 |
|
| Volume 25 Number 11 November 2023 |
Page 2 |
|
|
| Volume 25 Number 11 November 2023 |
Page 2 |
Louis Rushmore, Editor
Various resources define circumstantial evidence as follows: “Circumstantial evidence usually is that which suggests a fact by implication or inference…” (“How Courts Work”); “Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists” (Cornell Law School); “indirect evidence that tends to establish a conclusion by inference…” (Collins English Dictionary); “evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue” (Merriam-Webster.com); “The second type of evidence is circumstantial evidence – statement(s) or information obtained indirectly or not based on first-hand experience by a person” (“Investigation”).
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out. …Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. …A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence, which is popularly assumed to be the most powerful, but this is not the case. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. The common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case – the “smoking gun” – is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. …In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. (Wikipedia emphasis added)
“Legal authorities recognize the validity of a prima facie case. A prima facie case exists when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of a fact, which unless such can be refuted, legally stands as fact. …So it is with the case for the existence of God. There is a vast body of evidence that makes an impregnable case for the existence of God – a case that cannot be refuted effectively” ( Jackson and others 20-21). Courts rely heavily on circumstantial evidence to decide cases before them. They must process indirect evidence to determine facts. This involves consideration of implications from which necessary inferences must be drawn. That requires logical handling or rational reasoning relative to available information. All of this occurs without “first-hand experience by a person.”
Whereas a singular piece of circumstantial evidence may have more than one plausible explanation, a body of circumstantial evidence can reduce implications and inferences to a single conclusion of fact – beyond any doubt. Part of this procedure discredits alternative explanations that do not concur with the data under review, resulting in a singular deduction. Though even eyewitness testimony can be unreliable (e.g., perjury, mistaken), several pieces of circumstantial evidence verify each other regarding facts.
All of the foregoing sets the backdrop for one’s consideration for the overwhelming circumstantial evidence for the existence of God. By extension, the Word of God (the Bible), Christianity, human redemption from sin, the church of the Bible, Christian worship, Christian living, Christian service and preparation for an eternity in Heaven also rest for their validity on circumstantial evidence pertaining to the existence of God. In the absence of God speaking audibly and directly to mankind in our time and in the absence of miracles to confirm new messages from God today, we must resort to circumstantial evidence. After all, no living person has had an audience with Almighty God – that is, no person alive now has had a first-hand interaction with God.
The body of circumstantial evidence concerning the existence of God dispels any possible alternative conclusions than that God exists, and that He is responsible for the existence of the created universe. Furthermore, God has left divinely inspired and providentially preserved written revelation by which humans can know Him better and be aware of His instructions to us.
Cosmological Argument: Cause and Effect
“The argument from cause, commonly called the cosmological argument, is the affirmation that there must be a cause for the cosmos. It is ‘the argument that the cosmos is an effect produced by a Primal Cause, which, from the nature of the case, must be a Person.’ …The reasoning of the argument from cause expresses the need for a first and adequate cause for all existing things” (Dickson 66-67). Furthermore,
“The first cause must have been adequate: but matter is not adequate as a first cause because for matter to have produced life and consciousness and mind, so distinct from matter, it would have been the same as getting something out of nothing; for these things are not found in matter” (Dickson 69).
There are only two avowed but opposing propositions relative to cause and effect to bring into existence all that is. The sufficient first cause must either be mind (intelligent life) or matter (thoughtless non-life). Ask an elementary school child if rocks have baby puppies, and he’ll know enough to look at you cockeyed and say, “Of course not!”
Teleological Argument: Design
“The argument from design is many times referred to as the teleological argument. Teleology is ‘the study of evidences of design in nature.’ … The teleological argument says that the ‘order of things was so designed with purpose.’ The Bible affirms that man should be able to examine the things of the world and deduct by his examination of these things that a Creator exits” (Dickson 70-71). “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NKJV). God expects mankind to examine the evidence of His existence from the created universe. This includes the orderly arrangement not only of the planets and the stars but everything else, too.
The argument from design or the teleological argument simply states that every design must have a designer. Scripture affirms the same. “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1; cf., Isaiah 40:21-28; Psalm 33:6-9; Job 12:7-9; Acts 14:16-17). “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4). Nevertheless, skeptics, agnostics and atheists (many of whom are materialists and evolutionists) refuse to evaluate seriously any type of evidence that they suspect may be contrary to their preconceptions or that might obligate them to subscribe to a divine standard.
