A fine tuned universe

Within the context of a life-permitting universe, fine-tuning involves “the claim that the laws of nature, the fundamental parameters of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe are set just right for life to occur.” Robin Collins, The Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos: A Fresh Look at Its Implications,” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity,  207.

In other words, certain physical constants and quantities exist within an exceedingly narrow range that favors the appearance of life.

This does not mean, necessarily, that the universe was designed but, rather, as physicist Luke Barnes states: “In the set of fundamental parameters (constants and initial conditions) of nature… an extraordinarily small subset would have resulted in a universe able to support the complexity required by life.” But the implication is that it is more likley to have occured via design than by chance.

Reasonable Faith video

 

Examples of fine Tuning

Even the tiniest change to any constants or quantities will result in a universe incapable of supporting life. For example, if the gravitational fine structure constant (i.e., a measure of the strength of the interaction between charged particles and the electromagnetic force) was slightly smaller, existing matter would have expanded too far and rapidly to form stars and planets. Hence, no life could have formed. 

On the other hand, if the gravitational value was too large, the universe would have collapsed on itself, and the stars would have burned out too quickly to allow the existence of life. Moreover, if the electromagnetic force did not exist, there would be no complex chemistry. The chemicals essential for life would be too unstable to allow proper bonding, and there would be insufficient carbon and oxygen to support life.

Alternate views

While some believe that the many observed constants and quantities seem finely tuned for developing intelligent life, others have suggested that there is no way to scientifically test the effect of fine-tuning since there is no way to adjust the values to observe the consequences. As physicist Sabine Hossenfelder stated, a fine-tuned universe represents “an observational constraint on our parameters.” In other words, our knowledge of fine-tuning is interesting but is of limited scientific value since the parameters cannot be changed.

The Fine Tuned Argument [FTA] claims that, given the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of a life-permitting universe is very unexpected given naturalism — that “there is only one world, the natural world . . . [which] evolves according to unbroken patterns, the laws of nature” (Carroll, The Big Picture, 20)—but not particularly unexpected given theism—that God exists. It thus provides evidence for the existence of God. 

Faced with his own fine-tuning discoveries in physics and astronomy, Fred Hoyle commented that, “a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature” (Hoyle, p16).

Virtually no scientists dispute the science behind fine-tuning. What they dispute is what it all means. Three popular explanations for the existence of a fine-tuned universe are:

1) the multiverse explanation

2) fine-tuning is a brute fact of a universe brought about by chance (i.e., single-universe naturalism)

3) the design hypothesis 

The Multiverse

The multiverse explanation of fine-tuning proposes the existence of a vast, if not infinite, number of universes with different initial conditions or fundamental boundaries of physics and perhaps even different laws of nature. If there were an endless system of universes, we could expect that at least one universe would be structured to support intelligent “observers.” Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised to find human-like life forms or other embodied conscious agents somewhere in a multiverse. In this scenario, we were randomly selected to live in a universe that supports life.

Evaluation: One problem with the multiverse hypothesis is that NO scientific evidence supports it. None. If multiple universes exist, they are unobservable—without observation and testing, there is no way to generate scientific evidence to support a multiverse hypothesis. One cannot test a hypothesis when no data is forthcoming.

According to physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, any universes outside our own would be “causally disconnected from us.” and “The vast majority of multiverse ideas are presently untestable, and will remain so eternally.” Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, p 101-107

As a result, the multiverse explanation is not a scientific hypothesis; it is a philosophical (metaphysical) one. Philosophical questions such as this lie outside the purview of traditional scientific methods and must be justified in some other way.

Advocates of the multiverse often posit a "universe-generating" mechanism to explain the origin of other universes. By postulating a universe generator, proponents think that it may increase the probability of getting a life-friendly universe somewhere in the multiverse. However, the speculative cosmologies that are purportedly responsible for generating multiple universes (i.e., string theory, inflationary cosmology) invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning.  Thus, the multiverse hypothesis cannot explain fine-tuning without appealing to some prior fine-tuning mechanism (either the universe generator or whatever generated the generator).

For example, suppose one tries to explain the design of a car by referring to the assembly plant that produces many similar cars. Such a description doesn’t alleviate the need for an explanation for the design of the car. Indeed, it simply points to the need for an explanation of the design of the assembly line that produces the cars. In other words, it shifts the need for explanation to the next level. The shortcoming of this approach is that it leaves one in doubt about the source of all prior fine-tuning processes and mechanisms and still leaves open the question of why these should be random rather than designed.

Thus, even if a multiverse exists, theism may provide a better explanation than naturalism. An infinite set of universes is better explained by an unbounded cause than a random cause. Since there is no good reason to believe that the multiverse must be randomly caused, and since the universe generator must also be finely tuned, a simpler explanation [via Occam's Razor] seems more likely: If a multiverse exists at all, then a single transcendent intelligence designed it to support life.

Single-universe naturalism

Philosophical naturalism [PN] is a worldview that asserts that the existence of intelligent life in our universe is the result of chance processes governed by natural laws. There are no design influences, only blind material causes. However, naturalism is unproven scientifically and therefore requires a substantial defense to warrant belief. And PN is also self-refuting. 

Fine-tuning is a brute fact

Single-universe naturalists claim that there is nothing surprising about the fact that we find ourselves in a universe with rational beings because nothing else is possible. Only in a universe that supports life can there be beings capable of observing and reflecting upon fine-tuning. Single-universe naturalists see life in the universe as a brute, inexplicable fact that requires no further explanation. Nobody would be alive to comment on fine-tuning if the universe weren’t life-permitting in the first place. Thus, the existence of human observers is unremarkable.

If one assumes in advance that the fine-tuning found in the universe is the result of chance, then any arrangement of matter is equally improbable (or probable), and there is no reason for one to ask why or how we exist. Naturalists who see fine-tuning as a brute fact say we don’t need to search for a deeper explanation: The universe “just is.”

Evaluation: First, to say that fine-tuning “requires no further explanation” is a matter of opinion. Undoubtedly, many people seek deeper explanations than are readily available. And to say that human existence is “unremarkable” is, at best, arguable. 

Second, to justify one’s belief that a fine-tuned universe is merely a brute fact, one must know in advance that the universe is solely the result of chance. In other words, one must assume the truth of philosophical naturalism. However, mere assumptions are not self-justifying. To prove that naturalism is true, one must develop and present good reasons to justify such a belief.

Furthermore we have reasons to conclude that  PN is self-refuting. 

Nevertheless, the assumption of naturalism receives no help from science because naturalism is not a scientific position; it is a philosophical one. To merely assume the truth of naturalism amounts to nothing more than a “naturalism-in-the-gap” belief. Thus, single-universe naturalism is a belief that requires one to put forth evidence and arguments to demonstrate the rationality of naturalism and that it's the best explanation of the evidence

When scientists (or anyone else) assume the truth of philosophical naturalism, they naturally begin to reject anything and everything that does not fit their predetermined viewpoint.  Many people take the side of naturalism simply because of a prior commitment since it's the methods and institutions of science that compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world. They have an unspoken, a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce only material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive. But that is not rational. The cure for that, of course, is Reason. 

