ignored and accepted without question. An argument is unsound if the assumptions upon which it is based are wrong. That is the simple ABC’s of logic. 

Once an exclusively biological term, physicists are now using the term evolution to describe the creation of stars, suns, moons, planets, galaxies, etc. Things without life in themselves cannot evolve. Evolution requires life and death.

Practical science, of course, will not let you get away with mere theory or opinion. If laws are meticulously followed, practical science works as predicted. If laws are not meticulously followed, practical science will not work as predicted. The principle of causality, by necessity, must be strictly adhered to. 

Theoretical scientists or philosophers do not always play by the same rules, particularly where they have an agenda. Modern science faces the following dilemma. Science has become actively atheistic, so much so that atheism, not science, appears to be the agenda. Where others share their opinions, they do not have to prove their assumptions; therefore, theory is presented as fact; whereas it is merely inference or judgment.

With individual exceptions, science categorically rejects the existence of God or intelligent design. The religious affiliation of a scientist has no effect on science itself. Leaving God out of the equation does not affect the principle of causality. Laws come in complete sets and work perfectly well without the appearance of God or Intelligent design. Christians should have no problem with that. The faithful believe that God organized the laws for God does nothing without law. The Universe would be in a terrible mess if he did. 

Religious affiliations only matter, whether those feelings are atheistic or theistic, when the principle of causality is ignored in favor of personal agenda.

The problem is that man and the universe exist; therefore, there must be a cause of their existence. Since intelligent design is not an option for atheists, rather than plead ignorance, they credit chance, accident, coincidence, serendipity of circumstances, probability (invoking large numbers) and evolution. Such arguments cannot be proven or disproven; therefore, it is personal agenda that is speaking, not science. They are God substitutes. A thing repeated enough becomes fact even if it is merely inference. Those who promote a cause rather than adhere strictly to the scientific method often do not distinguish between fact and inference. They claim only those selected theories that promote their cause regardless of the logical fallacies that are so transparent to an objective mind. They present the inferences of evolution as fact without evidentiary support.  

One of the latest theories science has adopted is the anthropic principle. Wikipedia encyclopedia describes the anthropic principle as follows:

The anthropic principle, also known as the observation selection effect, is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations could happen only in a universe capable of developing intelligent life. As Steven Weinberg puts it: "Where else could we be, except on a planet that can sustain life?"