Consider the purposeful design that far exceeds even the genius of brilliant minds, as well as that surpasses human capacity to make it occur.
Each human cell contains forty-six chromosomes. In each chromosome there is what is called Deoxyribonucleic Acid, or DNA. DNA is the programmed “computer,” the age long blueprint of all heredity traits. DNA is contained in the nucleus of every cell and determines every trait of an individual, such as, color of eyes, height and skin color. These traits are locked into the DNA structure of every cell… (Dickson 73)
Every aspect of the vast universe, of which people, animals and plants are a part, displays a complexity of design beyond imagination, much less the wherewith to design it and bring it into existence. Design and sufficient power to establish the universe at every level demands the existence of a Divine Designer – possessing the power to create rather than simply to refashion from existing material. Even the built-in instincts observed in the animal world have no other explanation than a Master Designer with the supernatural wherewith to accomplish it.
Bird migration has always been a spectacular phenomenon to man. One example of this wonder is the migration of the Arctic Terns. The Arctic Terns nest in the Cape Cod area of the North American continent. When the urge comes to migrate, they set their course across the Atlantic Ocean to the coast of Spain, down the western coast of Africa, across the Atlantic again, and finally, to the vast Antarctica at the bottom of the world. When nature calls for these marvelous wonders of nature to return home from their southern tour of the southern hemisphere, they fly all the way back to the very same creek bank, to the very same gravel bed they left at the beginning of their journey. In all, they cover a fantastic distance of over 22,000 miles. (Dickson 73-74)
No one can explain this innate ability aside from the acknowledgement of the existence of a Divine Designer with sufficient mastery and power to make it so.
Irreducible complexity is also a primary argument under the heading of teleological evidence for an intelligent and supernatural Designer – responsible for the entire created universe, which agrees with the biblical account for the existence of all things.
Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed, so supposedly could not have evolved by successive small modifications from earlier less complex systems through natural selection, which would need all intermediate precursor systems to have been fully functional. This negative argument is then complemented by the claim that the only alternative explanation is a “purposeful arrangement of parts” inferring design by an intelligent agent. Irreducible complexity has become central to the creationist concept of intelligent design (ID), but the concept of irreducible complexity has been rejected by the scientific community, which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. Irreducible complexity and specified complexity, are the two main arguments used by intelligent-design proponents to support their version of the theological argument from design. (“Irreducible Complexity”)
Obviously, although accurately and yet technically defining irreducible complexity, Wikipedia sides with opponents to it and who favor evolution. Another source, a little friendlier to Bible believers, states:
Irreducible complexity brings up those complex biological mechanisms that show no sign of evolution – micro or macro – because any simplification or alteration in their design would leave them useless for their specific purpose. In order for these mechanisms to have developed, several complex genetic changes would have had to occur simultaneously – an event that is inconsistent with evolution and mathematically nearly impossible. There are several biological systems that seem to be irreducibly complex. (“Irreducible Complexity – What…”)
Whereas agnostics, skeptics, evolutionists, materialists and many scientists may malign irreducible complexity and intelligent design as pseudoscience, they do not represent the entire scientific community. Bible believers, likewise, ascribe to critics of irreducible complexity and intelligent design as practitioners of pseudoscience themselves. Britannica defines “science” as “…any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation” (“Science,” Britanica emphasis added). Merriam-Webster defines “science” as “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method” (“Science,” Merriam-Webster emphasis added). Scientific method means “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses” (“Scientific Method” emphasis added). “The key difference between the scientific method and other ways of acquiring knowledge are forming a hypothesis and then testing it with an experiment” (Helmenstine emphasis added).
The fundamental basis for science rests upon what we can observe and with what we can interact with our five senses: touch, sight, hearing, smell and taste. The formation of the universe and all its diverse components – even down to the molecular level – was not observed then and cannot be observed today. Furthermore, it is not possible to reproduce the initiation of the universe in a laboratory upon which experiments can be performed. Therefore, the beginning of all that is does not fall within the realm of true science. Hence, theories or hypotheses that contradict the Holy Word of God cannot be proven. Creation, thoroughly represented in the Bible, though under attack, has not been and cannot be successfully countered by pseudoscientists.