The design hypothesis

For many theists, it is unsurprising that the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life. After all, if an intelligent being wanted to create a world where intelligent life exists, it seems reasonable that it would set the initial conditions and physical constants of the universe to favor that outcome. A finely tuned universe - one that supports intelligent, self-reflective, rational beings - is perfectly consistent with a theistic explanation. It is a coherent and simple explanation that need not appeal to unnecessary conjectures (e.g., the multiverse) to support its case.

Theists (specifically monotheists) have historically believed that God created the universe and populated it with all forms of life including intelligent life. This has inspired many theists, as well as non-theists, to seek answers to the “how” question through the study of biology, chemistry, and physics. To theists, fine-tuning leads one to look for an ultimate explanation for the universe and its many features. In a theistic world, the Designer could have used any number of methods to ensure the establishment of intelligent life, including a fine-tuned single universe or a multiverse.

Evaluation: Like the multiverse and chance hypotheses, theism cannot be proven scientifically. In other words, the theistic explanation is not a scientific position but a philosophical one. But that's okay since reason is the basis of all knowledge, not science. Nevertheless, many philosophical/theological arguments favor theism, while naturalism has few if any, positive arguments. Therefore, the success of theism depends on demonstrating why it explains fine-tuning better than the other two hypotheses.

Conclusion

Although each of the three explanations offered is consistent with a fine-tuned universe, none of them can explain fine-tuning with absolute certainty. But then we know almost nothing with aboslute certainty. 

Both the multiverse and chance hypotheses are doubtful. Neither is supported by scientific evidence, and both lack philosophical arguments to support their foundational beliefs.

Nevertheless, the design hypothesis is currently the best explanation of the data - it infers that the fine-tuned constants and quantities of the universe favor the influence of a designing intelligence. And the design hypothesis indirectly supports theism, as this designer must be beyond the confines of the physical. 

Objection A - The puddle analogy is an argument against FTA as it compares a puddle to life, and any hole to the environment and its pressures. It shows that organisms with specific adaptations are well-suited to any environment.

Reply: The puddle analogy is refuted here 

Objection B - Design is unscientific,

Repy: SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed of was natural.

An a priori non-design stance seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts

Objection C -This is a God of the gaps argument.

Reply: A God of the Gap argument assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon. But I’m not citing an unknown phenomenon or a gap in our knowledge. I am using the inference to the best explanation and citing what we do know about the universe, in order to choose between design [purposeful, intentional guided process with a goal] over chance [a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal] or an the scientifically unknowable [the multiverse]

Objection D -You can't apply Zeno's paradox to causal chains.

Reply: Per the [IEP] "...many of Zeno’s arguments turn crucially on the notion that space and time are infinitely divisible, he was the first person to show that the concept of infinity is problematical."

Where did I say that "space and time are infinitely divisible"?  Difficult to evaluate your objection since it's so vague. 

Objection E -You can't speak of BEFORE the universe, when time as we know it is a product OF this universe.

Reply: 1) I guess that wipes out the possiblity for any multiverse theory

2) Perhaps I spoke of casually prior. 

Objection F -Saying that "God" is the TOE is literally meaningless. It provides no knowledge or insight into the universe, it's just wordplay. Pumpkin soup is the explanation for everything. See, we call all assert meaningless things.

Reply: LOL, showing that God exists provides NO knowledge or insight into the universe?  That's totally absurd the the nth degree. 

Objection G - how can a designer create the universe without time, space, or energy/material?

Reply: My post is limited to showing the the best explanation is that the universe was designed, not how that design was implemented. This question will have to be addressed in a future post.

That being said, scientific observations are consistent with the idea that the universe came into existence out of nothing rather than existing eternally or forming from pre-existing material. Modern astrophysics has confirmed by both mathematics and observation that the universe is continually expanding; that space itself is expanding. 

An expanding universe must have a starting point. An infinite regress of causes isn't logically viable. While there are a variety of models that, at best, delay the problem further into the past, none can escape the ultimate reality that even the very substance of the universe had a beginning. These facts also negate eternal, cyclical models of the universe found in many eastern religions in which the universe has always existed. The universe is finite. It began to exist, and there was no matter before it. And every model of the universe must contend with the fact that there must be a starting point for existence. 

Objection H - What if the constants and quantities had to be the way they are? If their values are somehow necessary, then fine-tuning isn’t a problem that needs to be resolved or explained.

I'll let Wiliam Lane Craig address this: 

It seems to be pretty widely acknowledged that the constants and quantities in question are not physically necessary. This is because they cannot be predicted on the basis of current physical theory or any extension of current physical theory. Several years ago Stephen Hawking addressed your question at a cosmology conference at the University of California, Davis. Notice the alternative answers which he identifies to the fundamental question he poses:

Does string theory, or M theory, predict the distinctive features of our universe, like a spatially flat four dimensional expanding universe with small fluctuations, and the standard model of particle physics? Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe, than the alternatives. These are that the initial state of the universe, is prescribed by an outside agency, code named God. Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle.

Notice that the options mentioned by Hawking are precisely the three alternatives which I address. Hawking argues that the first option, physical necessity, though the option most physicists would prefer to be true, is a vain hope: “M theory cannot predict the parameters of the standard model. Obviously, the values of the parameters we measure must be compatible with the development of life. . . .But within the anthropically allowed range, the parameters can have any values. So much for string theory predicting the fine structure constant.” He wrapped up by saying,

"...even when we understand the ultimate theory, it won’t tell us much about how the universe began. It cannot predict the dimensions of spacetime, the gauge group, or other parameters of the low energy effective theory. . . . It won’t determine how this energy is divided between conventional matter, and a cosmological constant, or quintessence. . . . So to come back to the question. . . Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not. It allows a vast landscape of possible universes, in which we occupy an anthropically permitted location.

In fact, this idea of a “cosmic landscape” predicted by string theory has become something of a phenom in its own right. It turns out that string theory allows around 10^500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that the theory does not at all render the observed values of the constants physically necessary.  [source]

Scientific Evidence for an Immaterial Mind - aka the Soul

Yes, we do have some evidence that the mind is separate from the brain.

1) cerebral localization

It's been known since the 19th century that for motor and sensory function there are very specific locations in the brain that seem to mediate those functions. Hand movements are controlled by a specific part of the opposite cerebral hemisphere. Vision is controlled by a very discrete area in the occipital lobes.

However, Higher intellectual functions, such as abstract thought, mathematics, ethics, are not localized like that. There is no calculus center of my brain. There's no ethics center in my brain.

