i need some help. i attached two pictures below from the article : In 2015 two columnists at www.everyjoe.com (one, a religious catholic, the other, a philosophical atheist) discussed a series of issues relating to religion, philosophy, and morality. Can the existence of God be proven? (would really appreciate the help to summarize the main arguments made by the authors to answer this question)thank you so so much! Topic #3. Can the Existence of God be ProvenJohn C. Wright, TheistThe question is whether the existence of God can be proved?The answer is not only yes, but yes, obviously, by probative argument rather than deductive proof, for the theistmodel fits the facts of nature and human nature better than the alternative.Is the proof sufficient to persuade the skeptic? The answer is no, obviously. Probative arguments require a nicety ofjudgment which not all men possess, especially on topics where their pride and guilt combine to blind them.Can the existence of God be made a reasonable hypothesis?That answer to that is that anything can be made into a reasonable hypothesis merely by answering the objectionsthe hypothesis raises. All hypotheses raise questions. Unreasonable hypotheses rest on farfetched assumptions toanswer such questions, and the more farfetched the answers, the less reasonable is the hypothesis. The morereasonable hypothesis is the one that most elegantly answers all legitimate questions.Hence the question we should be asking is whether the existence of God is a more reasonable hypothesis, onerequiring fewer and less farfetched ad hoc explanations, than the alternative.One can prove the existence of God theoretically in two ways.The first is the experimental way: Be a Christian, be baptized, go to confession and mass, and see whether or not thepromises of Christ are kept. This requires a massive and wholehearted commitment alien to the spirit ofexperimentation. It would be akin to joining the army or getting married experimentally. Alas, the spirit of coolexperiment would forbid the spirit of loyalty to the corps or the spirit of erotic romance which are the essentialfeatures of those institutions.What about such an experiment by proxy? Watching others who have joined, and hearing their testimony?Unfortunately, and here I speak only for my own denomination, the sinners and Pharisees and Laodiceansoutnumber the saints, so I am unsure how any proxy study would do any good. If you studied marriage by proxy, butnever experienced the ecstasy of sexual intercourse with a woman totally in love with you and you with her, yourresults would be inconclusive. If you studied warriors but never yourself died for your land, you could not knowwhether it is sweet and fitting.The second is the observational way: Wait until God incarnates Himself, listen to His words, discover if they arewise, hear what He says, observe the various feats He does which humans cannot do, such as multiplying loaves andfishes, walking on water, calming storms, curing the sick, raising the dead, casting out demons, and so on. Thenhave Him tortured to death. If, after three days, He arises again from the dead, and eats bread, fish and honeycomb,and can explain the scriptures in detail to you as you walk with Him to Emmaus, and enter a room where you areThe second is the observational way: Wait until God incarnates Himself, listen to His words, discover if they are wise,hear what He says, observe the various feats He does which humans cannot do, such as multiplying loaves andfishes, walking on water, calming storms, curing the sick, raising the dead, casting out demons, and so on. Thenhave Him tortured to death. If, after three days, He arises again from the dead, and eats bread, fish and honeycomb,and can explain the scriptures in detail to you as you walk with Him to Emmaus, and enter a room where you arestanding whose door is locked, and He can forgive you your betrayal of Him, then it is a reasonable hypothesis thatHe is God, as He claimed. It would not prove the case beyond the capacity of an imaginative skeptic to invent reasons to disbelieve - a cunningimposture could, perhaps, falsify this evidence, or elves or Martians with their magic or psychic powers mimic theevents described in the Gospel. The difficulty here is that the hypothesis used to explain the events lacking Godrequire more elaborate and more farfetched assumptions than the hypothesis not lacking.Now, you dear reader, unless you have a handy time machine at hand and in good repair, are not in a position toperform this observation.Hence, the evidence hence needs must be indirect. We are not dealing with a scientific theory, like Einstein 's theoryof relativity, so it is no use insisting on seeing the physical proof of a nonphysical thing. We are dealing with ageneral explanation to cover historical and prehistorical and eschatological events, an explanation which attemptsto explain by what we cannot see the by things we can see. In other words, it is just like Darwin's theory ofevolution. Darwin's theory likewise is a nonphysical thing, attempting to explain events in prehistory and in the farfuture, of which