For additional reading about irreducible complexity, turn to these articles in the Archive of Gospel Gazette Online (www.GospelGazette.com):
https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2007/feb/page2.htm
https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2017/sep/page2.html
https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2012/jul/page14.html#article2
At every turn from on earth to the starry sky, intricate design exists abundantly in every direction – design beyond the possibility of human intervention or natural or evolutionary development. Only the existence of God can be the answer. “A design presupposes that there was someone who designed it” (Dickson 76).
Ontological Argument: Man’s Religious Nature
“The argument from the ‘idea of God’ is usually referred to the ontological argument” (Dickson 78). This refers to “…‘man’s religious nature’…” and “specifically to the anthropological history of man as being a history of a religious individual since his existence upon the earth” (Dickson 81).
Anthropological Argument: Human Morality
“Materialists cannot explain conscience. They cannot tell us why man is a moral being. Is it reasonable to believe that morality came from that which is not moral? This question forces us back to an Intelligence as an adequate explanation for the phenomenon of man” (Dickson 85). Unlike animals and other creatures, humans are born with a sense of right and wrong or a conscience. People have moral values, which can be instructed based on biblical teaching, by the vilest sources or from somewhere in between. The point is that humankind has a sense of right or wrong – a conscience – a set of moral values. Plant life and creatures do not possess this trait.
Since we have a sense of right and wrong or morality, is God our Intelligent Designer Who instilled that sense in humanity? If so, the Word of God – the Bible – is the source with which we ought to educate our consciences and develop our moral values. In addition, then, those moral values are absolute rather than subjective. However, if moral values are subjective and changeable – supposing that there is no God to which men are accountable – each individual may decide for himself or herself by what values to live. Consequently, no one could effectively object to any activity of another, no matter what it might be (gross immorality, robbery, murder, genocide or anything else). There was a time in Israel’s history when everyone did as he pleased. “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). We live in such a time as that today where virtually no one has any respect for authority of any kind, and moral values by the general populace are distant from God-prescribed morality. Beware, if God is not the Author of the human conscience and the sense of morality, one’s life is not more sacred than that of an insect which we may freely kill.
That fact that many people are immoral still does not account for the innate sense of right and wrong – a conscience and a morality. Evolution has no explanation for the instinctive realization that some things are right while some things are wrong. Remember, mankind did not derive his morality from a rock or any other lifeless matter.
A Book from God: The Existence of the Bible
“How can we account for such a unique book? The unity, prophecy and application of its teachings are qualities which could not have had human origin. Man is just not that smart or dependable. The only satisfactory answer for the origin of the uniqueness of the Bible is an eternal Intelligence” (Dickson 88-89). It lies far beyond human capability to make hundreds of prophecies hundreds of years before they were fulfilled completely and in every detail. Yet, that is exactly a primary way in which people today can know that the Bible originated with God and was transmitted to humanity through divine inspiration.
Also, the Bible is one of the oldest written records. Besides that, the Bible is the most authenticated writing in the world – validated with many thousands of manuscripts in the original languages of the approximately 40 penmen who wrote over more than a millennium and a half. Translations into various languages over thousands of years add to the validation of the biblical text.
The Bible provides for us the answers we all want to know, for instance, about our origins. “Ten times in Genesis 1 ‘God said,’ and it came into being (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28-29). Of Him the Psalmist wrote, ‘Of old didst thou lay the foundation of the earth; And the heavens are the work of thy hands’ (Psm. 102:25)” (Rogers).
The Attributes of God
“The attributes of God are set forth in order by Moses in Exod. 34:6-7. (See also Deut. 6:4; 10:17; Num. 16:22; Exod. 15:11; 33:19; Isa. 44:6; Hab. 3:6; Psm. 102:26; Job 34:12.) They are also systematically classified in Rev. 5:12 and Rev. 7:12” (Rogers). Furthermore, the attributes of God discerned in the Bible coincide with the necessary characteristics for a living, intelligent Being – a Designer and Creator – to establish the universe and everything within it. God is, first, eternal; He had no beginning. “The Bible begins with God (Gen. 1:1). Every verse of the Bible is based on the existence of God. Truly God is the ‘Everlasting God’ (Gen. 21:33). “…even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Psm. 90:2)” (Rogers).