The brain seems to be necessary for doing calculus and doing addition and thinking about concepts like justice and mercy, and so on, but it's not localizable. The belief that higher abstract thought was going to be localizable was held by materialism in the 19th century, and they developed the theory of phrenology from that. He has the idea that all of these individual higher intellectual Functions have a spot in the brain that controlled them. Phrenology has been discredited. It's been shown to be wrong.

Because only certain things in the brain seem to be mediated by the brain other aspects of the mind, don't have a spot in the brain. The implication there is that they're not really material, but they're an immaterial power of being able to reason and use logic. And frankly, that's a very old dualist idea. It was an idea proposed by Aristotle. So for thousands of years duelists have predicted that and modern neuroscience, for now, confirms that.

2) split brain operations

Back in the 1960s, Roger Sperry, a prominent neuroscientist did a series of studies on patients, who had split brain operations due to severe epilepsy. An epileptic focus would begin in one hemisphere of the brain and travel through the corpus colosum, which is a bundle of fibers connecting the two hemispheres, and cause a generalized seizure.

It was recognized by surgeons in the mid-20th century that if you cut the fiber bundle that connected, the two hemispheres of the brain that you could prevent the seizures from becoming generalized, and you could greatly improve the quality of the patient's life. So a number of patients had this operation called corpus callosotomy. The patient's seizures would get better. But they really weren't much different, that is that their brains were essentially cut in half, but they still seem to be a unitary person. They still seem to be fairly normal. Sperry was a neuroscientist who studied these people in detail, and he did find that there were some subtle abnormalities as a result of cutting the brain in half, but the abnormalities were very subtle; so subtle that the experiments he won him the Nobel Prize.

And what that implies is that the human mind is not purely generated by the matter of the brain, otherwise cutting the brain in half would have profound effects on the human mind. It might make two people. Certainly, it should create a profound difference in a person's state of consciousness, but it doesn't. You've cut the brain in half and the person can't tell the difference, except that he has fewer seizures.

3) epilepsy neurosurgery

Dr. Penfield was the first neurosurgeon to systematically operate on the human brain when people were awake; he would work on the brain while they were awake in an effort to identify the focus of their seizures and to remove the focus from the brain. So their seizures would stop, and he operated on upwards of a thousand patients like this and very carefully recorded his results. He believed that all the mind originated from activity of the brain., but by the end of his career, he was a passionate dualist.

He repeatedly observed that there were aspects of the patient's mind that no matter what he did to the brain he couldn't affect. He could elicit memories, make a muscle move, or make a patient have a sensation. But he couldn't change their consciousness, he couldn't change their intellect, he couldn't change their sense of self. There was a fundamental core, that no matter what he did to the brain, remain the same. So, he said there was something he couldn't reach.

He asked the question, why are there no intellectual seizures? When people have epilepsy, commonly a person will have jerking of a muscle. Sometimes so many muscles jerk that they actually go unconscious. Sometimes they have a tingling on their skin, or sometimes they'll have a funny smell, or sometimes they can even have a little behavioral tick.

But they never start doing calculus. They never contemplate, justice or mercy. They never think about Shakespeare. So Penfield says, why aren't there intellectual seizures? If the mind comes from the brain entirely, the mind is material in some sense, then you ought to have seizures that make you do addition. Or think about politics. But you don't. What that implies is that the intellect is not the brain.

4) vegetative state brain function

Neuroscientist Adrian Owen looked at brain function in people who were in persistent vegetative state, Persistent vegetative, where a person has such severe brain damage that they show no sign of consciousness. And sometimes their caretakers will say something like, *I get the sense that the person is there that they understand things*, but there's no clinical evidence for it. Doctors would examine them, but there's no sign of any reaction at all and scan their brains are shrunken and obviously severely damage.

So Owen did a fascinating experiment. He used the technique called functional MRI imaging, which is mRI machine that images changes in blood flow in the brain that seems to correlate with brain function. So if you're moving your arm, the part of your brain that involves moving your arm lights up on the functional MRI. If you're thinking about stuff, your frontal lobe, slide up, things like that. So what Owen did is that he took a woman who had been diagnosed for several years and persistent vegetative state from a car accident, who showed no sign at all of any awareness, deep common, put her in the MRI machine and ask your questions. He said, pretend that you are playing tennis. Or imagine that you're walking across the room. He asked her to imagine all these things, and her brain kind of lit up in places.

But you could say that the brain lighting up, doesn't mean she was understanding anything. Maybe the sound coming into her ears, was causing a reflex or something. So, he took 15 normal people. And he did the same thing with them. Stuck them in a machine, put an asked the same questions. And then he asked, neurobiologists to look at the functional MRI images of this woman and the 15 normal people, And see if you can tell a difference between the two and they couldn't. Her pattern of reaction was identical to the normal people. That seemed to imply that she could understand what he was asking.

But perhaps the lighting up of areas in her brain and the lighting up of the area is a normal people's brains was just because of the reception of the sound, and didn't really understand. So what he then did is he took the same words that he had asked her before, but he took away the semantics. And just left some syntax. And her brain stop stopped reacting. As did the normal controls. Her brain only reacted when what he said to her made sense. It didn't react from just sound.

And this has been repeated by a number of different investigators that show the same thing that he found. That even when your brain is so massively destroyed and there's no clinical evidence for any mental activity at all, functional MRI can find that these patients are capable of thinking. Some patients who can do mathematics, ask "what's six plus six" and then give them different answers and when you hit the right answer of the brain lights up. So, very clearly, there are aspects of the mind that cannot be destroyed by severe brain damage. That's what Owen's work is showing us. It's showing us our aspects of the mind that aren't connected tightly to the brain, our minds are immaterial.

Conclusion

So not only is this a blow to a naturalistic understanding of the world it is also evidence for the existence of the soul, since in religion and philosophy, the soul is often considered to be synonymous with the mind or the self.

And while this doesn't show how an immaterial mind could interact with the physical brain in A Scientific Case for the Soul Robin Collins offers some idea how the immaterial mind can interact with the material brain - see sections 4 & 5.

This added with the argument that Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting is additional evidence that a physical only view of the world is not sufficient to explain it; i.e. there must be some supernatural, nonphysical, element at play in the world

If God has perfect foreknowledge how can humans have free will?

What is critical to free will is not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Philosophers sometimes call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind. And from determined events that are outside their control.

Thought experiment:

Let's say Grace builds a time machine and decides to travel to the future and see what her friend Anna has for breakfast tomorrow. After she comes back to the present day, she now has prior knowledge of a freely chosen future event. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any inconsistency with God having perfect foreknowledge of the future and humans have free will.

Objections:

A) Let's say Anna changed her mind at the last second and decided on something else for breakfast.

The reply: Grace would have seen that, and Grace would know of that change. Remember, we are speaking about perfect foreknowledge of the future

B) The idea of a time machine is incompatible with logic and therefore not possible for even an omnipotent being to accomplish, so using it as an example doesn't really resolve the issue.

