Martin over at the Rocket Philosophy blog has a most interesting series defending classical theism: “This is the view that there is an all-knowing, all-powerful God who is the creator and sustainer of everything that exists, and that human beings have immortal souls. No particular religion is argued for, although Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all try to claim it as their own.”
- A Defense of Classical Theism #1: Foundational Questions – The foundational question is: what would have to be true of any world that is scientifically discoverable? or what are the necessary preconditions that make science possible in the first place? He answers: causal regularity, change, and structure.
- A Defense of Classical Theism #2: Causal Regularity – “In order to have a science of, say, photons, photons must have some specific effects they produce by their very nature. If they had a different effect every time, then experiments could never reliably be extrapolated to every photon in the universe. When we do the double slit experiment on photons, we need to be able to say ‘this is what ALL photons would do under similar conditions.’ As a result, we can then have knowledge of the nature of photons.”
- A Defense of Classical Theism #3: Change – “Change must occur. An experiment consists of something changing from state X to state Y, and afterwards reasoning from premises to conclusion. So the mere act of observing, testing, and concluding about one’s environment presupposes that change occurs.” The take-home points are: (1) “Anything that is changeable or possibly existent/non-existent is a mixture of actual and possible” and (2) “Anything that is a mixture of actual and possible cannot make itself actual, and thus must be made actual by something that is already actual.”
- A Defense of Classical Theism #4: Structure – “There must be structure that is in common to all of a single group of objects. For example, in order to have a science of volcanoes, there must be some features that are common and essential to all volcanoes, apart from knowledge of any particular volcano. If every volcano had a completely different feature set, then once you had knowledge of one particular volcano located somewhere, you would not have knowledge of any others. So there must be structure that is common to all objects (or animals) of a set, so that knowledge of a type, and not just an individual, is possible.”
- A Defense of Classical Theism #5: Summing up the foundation
- A Defense of Classical Theism #6: What is moving the stone? – In this post he looks briefly at the nature of causality.
- A Defense of Classical Theism #7: God: An Overview – In this post he argues that a non-composite entity must exist.
- A Defense of Classical Theism #8: God’s Attributes – In this post he notes that a deity who is just actual would be: non-physical, spaceless, timeless, one, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, and simple.
- A Defense of Classical Theism #9: A Closer Look at the Argument from Change – Another look at how change implies an unmoved mover.
- A Defense of Classical Theism #10: Causal Regularity as a Sign of Intelligence – An intelligence must direct things to their final causes.
- A Defense of Classical Theism #10: God: Summing Up
Atheists often talk about how successful science is and try to play science off against religion. But if we can show that the metaphysics underlying science lead logically to the conclusion that God exists, then we can deflect the attack from the atheist and make a counter-argument that, as admirers of science, they should seriously consider believing God exists. Martin’s argument is built upon Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics. Those are the philosophers (Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas) you want to study if this line of argument intrigues you. Martin’s posts are not exhaustive by any means.