the physical proof can only suggest. It is generally accepted only because the alternative theories ofLamarckianism or special creation have less explanatory power, that is, they raise more serious objections.If God exists, the obvious objections are threefold:First, if God exists, and He is the benevolent and omnipotent sovereign creator, why is there such injustice andsuffering in the world? Either He will not cure evil or He cannot. If He would and cannot, then He is not all-powerful,and if not all-powerful, ergo not God; or if He could but will not, then He is not benevolent, and hence is a devil,ergo not God.Likewise, why is there a multiplicity of tales of gods in pagan lands? For surely God would not tolerate thatfalsehoods be said about Him.Second, the order of nature as examined by physics gives us sufficient knowledge of the physical universe that Godis not needed as an explanation.Third, God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent. An omniscient being cannot have free will, as perfectforeknowledge prevents the possibility of any freely-willed decision between multiple courses of possible action.Likewise, omnipotence prevents the need for action, since all things instantly would adhere to whatever the divinewill was at any moment, without any need for any tools, waiting time, processes or any other action. If God weretruly omnipotent, the light would exist without the need of saying FIAT LUX, and mankind be saved from sin withoutthe need of hearing FIAT MIHI SECUNDUM VERBUM TUUM.All these are potent arguments, and I hope to address them in future columns if Mr. Hicks will be so good as to bringthem up.But I raise these objections to show that even a coherent model of the universe must provoke legitimate questionsin the skeptical mind. Obviously emotion and blindness will not answer those questions: it will flee from thosequestions.If God does not exist, however, the question raised are just as great, or greater:First, who or what defined time? Obviously time has certain definite properties, such as it duration, and the effectsof gravity upon its measurement and so on. So it has a definite nature. There cannot be a natural process thatdefined time, because natural processes work through time. The seed planted in May blooms in August by naturalprocess. But time cannot have a seed, a historical cause, if time only blooms into existence during an August knownas the Big Bang. There was no April before it, because there was no 'before' before it.

Question

i need some help. i attached two pictures below from the article : In 2015 two columnists at www.everyjoe.com (one, a religious catholic, the other, a philosophical atheist) discussed a series of issues relating to religion, philosophy, and morality. Can the existence of God be proven? (would really appreciate the help to summarize the main arguments made by the authors to answer this question)thank you so so much! Topic #3. Can the Existence of God be ProvenJohn C. Wright, TheistThe question is whether the existence of God can be proved?The answer is not only yes, but yes, obviously, by probative argument rather than deductive proof, for the theistmodel fits the facts of nature and human nature better than the alternative.Is the proof sufficient to persuade the skeptic? The answer is no, obviously. Probative arguments require a nicety ofjudgment which not all men possess, especially on topics where their pride and guilt combine to blind them.Can the existence of God be made a reasonable hypothesis?That answer to that is that anything can be made into a reasonable hypothesis merely by answering the objectionsthe hypothesis raises. All hypotheses raise questions. Unreasonable hypotheses rest on farfetched assumptions toanswer such questions, and the more farfetched the answers, the less reasonable is the hypothesis. The morereasonable hypothesis is the one that most elegantly answers all legitimate questions.Hence the question we should be asking is whether the existence of God is a more reasonable hypothesis, onerequiring fewer and less farfetched ad hoc explanations, than the alternative.One can prove the existence of God theoretically in two ways.The first is the experimental way: Be a Christian, be baptized, go to confession and mass, and see whether or not thepromises of Christ are kept. This requires a massive and wholehearted commitment alien to the spirit ofexperimentation. It would be akin to joining the army or getting married experimentally. Alas, the spirit of coolexperiment would forbid the spirit of loyalty to the corps or the spirit of erotic romance which are the essentialfeatures of those institutions.What about such an experiment by proxy? Watching others who have joined, and hearing their testimony?Unfortunately, and here I speak only for my own denomination, the sinners and Pharisees and Laodiceansoutnumber the saints, so I am unsure how any proxy study would do any good. If you studied marriage by proxy, butnever experienced the ecstasy of sexual intercourse with a woman totally in love with you and you with her, yourresults would be inconclusive. If you studied