REASONING DEDUCTIVELY

The reality of God is a hotly contested issue. My consideration of the arguments for and against God lead me to believe that there is a mix-up in the reasoning process. Those who contend for the presence of a God tend to view the details of the universe as the logical outcome of God.

Those who argue for no God view the details of the universe and conclude that a God is not required to explain the evidence that they have observed. If I am correct, this is a confusion of deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning.

In the following essays I have tried to deduce what should happen beginning with the choice to accept the presence in the universe of a Supreme God, a Most High God, above all other gods as a known fact. By following this definition, I want to reason the consequences of such a God.

Deduce: > Latin deducere, to lead down, bring away de down + ducere to lead 1. To trace the course or derivation of 2. To infer by logical reasoning; reason out or conclude from known facts or general principles. (Webster’s New World Dictionary, World Publishing Co., 1970)

Critics will accuse me of creating my own God or using the God of the Bible who was created by the people of ancient times, especially the Jews. I would answer that the proof for such a God is, not in a creation by the people and for the people, but in the life, teachings, death, resurrection and ascension of the person Jesus of Nazareth. He verifies the God of the biblical Old Testament.

Another accusation critics may make is that I do not consider the evidence of a natural world without a God and which does not need a God. However, as I see it, I do consider this evidence but see it as the outcome of the presence of God. I do not approach it as the building blocks pointing to the presence of God. I do struggle with being consistent in framing my argument according to deductive reasoning.

It seems natural to see this evidence as pieces in the puzzle that will eventually lead to a definition God. In other words, the process of debating the presence of God tempts me, at times, to reason inductively. To inductively reason the presence of God is another challenge. And, by the way, inductive reasoning is the main core of the scientific method. "The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process." is the definition of science. ( Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, The National Academies Press, Washington D.C., 2008, p 10.)

"But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations." (op. cit. p 12.)

Science and creationism will never agree according to this definition of science. Science will not consider natural phenomena mixed with supernatural. It considers only empirical evidence and testable explanations. Supernatural phenomena is not testable. Although it is not testable, it does not have to be false. Neither do the human observations and conclusions of science have to be true.