The reply:

A time machine may not be compatible with physics/metaphysics, but it’s compatible with logic. But it's not meant as the way it was done, but more as an illustration of how prior knowledge doesn't refute the idea of freewill.

Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery

These 7 facts prove that slavery as outlined in the Bible was indebted servitude, not chattel slavery.

Definitions

Chattel slavery - allows people to be bought, sold and owned, even forever

Indentured servitude - a form of labor where a voluntarily person agrees to work without pay for a set number of years

The seven facts

1) Ebed - The English word "slave" and "slavery" come from the Hebrew word Ebed. It means servant, slave, worshippers (of God), servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc), servant (of Israel), servant (as form of address between equals.; it does not necessarily mean a chattel slave in and of itself, thus it is incumbent upon those who say it does to provide the reasons for that conclusion if they are going to use.

Whether "ebed" mean indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context.

2) Everyone was an Ebed - From the lowest of the low, to the common man, to high officials, to the king every one was an Ebed in ancient Israel, since it means to be a servant or worshipper of God, servant in the sense as prophets, Levites etc, servant of Israel, and as a form of address between equals.

It's more than a bit silly to think that a king or provincial governors were chattel slaves - able to be bought and sold.

3) Ancient Near East [ANE] Slavery was poverty based - the historical data doesn’t support the idea of chattel slavery in the ANE. The dominant motivation for “slavery” in the ANE was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--not by the "owner"--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects). 

The definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law - HANEL). This work surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and includes sections on slavery.

A few quotes from HANEL: 

"Most slaves owned by Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia seem to have been debt slaves--free persons sold into slavery by a parent, a husband, an elder sister, or by themselves." (1.449)

 "Sales of wives, children, relatives, or oneself, due to financial duress, are a recurrent feature of the Nuzi socio-economic scene…A somewhat different case is that of male and female foreigners, who gave themselves in slavery to private individuals or the palace administration. Poverty was the cause of these agreements…" (1.585)

"Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery are by reason of debt or famine or both…*A common practice was for a financier to pay off the various creditors in return for the debtor becoming his slave.*" (1.664f)

"On the other hand, mention is made of free people who are sold into slavery as a result of the famine conditions and the critical economic situation of the populations [Canaan]. Sons and daughters are sold for provisions…" (1.741)

"The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement [Neo-Sumerian, UR III] was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self-sale. All these cases clearly arose from poverty; it is not stated, however, whether debt was specifically at issue." (1.199)

[If interested, HANEL is available for download for free at academia.edu - see here - though you might have to resister]

Quotes from other sources  

Owing to the existence of numerous designations for the non-free and manumitted persons in the first millennium BC. throughout Mesopotamia in history some clarification have the different terms in their particular nuances is necessary the designations male slave and female slave though common in many periods of Mesopotamian history are rarely employed to mean chattel slave in the sixth Century BC in the neo-babylonian context they indicate social subordination in general [Kristin Kleber, Neither Slave nor Truly Free: The Status of Dependents of Babylonian Temple Households]

Westbrook states: At first sight the situation of a free person given and pledged to a creditor was identical to slavery The pledge lost his personal freedom and was required to serve the creditor who supported the pledges labor. Nevertheless the relationship between the pledge and the pledge holder remained one of contract not property. [Rachel Magdalene, Slavery between Judah and Babylon an Exilic Experience, cited in fn]

Mendelshon writes: The diversity of experiences and realities of enslaved people across time and place as well as the evidence that enslaved persons could and did exercise certain behaviors that would today be described as “freedoms”, resist inflexible legal or economic definitions. Economic treatises and legal codes presented slaves ways as chattel while documents pertaining to daily life contradict this image and offer more complex picture of slavery in the near East societies. Laura Culbertson, Slaves and Households in the Near East

Some of the misunderstanding of the biblical laws on service/slavery arises from the unconscious analogy the modern Western Hemisphere slavery, which involved the stealing of people of a different race from their homelands, transporting them in chains to a new land, selling them to an owner who possess them for life, without obligation to any restriction and who could resell them to someone else. Weather one translates “ebed as” servant, slave, employee, or worker it is clear the biblical law allows for no such practices in Israel [Stewart Douglas, Exodus - NAC]

So, it would seem that there was no need to go through the trouble of capturing people to enslave them since a lot of people were willing to work in exchange for room/board. 

But it gets worse for an Israelite if he wanted to make one a chattel slave because of the...

4) Anti-Kidnap law - Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” [Exodus 21:16, see also 1 Tim 1:9-10]

This is clear that selling a person or buying someone against their will into slavery was punishable by death in the OT.

5) Anti-Return law - “You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.” [Deuteronomy 23:15–16]

Some dismiss DT 23:15-16 by saying that this was referring to other tribes/countries and that Israel was to have no extradition treaty with them. But read it in context and that idea is nowhere to be found; DT 23 Verses 15-16 refers to slaves, without any mention of their origin.

I'll quote from HANEL once again, Page 1007: "A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution.

**The importance of Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law**

These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned. LV25:44-46 is the main verse critics use to argue for chattel slavery, but given these two laws, it's reasonable to read that passage through the lens of indentured servitude.

6) Anti-Oppression law- “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]

The fact is Israel was not free to treat foreigners wrongly or oppress them; and were, in fact to, commanded to love them. 

In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." [Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Campbell, Ken  (ed).  InterVarsity Press: 60]

7) The word buy - the word buy - The word transmitted “buy” refers to any financial transaction related to a contract such as in modern sports terminology a player can be described as being bought or sold the players are not actually the property of the team that has them except in regards to the exclusive right to their employment as players of that team - [Stuart, Douglas K. Exodus: (The New American Commentary)

The verb buy/acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants. For example, the same word appears in Genesis 4:1 Eve’s having “gotten a manchild and 14:19 - God is the “Possessor of heaven and earth” Later, Boaz “acquired” Ruth as a wife (Ruth 4:10). So you are trying to force a narrow definition onto the word. And as noted earlier, "buy" can refer to financial transactions, as in "work for x amount of time for x amount of debt to be paid off".

See Kidnapping, Slavery, Exodus 21:16. and Joshua Bowen for an examination of an argument thsat tries to say that kidnapping laws didn't apply to everybody

Objections

A) The Anti-Kidnap law has Nothing to do with slavery

The response: in order to enslave someone, you must take and hold them against their will. So, Exodus 21:16 does apply to slavery

B) Exodus 21:4 says that a woman and her children are slaves for life!

The verse: "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone.