warriors but never yourself died for your land, you could not knowwhether it is sweet and fitting.The second is the observational way: Wait until God incarnates Himself, listen to His words, discover if they arewise, hear what He says, observe the various feats He does which humans cannot do, such as multiplying loaves andfishes, walking on water, calming storms, curing the sick, raising the dead, casting out demons, and so on. Thenhave Him tortured to death. If, after three days, He arises again from the dead, and eats bread, fish and honeycomb,and can explain the scriptures in detail to you as you walk with Him to Emmaus, and enter a room where you areThe second is the observational way: Wait until God incarnates Himself, listen to His words, discover if they are wise,hear what He says, observe the various feats He does which humans cannot do, such as multiplying loaves andfishes, walking on water, calming storms, curing the sick, raising the dead, casting out demons, and so on. Thenhave Him tortured to death. If, after three days, He arises again from the dead, and eats bread, fish and honeycomb,and can explain the scriptures in detail to you as you walk with Him to Emmaus, and enter a room where you arestanding whose door is locked, and He can forgive you your betrayal of Him, then it is a reasonable hypothesis thatHe is God, as He claimed. It would not prove the case beyond the capacity of an imaginative skeptic to invent reasons to disbelieve - a cunningimposture could, perhaps, falsify this evidence, or elves or Martians with their magic or psychic powers mimic theevents described in the Gospel. The difficulty here is that the hypothesis used to explain the events lacking Godrequire more elaborate and more farfetched assumptions than the hypothesis not lacking.Now, you dear reader, unless you have a handy time machine at hand and in good repair, are not in a position toperform this observation.Hence, the evidence hence needs must be indirect. We are not dealing with a scientific theory, like Einstein 's theoryof relativity, so it is no use insisting on seeing the physical proof of a nonphysical thing. We are dealing with ageneral explanation to cover historical and prehistorical and eschatological events, an explanation which attemptsto explain by what we cannot see the by things we can see. In other words, it is just like Darwin's theory ofevolution. Darwin's theory likewise is a nonphysical thing, attempting to explain events in prehistory and in the farfuture, of which the physical proof can only suggest. It is generally accepted only because the alternative theories ofLamarckianism or special creation have less explanatory power, that is, they raise more serious objections.If God exists, the obvious objections are threefold:First, if God exists, and He is the benevolent and omnipotent sovereign creator, why is there such injustice andsuffering in the world? Either He will not cure evil or He cannot. If He would and cannot, then He is not all-powerful,and if not all-powerful, ergo not God; or if He could but will not, then He is not benevolent, and hence is a devil,ergo not God.Likewise, why is there a multiplicity of tales of gods in pagan lands? For surely God would not tolerate thatfalsehoods be said about Him.Second, the order of nature as examined by physics gives us sufficient knowledge of the physical universe that Godis not needed as an explanation.Third, God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent. An omniscient being cannot have free will, as perfectforeknowledge prevents the possibility of any freely-willed decision between multiple courses of possible action.Likewise, omnipotence prevents the need for action, since all things instantly would adhere to whatever the divinewill was at any moment, without any need for any tools, waiting time, processes or any other action. If God weretruly omnipotent, the light would exist without the need of saying FIAT LUX, and mankind be saved from sin withoutthe need of hearing FIAT MIHI SECUNDUM VERBUM TUUM.All these are potent arguments, and I hope to address them in future columns if Mr. Hicks will be so good as to bringthem up.But I raise these objections to show that even a coherent model of the universe must provoke legitimate questionsin the skeptical mind. Obviously emotion and blindness will not answer those questions: it will flee from thosequestions.If God does not exist, however, the question raised are just as great, or greater:First, who or what defined time? Obviously time has certain definite properties, such as it duration, and the effectsof gravity upon its measurement and so on. So it has a definite nature. There cannot be a natural process thatdefined time, because natural processes work through time. The seed planted in May blooms in August by naturalprocess. But time cannot have a seed, a historical cause, if time only blooms into existence during an August knownas the Big Bang. There was no April before it, because there was no 'before' before it.

Accepted Answer

Sociology is the systematic study of human society, behaviour, and the underlying structures and…