Jim Stump has started with the conclusion, and then tries to find justification for that belief afterwards. That’s fine. At some point, it is really a question of what is reasonable to me. We are subjective, emotional, and complex humans with religious belief being part of the human experience for many. The last thing we need or want is Thought Police who tell people how to think and what to believe or not believe. Tim Stump thinks his beliefs are reasonable, and I see nothing wrong with that. However, if he thinks that I should also conclude that it is reasonable for me to share in those beliefs then we may have a different conversation.
Yes. And it’s also reasonable to not believe in God
Then couldn’t you say denying evolution is reasonable? It’s what’s reasonable to those deniers after all.
In the context of Jim’s essay, denying evolution isn’t reasonable. He is speaking of matters of faith where there isn’t scientific evidence. For example, he doesn’t deny that the Big Bang happened. However, he does believe that God caused the Big Bang where there is an absence of a natural process.
Why must there be something beyond the realm in which science applies?
For someone who bashes religious belief as much as you, you think would be more familiar with the arguments for God’s existence that have been around for millennia. Most theists would argue god is a necessary being. Google God as a necessary being. That’ll get you started.
This depends on how you define science. There is no free lunch here. If you constrain it, it is limited as the situation we are in now. If you take off the constraints it becomes a non differentiated field. One opinion is as good as another without the discipline of testing your hypothesis.
And I argue that the God hypothesis is necessary to explain anything or to live a good meaningful life. Completely unnecessary
So when will we finally see an ID proponent test an ID hypothesis?
To be fair, Jim Stump wrote the essay for other believers, and more specifically for believers who are struggling with their faith. Therefore, his audience already assumes God is found outside of our universe. The essay was never meant to convey an argument that atheists would find compelling, which is probably why premises seem to suddenly appear from nowhere. It reads a bit like someone arguing it is reasonable to believe in fairies because fairies are the reason the universe exists in the first place.