The response: Ex 21 was for protection of the rights of both worker and employer. The provisions for what you refer to is: if an already married servant contracted for a term of service, that servant should have built into the contract some provisions for the keeping of a spouse (i.e., the boss had to figure in the costs of housing, food, and clothing for the spouse as well). But if a boss allowed a woman already serving him to marry the servant he had hired while single, there had to be a compensation for the boss's costs incurred for that woman servant already serving him. Her potential to provide children was also an asset—considered part of her worth—and had to be compensated for as well in any marriage arrangement. Therefore, as a protection for the boss's investment in his female worker, a male worker could not simply “walk away with” his bride and children upon his own release from service. He himself was certainly free from any further obligation at the end of his six years, but his wife and children still were under obligation to the boss (“only the man shall go free”). Once her obligation was met, she would be free. [Stewart Douglas, Exodus - NAC]

C) Deut 20:10-15; if you sack a city you can enslave them!

The verse: ″when you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.”

The response: 

The surrounding text makes clear that these nations live at some distance outside the territory of Israel. Israel was allotted the land, but the boundaries were quite clear and quite restricted by God. Their dominion (via vassal treaties) could extend further, but their ownership could not. There was almost zero-motive, therefore, for Israel to fund long-distance military campaigns to attack foreign nations for territory, or for the economic advantages of owning such territory.

Dominion could be profitable since it left people to work the land for taxes/tribute; but war always siphons off excess wealth, thus reducing the 'value' of a conquered country, but displacement, ownership, colonization was much more expensive. These cities (not nations, btw) are enemies of Israel, which can only mean that they have funded/mounted military campaigns against Israel in some form or been key contributors to such.

"...the verse indicates that the Israelites were to offer to the inhabitants of such cities the terms of a vassal treaty. If the city accepted the terms, it would open its gates to the Israelites, both as a symbol of surrender and to grant the Israelites access to the city; the inhabitants would become vassals and would serve Israel." [New International Commentary on the Old Testament]

"Offer it shalom, here meaning terms of surrender, a promise to spare the city and its inhabitants if they agree to serve you. The same idiom appears in an Akkadian letter from Mari: 'when he had besieged that city, he offered it terms of submission (salimam).' In an Egyptian inscription, the prostrate princes of Canaan say shalom when submitting to the Pharaoh. The same meaning is found in verse 11, which reads literally "If it responds 'shalom' and lets you in," and in verse 12, where a verb derived from shalom (hislim) is used for 'surrender'" [Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary]

"Literally, as 'forced laborers.' Hebrew mas refers to a contingent of forced laborers working for the state. They were employed in agriculture and public works, such as construction. In monarchic times, David imposed labor on the Ammonites and Solomon subjected the remaining Canaanites to labor...see 2 Sam 12:31; 1 Kings 9:15, 20-22; cf. Judg. 1:28-35. When imposed on citizens, such service took the form of periodic corvee labor. [corvee means unpaid labor - as toward constructing roads - due from a feudal vassal to his lord] Solomon, for example, drafted Israelites to fell timber in Lebanon; each group served one month out of three (1 Kings 5:27-28). It is not known whether foreign populations subjected to forced labor served part-time or permanently." [Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary]

"The likely meaning is that the city, through its people, was to perform certain tasks, not that individual citizens were to be impressed." [The Torah, A Modern Commentary, Union of American Hebrew Congregations]

"Israel must give its enemy an opportunity to make peace. Those who accepted this offer were required to pay taxes, perform national service, and, if they were going to live in the Land, to accept the Seven Noahide Laws." [Tanaach, Stone Edition] 

This forced, or corvee labor (cf. Gibeonites in Josh 9), but this would hardly be called chattel slavery since it is also used of conscription services under the Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15). 

So, no Deut 20:10-15 does not support/endorse chattel slavery

D) Deut 20:14 says the Israelites could rape women since they are plunder

The verse: See above.

The response:

Notice that nothing is said about rape, and no reference to sexual intercourse is made in the text. However, in the next chapter this is not true. 

When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NASB)

The captives in Deuteronomy 21:10 are the women and children in Deuteronomy 20:14. The event of chapter 21 is an example of case law. That is, in the event that one of the captives pleases the male who took them. It is not the case for every female whom he captured. The Scripture concerns one man and one woman. Some critics presume that because the text says the Israelite has “a desire for her” (the woman POW) that he already has raped her, but this isn’t so. At least the Hebrew cannot be made to indicate that he raped her. The Hebrew word (H2836) means to love, be attached to, or long for. The word is used eleven times in the Old Testament, and never used for raping a woman.

"The position of a female captive of war was remarkable. According to Deuteronomy 20:14, she could be spared and taken as a servant, while Deuteronomy 21:10-11 allowed her captor to take her to wife. While the relationship of the Hebrew bondwoman was described by a peculiar term (note: concubine), the marriage to the captive woman meant that the man 'would be her husband and she his wife.' No mention was made of any act of manumission; the termination of the marriage was possible only by way of divorce and not by sale." Hebrew Law in Biblical Times.  Falk, Ze'ev 127]

E) Exodus 21:7- a father can sell his daughter into sex slavery!

The verse: 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

The response: Most critics stop reading at verse 7 but if they continued, they'd see that this is about marriage not sex slavery. If the family was poor and needed money, they could give her away in marriage to an interested suitor (v. 8) where there was a dowry.

This ensured that the woman was to be cared for in a family system that had enough, and that the family could be cared for by the dowry. Even today the dowry system exists in many cultures, and it has its benefits. 

But if the new husband found her to be bad or evil (the meaning of “displeasing” in the text v. 8), then he was not to divorce her and give her away to someone else for a dowry of his own. That would be evil as already he is “acting treacherously” towards her. But the family could get their daughter back and return the dowry if she was found to be bad/evil.

If the man got her as a wife for his son, then the man must deal with her as full rights and provisions of a daughter. He is not to deal with her any other way. She has the full privileges of family.

And if the man (or his son presumably) takes another wife, in no way was he to reduce his care for her. He is to make sure she has equal food, clothing and marital rights as the first wife. If he does not provide fully in these areas for her, she is free to leave and return home and the family is under no obligation to return the dowry money.

Verse 11 states “she shall go free for nothing, without payment of money.” The husband and his family cannot invoke the card of her being formerly a servant and therefore she’s obligated to stay and work for them. This is where the normal protocol of marriage is important mentioned in verse 9. In the instance where she has the right to leave her husband under the conditions of verse 10 and 11, since there are the normal customs of marriage back then, she can go back to her family who have the dowry from the husband and thereby she can survive - she has more protection than a male servant!

F) Leviticus 25:44-46: says you can buy foreign slave and you can bequeath them to your children!

The verse: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The response:  First one would have to ignore points 1-7 above to reach that conclusion. One must assume, without any rational basis, that “ebed” must mean “chattel slave”.  But as argued above the passage can mean, and most likely does mean "servants". As Stuart notes [fact 7 above] "buy" means financial transaction related to a contract. And note that vs 45 and 46 say that they may be your property and bequeath them to your sons. It doesn’t say must or will, it wasn't required or nor could it be imposed by force. Given that, this passage loses all of the bite that critics assume it has.

