# Side Comments on Faith Across the Multiverse

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-faith-across-the-multiverse/1336>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** BookClub\
**Created:** [August 24, 2018, 1:37am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-faith-across-the-multiverse/1336 "2018-08-24T01:37:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 21

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2018, 5:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-faith-across-the-multiverse/1336/21 "2018-08-25T17:30:44Z")

</div>

> [@theman8469](#):
>
> You have not even read his book.

I have read the book.

> [@theman8469](#):
>
> I have read the book, you have not even said what I have got wrong (claiming I have not read the book is not an argument). But I think that comment pretty much does it for me. I wish you and the site all the best but I am finished.

I’m glad to hear you read it. Thank you. I’m sorry for inferring you didn’t. The reason why is that he certainly does make arguments in his book. You might disagree with the arguments, but he certainly makes arguments.

Here is an example of one:

> [@The Axiom of Belief](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-axiom-of-belief/526/3):
>
> Regarding Romans 1:20, I think he has it right:
> 
> > At the same time, I don’t think these verses require us to conclude that creation itself indisputably proves God’s existence. If the world was such that a belief in God was the only logical conclusion, or the only logically consistent way of understanding the world, then God’s work is done from the beginning and he has no need to communicate any further. But this is not the story that the Bible tells. Instead, it indicates that God repeatedly reveals himself personally, culminating in his incarnation in Jesus. Yes, there are other purposes of the incarnation, but one of them is to enable knowledge of God. As Jesus himself says, “If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him” (John 14:7).

Here is another explanation of the type of argument he is making…

> [@The Axiom of Belief](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-axiom-of-belief/526/6):
>
> > God wants the relationship, not just the knowledge their was an Artist who made this art.
> 
> Agreed! One of the motivations of the book is to show how natural theology can be about more than just knowing that God exists; it can also help us know who God is so we can deepen that relationship.

Here also is another argument…

> [@The Axiom of Belief](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-axiom-of-belief/526/8):
>
> > Assuming God rather than proving him might seem like dodging any requirement to provide evidence. Axioms can certainly be informed by evidence, and my belief in God is definitely informed by historical corroboration of the Bible. But axioms cannot themselves be deductively proven; as with pudding, the proof is in the tasting. I am primarily interested with what conclusions follow from my belief in God and how useful they are in my real life. This is comparable to the situation in geometry, where multiple geometries are logically and mathematically valid but the ones where parallel lines intersect are useful for describing a wider range of real world experiences.

This seems related to presuppositional apologetics.

@theman8469 do you really hold that he is not making arguments? Are you really saying he is making bad arguments? Or that there are things in addition to arguments here?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-faith-across-the-multiverse/1336)._