It is obvious that matter is not eternal, for it is freely admitted that it wears out, and otherwise, from where did it originally come? Something or Someone had to always exist. Was it life or non-life? Was it intelligent or unknowing?
God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, which are required traits with which to craft the universe and every minute thing within in it. Lifeless and mindless matter is not even a contender for the title of Creator.
Conclusion
“The Christian can know that God exists in the same manner that he can know any other non-experienced truth. It is a matter of deduction from the evidence” (Dickson 65).
Eight times in the New Testament, the church is referred to as “the church of God” (e.g. Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:13). …are ready to defend the existence of the one true God of the Bible through employing the evidentiary tools of the teleological argument also known as the argument from design; the cosmological argument also known as the argument of cause and effect; the anthropological argument also known as the moral argument; and the existence and perpetuation of the Bible itself. (McDade 84-85)
“The argument for the existence of God from cause and effect is known as the Cosmological Argument. This argument affirms that the universe is here and must be explained. The universe is the effect which requires a cause. God is the Cause, and He, Himself, was uncaused” (Rogers 24). “The argument for the existence of God from design in nature is known as the Teleological Argument. This argument sets forth the fact that purposeful design is evident in creation, therefore there had to be a designer” (Rogers 26).
The argument for the existence of God from the standpoint of morality and ethics is called the Ontological Argument. This argument asserts that there is a difference between right and wrong, good and evil. If there is such a difference, there must be a standard upon which the difference is made. Christians assert that that standard is God’s revealed will. It is universally evident that morality and ethics exist, but what is their origin? There can only be two possibilities in this realm. They are either theocentric (centered in God) or anthropocentric (centered in man, who has evolved naturally as per the evolutionary theory). (Rogers 27-28)
“Since God exists and is the Creator of all, man is responsible to Him. The fact that He has, ‘…appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained…’ (Acts 17:31), should motivate all to want to be prepared for that day” (Rogers 30-31). Be advised that to be an atheist or an evolutionist, one must believe:
Who can believe it?
Works Cited and Consulted
“Circumstantial Evidence.” Collins English Dictionary: Complete & Unabridged. 2012. 20 Jun 2023. <https://www.dictionary.com/browse/circumstantial-evidence>.
“Circumstantial Evidence.” Cornell Law School: Legal Information Institute. Jan 2022. 20 Jun 2023. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/circumstantial_evidence>.
“Circumstantial evidence.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. 20 Jun 2023. <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumstantial%20evidence>.
“Circumstantial Evidence.” Wikipedia. 20 Jun 2023. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence>.
Clarke, T.J. “The Heavens Declare the Glory of God.” Magnify His Name. ed. B.J. Clarke. Memphis: Memphis School of Preaching, 2020, 143-151.
Dickson, Roger E. The Dawn of Belief. Winona, Mississippi: J.C. Choate P., 1997.
Helmenstine, Anne Marie. “Six Steps of the Scientific Method.” ThoughtCo. 18 Feb 2020. 15 Sep 2023. <https://www.thoughtco.com/steps-of-the-scientific-method-p2-606045>.
“How Courts Work.” American Bar Association. 9 Sep 2019. 20 Jun 2023. <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/evidence/>.
“Investigation.” Offices of the United States Attorneys: Department of Justice. 20 Jun 2023. <https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/investigation>.
“Irreducible Complexity.” Wikipedia. 15 Sep 1923. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity>.
“Irreducible Complexity – What Is It?” CompellingTruth. 15 Sep 2023. <https://www.compellingtruth.org/irreducible-complexity.html>.
Jackson, Wayne and Eric Lyons, Kyle Butt. Surveying the Evidence. Montgomery: Apologetics P., 2008.
McDade, Gary. “Remembering the Foundations of Faith.” Strengthening the Heart.” Ed. Keith A. Mosher. Memphis: Memphis School of Preaching, 2008, 77-94.
Rogers, James E. “The Existence of God.” God Hath Spoken, Affirming Truth and Reproving Error. Curtis A. Cates, ed. Memphis: Memphis School of Preaching, 1999, 17-32.
“Science.” Britannica. 7 Sep 2023. 15 Sep 2023. <https://www.britannica.com/science/science>.
“Science.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. 15 Sep 2023. <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science>.