They were not considered property in the same sense as an ox or coat because escaped slaves were not to be returned (Deut. 23:15-16) but an ox or coat was to be returned (Exodus 23:4; Deut. 22:1–4). Since they were not considered strict property nor chattel slaves, it must be that the work these inherited slaves produced was considered the property of the master.

Furthermore, Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore. While foreigners in Israel could serve for life, serving multiple generations if they wanted (just like an Israelite slave could), the Torah didn’t require that. Third, except for automatic debt cancellation in the seventh year, foreign slaves were afforded the same protections and benefits as Israelite slaves, including protection if they decided to leave at any time.


To properly evaluate passages Leviticus 25, we have to look at the regulations God gave previously as a foundation and they completely destroy any idea that Leviticus 25 is talking about chattel slavery.

First would be the anti-kidnap law: “*Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death*” in Exodus 21:16,

Second the anti-return law in Deuteronomy 23:15–16, “You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.”

Critics ignore these two foundational laws and try to interprete the practice in Lev 25: 44-46 sans this foundation. That is their error.

What Lev 25: 44-46 is saying is, peoples from other nations were going to volunteer themselves into the hands of the Israelites - it was permissible to only "purchase" men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, which is a big difference from being held against one’s own free will. Voluntary service doesn't equal chattel slavery.

And remember, any bond-servant purchased from the Gentiles had the right to flee their master, and receive the protection of the Law of Moses if they did so:

But yes, one could make a debt slave permanent if that was the desire of both sides. One side gets an experienced servant and the other gets security.

G) Slaves could be beaten

The verse: "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. – Exodus 21:20-21

The response: 

Corporal punishment has nothing to do with the slavery question since free persons could be beaten as well. You have moved the goalposts from chattel slavery is condoned/endorsed in the Bible to the question of whether corporal punishment is bad.

The law allowed disciplinary rod-beating for a servant (Ex 21.20-22), apparently under the same conditions as that for free men:

If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed. If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (ksph--"silver"; not the normal word for property, btw).

Free men could likewise be punished by the legal system by rod-beating (Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Prov 13.24; 22.15; 23.13). Beating by rod (shevet) is the same act/instrument (flogging (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 89.32). This verse is in parallel to verses 18-19. If two people fight but no one dies, the aggressor is punished by having to 'retributively' pay (out of his own money--"silver", ksph) for the victim's lost economic time and medical expenses. If it is a person's slave and this occurs, there is no (additional) economic payment--the lost productivity and medical expenses of the wounded servant are (punitive economic) loss alone. There was no other punishment for the actual damage done to the free person in 18-19, and the slave seems to be treated in the same fashion. Thus, there doesn't seem to be any real difference in ethical treatment of injury against a servant vs a free person.

H) Scholar X or the consensus of scholars say the Bible endorses/condones chattel slavery

The response: 

First, scholarship disagrees on almost every subject.

Second, to accept a claim merely because a scholar says so is not critical thinking - one must examine the arguments presented.

Third, this objection presumes that a scholar or a scholarly consensus cannot be wrong, this is most assuredly wrong.

Fourth, the "consensus of scholars" isn't how scholarship works; it's who has the Best Explanation of the Data

Fifth, I cited multiple scholars in my argument. I don't mean to imply a tit-for-tat scholar v scholar, just that my view is supported by scholarship.

I) I can't believe yet another Christian is trying to defend slavery!

The response: No, what I am doing is defining slavery. "Slavery" can mean different things: chattel slavery, indentured servitude, a hired servant, etc,  I'm arguing that forced, involuntary labor [i.e. chattel slavery]  is outlawed in the bible. 

J) Indentured servitude is evil!

The response: 

So, one should not work to pay off a debt? this seems likely to encourage people to incure a debt that they know they won't have to pay back. 

K) Your argument is full of "disingenuity, red herrings, obfuscation, false comparisons, and fallacies"

The response: 

I asked if they would specify where exactly where the "disingenuity, red herrings, obfuscation, false comparisons, and fallacies" were; they replied "No" - So this can be dismissed as a baseless accusation 

It's an easy thing to say that my argument was "dissected and destroyed"; much more difficult to prove it. But it sould be easy for you since all you have to do is copy/paste wha you think refutes it.  

L) Lev 25:46 says "...but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly".  This seems to imply that God is okay with being ruthless to others just not your fellow Hebrews. 

The response: 

You are reading too much into the verse. The Bible says treat one's wife with respect - does that imply that we can be dis-respectful to all others? No.  The Bible says not to exasperate our children, does that imply that we can be exasperate all others? No. 

In context the prohibtions are: Do not make him work as a indentured servant. Do not take interest of any kind from him, You must not sell him food at a profit. [Lev 25:35-46]

M) Does the specific type of slavery really matter? Is slavery really okay so long as it follows certain rules? Who gets to decide those rules? The slaves or the slave masters? Do you see the slippery slope here?

The response: Yes, the "type of slavery" matters; voluntary servitude vs involuntary servitude. Since  it's voluntary servitude the slaves decides. 

Conclusion: History shows that chattel slavery was rare in the ANE, there were so much poverty that there was no need to go out and capture another for forced labor as people were willing to work for food to pay a debt or simply for food and shelter.

The word translated as slave or slavery has a wide range of meaning that doesn’t necessarily mean “chattel slave”. One would have to show from the text what that meaning is.

The Biblical text is clear that kidnaping/buying/selling/possessing someone is punishable by death. And that if a slave escapes they are not to be returned, and all slaves are not to be oppressed. The word “buy” doesn’t have to mean buying a person, but can mean buying one’s services/labor.

Thus, it is clear that the Biblical text and history do not support the idea that the Bible or God endorsed, sanctioned, or condoned chattel slavery. In fact, God and the Bible outlawed chattel slavery

Does the specific type of slavery really matter? Is slavery really okay so long as it follows certain rules? Who gets to decide those rules? The slaves or the slave masters? Do you see the slippery slope here?

Other posts of interest on this topic

Has My "Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery" Been Debunked?

Exodus 21:1-6 - An Involuntary Slave for Life?

Exodus 21:7-11 Protection for Female Servants

Kidnapping, Slavery, Exodus 21:16. and Joshua Bowen

Leviticus 25:44-46 does not Support Chattel Slavery

Are Christians dishonest and obtuse in defining and defending the Old Testament slavery as more akin to voluntary servitude than involuntary chattel slavery?

The Inference to the Best Explanation

Offering an inference to the best explanation occurs when we conclude that the best available explanation of the current data is probably true because it’s the best addresses all or most of the data or observations. A little more formally:

S is a state of affairs; a collection of data, facts, observations, givens.
H hypothesis, would, if true, explain S.
No other hypothesis [A, B, C] can explain S as well as H does.
Therefore, it is probable that H is true.

Inferences to the best explanation are common in all fields of inquiry, including scientific, and everyday life. For a more thorough exploration:

Inference to the Best Explanation - Peter Lipton

Inference to the Best Explanation - An Overview

Pushbacks

We may be choosing the best of a bad lot, and that we have no way of knowing whether the truth is contained in our set to begin with.

Reply: Scientists don't claim to have completely certainty on any scientific fact, no fact from any field of inquiry does. We've gone from Newtonian physics to special and general relativity, and guess what? Einstein's work is likely to only be partially correct. Qualms with IBE on this account are off base. Abductive inferences [IBE] are used in every field of inquiry, including science, history, linguistics, and everyday life,

Explanations help us to understand why something happened, not simply convince us that something happened. However, there is a common kind of inductive argument that takes the best explanation of why x occurred as an argument for the claim that x occurred. For example, suppose that your car window is broken and your iPod (which you left visible in the front seat) is missing. 

The immediate inference you would probably make is that someone broke the window of your car and stole your iPod. What makes this a reasonable inference? What makes it a reasonable inference is that this explanation explains all the relevant facts (broken window, missing iPod) and does so better than any other competing explanation. In this case, it is perhaps possible that a stray baseball broke your window, but since (let us suppose) there is no baseball diamond close by, and people normally don’t play catch in the parking garage you are parked in, this seems unlikely. 

Moreover, the baseball scenario doesn’t explain why the iPod is gone. Of course, it could be that some inanimate object broke your window and then someone saw the iPod and took it. Or perhaps a dog jumped into the window that was broken by a stray baseball and took your iPod. These are all possibilities, but they are remote and thus much less likely explanations of the facts at hand. The much better explanation is that a thief both broke the window and took the iPod. 

This explanation explains all the relevant facts in a simple way (i.e., it was the thief responsible for both things) and this kind of thing is (unfortunately) not uncommon—it happens to other people at other times and places. The baseball-dog scenario is not as plausible because it doesn’t happen in contexts like this one (i.e., in a parking garage) nearly as often, and it is not as simple (i.e., we need to posit two different events that are unconnected to each other—stray baseball, stray dog—rather than just one—the thief). Inference to the best explanation is a form of inductive argument whose premises are a set of observed facts, a hypothesis that explains those observed facts, and a comparison of competing explanations, and whose conclusion is that the hypothesis is true. The example we’ve just been discussing is an inference to the best explanation. 

Explanation: The hypothesis that a thief broke the window and stole your iPod provides a reasonable explanation of the observed facts.

Comparison: No other hypothesis provides as reasonable an explanation.

Conclusion: Therefore, a thief broke your car window and stole your iPod.

Notice that this is an inductive argument because the premises could all be true and yet the conclusion false. Just because something is reasonable, doesn’t mean it is true. After all, sometimes things happen in the world that defy our reason. So perhaps the baseball-dog hypothesis was actually true. In that case, the premises of the argument would still be true (after all, the thief hypothesis is still more reasonable than the baseball-dog hypothesis) and yet the conclusion would be false. 

But the fact that the argument is not a deductive argument isn’t a defect of the argument, because inference to the best explanation arguments are not intended to be deductive arguments, but inductive arguments.  That isn’t a defect of an inductive argument, it is simply a definition of what an inductive argument is! As we’ve seen, in order to make a strong inference to the best explanation, the favored explanation must be the best - i.e. the most reasonable. 

But what makes an explanation reasonable? There are certain conditions that any good explanation must meet. The more of these conditions are met, the better the explanation. The first, and perhaps most obvious condition, is that the hypothesis proposed must actually explain all the observed facts. 

Commonly acknowledged criteria for inference to the best explanation

1. Explanatory scope. The best hypothesis will explain a wider range of data than will rival hypotheses. An explanation has explanatory scope if it

• makes fewer assumptions
• accounts for more facts or observations
• more details of causal relations are provided
• depends less on authorities and more on observations
• is more falsifiable (more testable by observation or experiment
• offers greater predictive power (if it offers more details about what should be expected to be seen and not seen);

2. Explanatory power. The best hypothesis will make the observable data more epistemically probable than rival hypotheses; an epistemic possibility is a statement that may be true given the current state of knowledge about the world. For example, "Given what we know about the weather, it might rain tomorrow" is an epistemic possibility

3. Plausibility. The best hypothesis will be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths than rival hypotheses.

4. Less ad hoc. The best hypothesis will involve fewer new suppositions not already implied by existing knowledge than rival hypotheses.

5. Accord with accepted beliefs. The best hypothesis, when conjoined with accepted truths, will imply fewer falsehoods than rival hypotheses.

6. Consistency: Is the hypothesis consistent with other established facts or theories?

7. Comparative superiority: The best hypothesis will so exceed its rivals in meeting conditions (1) through (6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis’s exceeding it in fulfilling those conditions.

But I thought Christianity was based on blind faith...

Au Contraire-- The Christian faith is rather stern in its insistence on proof, evidence, truth, examination...and correspondingly contemptuous of those who believe nonsense.

Consider briefly the following passages in the Bible:

Gen 15 - When Abraham asked God "how will I know that this future will happen?", God did not rebuke him, but made a legal covenant with him. 

Exodus 33 - Moses argued with God that God should not destroy Israel, so that there would be evidence of His work in history

Numbers 16 - Moses argued with the Israelites over the leadership issue, and appealed to evidence.

Deut 18 - God is VERY explicit-if a prophet EVER misses a prediction, this proves he is not a prophet of YHWH. The test was evidential--pure and simple.

Deut 29 - Moses appeals to their MEMORIES as a basis for decision...historical events .

Joshua 3 - Joshua sets up, in advance, a criterion for knowing that YHWH was among them--a future, visible, abnormal event in Israel's history.

2 Sam 1 - David wanted factual support for the report that Saul was dead.

Lam 3–We are to EXAMINE our lifestyles - looking for evidence that reveals our true character and orientation to ultimate issues

I Cor 11–We are to examine our hearts and conduct--testing them against standards

2 Cor 13–We are to examine our life vis-a-vis the content of the worldview

Judges 6 - Gideon and the 'fleece test' - and yet God 'humored' his weakness and provided the evidence he needed

Isaiah 7 - King AHAZ was rebuked by the prophet for NOT asking God for evidence!

Dan 1 - Daniel, in a foreign situation, didn't appeal with a simple 'trust us'--he said 'test us'...and depended upon God for concrete, visible results.

Mal 3 - God challenges Israel to test His faithfulness, He invites them to test His commitment to His promises...and in the area of finances!

Rom 12 - Paul challenges his readers to continually expand their thinking--SO THAT they can examine and prove what God's will for their direction is...an active searching and examination of all the data.

2 Cor 8 - Paul wanted to TEST the sincerity of their love -- he was looking for concrete evidence that would reveal their inner selves.

Gal. 6:4 "Each one should TEST his own actions. Then he can take appropriate pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else"

Is 43 - The prophet draws a picture of a courtroom scene. The prophets are to bring forth their evidence that they are indeed speakers of truth. The only admissible evidence is a proven track-record of future prediction!

Ezek. 13:2 "Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are now prophesying. Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: 'Hear the word of the LORD!'" --Accuracy and legitimacy are of critical moment!

John 2 - the Jews of the day were always demanding proof. Jesus appealed to his coming resurrection as the capstone proof of his deity.

Act 17 - Paul referred to the historical resurrection as "God's proof" that people will have to answer for their innermost attitudes toward God.

2 Cor 13 - The Corinthians demanded proof of Paul's authority. He submitted historical evidence and lifestyle as data.

Luke 1 - Luke investigated the sources and wrote the account for his royal reader, SO THAT he could know for CERTAIN.

What Jesus said or did

He is constantly doing overt miracles and "out-loud" prayers, for His followers' benefit--so they might see the evidence, understand what's going on, and believe.

He doesn't scorn the 'doubting Thomas' but provides his nail-scarred hands and open side-wound as evidence for him (Jn 20)

He constantly refers people back to the data of the OT--as a means to examine His claims and teachings.

NT leaders, with their emphasis on the factuality of the Christian events (and their preference for the 'critical thinkers')...

Luke who praised the careful and thorough Bereans in Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Paul, who challenges us in I Thess 5.21: " Test everything. Hold on to the good."

And appeals to the 'openness' of the historical facts of early Christianity in his public trial: "The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner." (Act 26)

And appeals to natural phenomena as evidence of a good God (Acts 14, 17).

Peter, who tries to 'force his readers back into the bedrock of data' in 2Pet. 1 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

I object!!!

Wait a second, I thought 'Testing the Lord' was VERY bad, even Fatal! (I Cor 10)

Good question (shows you're thinking critically, eh?) If you compare the "DON'T test" passages with the "DO test" passages, you can see the difference in the contexts.

The "DON'T test" passages are those in which the people are NOT seeking evidence/proof IN ORDER TO learn truth, grow, or develop their worldview, but rather are trying to manipulate God into satisfying illicit desires, or into satisfying licit needs, in destructive ways. For example, in Exodus 17, the recipients of an earlier water-providing miracle are now DEMANDING water in a combative manner! (See Ps 78 and 106 for a later historical account of this.)

The 'DO test' passages [referenced above] are those in which the people are enjoined to take a small step of commitment, in expectation of success (sounds a little like giving someone the benefit of the doubt, doesn't it?). The negativism and close-mindedness of the former situation is not present in the latter. The latter applies to people who are open to learning, not just trying to engineer the situation for their practical gain.

As a matter of fact, this 'openness to learning' and 'positive expectation of good' is rather basic to all types of personal discovery situations. We ourselves tend not to 'participate' in these kinds of situations, if we feel we are being 'interrogated' in an abusive manner.

So what is "faith" in the Christian context

It is NOT "believing in something with no credible evidence or proof" as atheists have tried to redefine it and as the above shows to be false, 

Faith is biblically defined as an unwavering trust in God. It is a present trust because God showed himself to be reliable throughout the Bible. To illustrate, God's ultimate promise of salvation was realized through the death and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ, as evidenced in the Bible and history.

It’s Turtles All the Way Down - the Infinite Regress Problem

An Infinite Regress entails the inconceivable; an actual infinity. This quantity, in different contexts, yields different answers; many of which are in contradiction.

For instance, consider 2 + 3 =5. Thus, 5 - 3 = 2

So,

Infinity + Infinity = Infinity. 

Therefore; Infinity - Infinity = Infinity

However

Infinity + 0 = infinity. Therefore, infinity - Infinity = 0; but that's different to the answer above.

There are two major forms that the infinite regress problem takes.

Epistemic Regress: Knowledge is a true, justified belief. In every chain of logical reasoning, each step depends on the previous one (its justification) for its existence. For the sake of understanding, let’s take a step T1 in a logical argument. T1 relies on T2 for its justification, and similarly, T2 relies on T3, which again would require a justification in the form of T4. T1 will never be supported adequately, because the needed series of support would be infinite, and we would never have any justified knowledge. Thus, it has been proposed that reason is the basis for knowledge.  

 
Metaphysical Impossibility: This can be explained by taking an ontological example. Things in the external world are taken to exist because of the parts that they are composed of. These things (parts) must also depend on their own parts for existence. This chain continues till infinity, which many thinkers claim to be impossible.

Everything in the world has an origin. Something cannot come from nothing. Yet, something must have come from nothing if we want to be logically coherent . The idea of an origin-less universe seems absurd. Especially in light of the scientific evidence for it.

Those who propose an infinite/infinite universe, what do you do about the problem of an infinite regress of causes?

In other words, a series of things that are each ontologically dependent on the next; in this case, the singularity, the singularity -1, the singularity -2, the singularity -3....

How do we reach the singularity if there is an infinite/endless series of causes?

For example, if a giraffe had an infinitely long neck, he would die of starvation - even if he had eaten for an infinite amount of time - since the food would always have another inch to travel before it reached the stomach. So this string of infinite causes would always have another casual step to take before the singularity happened.

To say that "that there is no first moment, because every moment is preceded by earlier moments" is to be logically and philosophically hanging in midair.

Christians would say that God is a metaphysically necessary [efficient] cause for the material universe, thus avoiding regress problems.

Infinite regress can be a problem because it can lead to answers that never terminate. When people ask for justification for something, they want an answer that is compelling. However, answers that result in an infinite regress aren't rationally compelling

It’s more logical to believe in an uncreated Creator or First cause than an infinite universe. Why? Because If God had a creator [or a cause had a cause] who brought Him into existence, then we could ask “who created that God?” 

Ockam’s Razor - the philosophical principle used in science that suggests you shouldn’t multiply causes to explain something beyond what’s necessary - would suggest that we not have a regression of creators at all. The one who brought our universe into being is the uncreated one.

This isn’t special pleading for God. This is what the atheist has typically said about the universe; that the universe is uncreated and eternal in its existence. No atheist was asking “Who created the universe”? They thought the universe was “Just there,” that it was a brute fact. Although that conclusion is now invalidated by powerful scientific evidence and philosophical arguments. 

Objection - There is no problem whatsoever traversing an infinite chain of events. Every event on that chain can logically be reached. The only thing you cannot do with an infinite chain of events is reach the beginning or the end because those don't exist. Every event is logically reachable. The only way you could not reach your destination on an infinite chain is if you set your destination to the end, but that's because by definition there is no end and no beginning. Every other destination is not only possible but guaranteed.

Reply This makes no sense.

Let's say that the Big Bang is 0 and our present time is 14.  Yes, we can count from -99 to 0 and then to 14.  But first you have to get to -99, and then you have to get to -100, then you have to get to -101, then you have to get to -102, ad infinitum. It's absurd to think because we can count to 100 that the problem of the infinite regress has been solved.