Why is God invisible to me?

[RickD]

Nils wrote:
Choosing to accept him without good evidence for his existence and with good evidence for his nonexistence would be intellectual harakiri to me.

This is very interesting to me. Exactly what good evidence is there for the nonexistence of God?

[Philip]

Nils: As I don't want or not want that God exists there is no difference between "compel" and "force". If he gives me good arguments I will believe, if not, I will not believe.

That 90+ percent of people on the planet - and that includes countless numbers of scientists and some of the greatest thinkers in all disciplines - believe that they in fact DO have plenty of evidences to believe in a deity or God. So, Nils, you're not any smarter than a lot of them and not likely on a level with some of the greatest thinkers of all time. This tells me you require a level of evidences that most others do not need. And so why is this? Yes, there is a possibility that either there's more to come for you or that you may not yet have considered or known or what can already be known from the right perspective. But don't be mistaken, God already knows whether or not you need more information or whether you are just stubbornly clinging to a position you don't want to ever move from. Also, there's a huge difference between belief in God and in also placing one's faith in Him - which are two related things, yet with very important and key differences and outcomes.

Nils: Unreasonable or reasonable evidence, who determines that? Those arguments/evidence I think are valid are what I think is reasonable.

And "if" God exists, then HE has every right to determine what He thinks is sufficient evidences for Nils - because He knows you far better than you know yourself - including all things the rest of us can't know or see about you.

Nils: If you discuss how much evidence is needed, that question isn't important now, I don't see any argument at all (but the argument that many believe in Christianity and have personal experiences but the contra-argument is that that's valid for many religions.

Every religion on the planet is based upon what people have been taught is true by one person, supposed prophet, etc. - like a Muhammad or Joseph Smith, etc. - but they don't have the massive amounts of validated prophecies, histories, and eyewitness accounts from documented by many people for around 1,600 years of time. And guess what, those that wrote the Bible are all on the same page in what they assert. Christ's disciples ALL knew whether or not they had seen the risen, crucified Christ or not - unlike other religions assertions. And almost all of them died hideous martys deaths - for what? Being delusional? Suicidal? Crazy? Sober mean don't invite barbaric treatment for what they KNOW to be a lie. And yet, as before they saw the risen Christ, the disciples were all hiding out and terrified, and then AFTER seeing Him alive, they boldly spread the news of the Messiah across the region - fully knowing the fate they were risking. Read their writings - do they sound like crazy religious fanatics full of wild talk? Absolutely not!

Nils: Yes, there is no proof of a Multiverse as well as there is no proof of God, but work is ongoing and maybe there will be some evidence.

Good luck with that one, Nils - it's a theory desperately believed by some as otherwise they must explain where the universe came from and how - you know, messy little details like observable facts that mere theories don't have to answer.

Nils: Regarding intelligence I don't think that a Multiverse needs any intelligence at all.

A staggering statement with would appear exceptionally contradictory to your position - or perhaps, what is obviously required, you just don't like to define it as intelligence?

Nils: It needs a power to create a universe with certain characteristics and it has been discussed (and theorized) that new universes could be created spontaneously.

So, it just happens to have power that had to be, what? ETERNAL!

Nils: No energy seems to be needed.

SEEMS to be???

So an unlimited number of universes with different random characteristics could then easily be created without any intelligence. What you think is a sign of intelligence is only that we, of course, happen to live in a universe suitable for life while we don't notice the infinite number of universes not suitable for life.

Without power AND intelligence, an infinite number of universes cannot explain how things are designed and connected. They can't explain a cell or DNA, etc. And do these universes LEARN, scheme, plan, plot, tweak, or do they KNOW or think? Without consciousness and an ability to do these things, all we would have would be constant and eternal chaos!

Nils: Compare this with the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God. He needs an intelligence beyond all beliefs. Just as start, God has to fine tune the Universe, he had to forecast every event that will happen from the beginning to the end.

He doesn't need ANYTHING, Nils - He simply IS. He doesn't have to forecast, except perhaps for the benefit of His created beings - as He is all knowing. He is also in total control - as He is a God of unlimited abilities, how could He not be?

[DBowling]

God has given evidence that everyone can understand, from an uneducated person staring up at the stars, to the educated scientist who studies how the stars and the universe actually work.

The evidence is there for all to see.
Over 90% of the world's population believes some sort of a "god" exists, so the evidence is out there and the overwhelming majority of humans on the planet recognize at least some of the evidence that is out there.

If anyone chooses to dismiss the evidence, for whatever reason, that is a decision that they choose to make and has nothing to do with either the quality or the quantity of the evidence that exists.

God has given everyone the ability to choose to accept him or reject him.
And some people simply choose to reject God and the evidence for God.

I don't even know which "evidence" you are talking about.

Here's a quick reminder

1. Science shows overwhelming evidence of an intelligent causal agent for the creation of the our universe
… that operates "super" naturally outside of space and time
… that finely tuned the "laws of nature" of our universe
… that has periodically infused new information into the biosphere of our planet

Does Science Point to God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y02a28FrMKs

2. The life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the best (if not the best) attested historical event in ancient history .

The Historical Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection That Even Skeptics Believe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4R ... sdxQnNSthB

There are astronomers that believe in God and other that don't, so referring to them doesn't prove anything.

Actually it does...
It demonstrates that the evidence is compelling enough for trained scientists to observe and recognize.

And the fact that over 90% of the humans on the planet believe in some sort of "god" demonstrates that this evidence is observable across a wide spectrum of cultures, levels of education, and occupations.

I don't "simply choose to reject God". If I did, why would I bother about this forum? Up to now, at least, God has not given me the ability to choose to accept him or reject him.

I'm not sure why you come to this forum, but I am very glad that you do!
Based on our discussions in the past, I know for a fact that you have all the information and evidence you need.
And I know that your choice to reject the evidence that has been presented to you repeatedly is not God's fault.

Maybe just maybe, God brought you here so that repeated exposure to the truth would help you work through whatever it is that is causing you to reject what over 90% of the people on earth can at least partially see and recognize.

[Nils]

Nils wrote:
Choosing to accept him without good evidence for his existence and with good evidence for his nonexistence would be intellectual harakiri to me.

This is very interesting to me. Exactly what good evidence is there for the nonexistence of God?

OK, but I would prefer to discuss that later, in a separate thread. There are so many issues.

[Nils]

Nils: As I don't want or not want that God exists there is no difference between "compel" and "force". If he gives me good arguments I will believe, if not, I will not believe.

That 90+ percent of people on the planet - and that includes countless numbers of scientists and some of the greatest thinkers in all disciplines - believe that they in fact DO have plenty of evidences to believe in a deity or God. So, Nils, you're not any smarter than a lot of them and not likely on a level with some of the greatest thinkers of all time. This tells me you require a level of evidences that most others do not need. And so why is this? Yes, there is a possibility that either there's more to come for you or that you may not yet have considered or known or what can already be known from the right perspective. But don't be mistaken, God already knows whether or not you need more information or whether you are just stubbornly clinging to a position you don't want to ever move from. Also, there's a huge difference between belief in God and in also placing one's faith in Him - which are two related things, yet with very important and key differences and outcomes.

Most persons believe without evidence, they are taught to believe. Check the correlation between parents and children. The chance to become a Christian if you have parents that are Muslims is extremely low (and the other way around).

Nils: Unreasonable or reasonable evidence, who determines that? Those arguments/evidence I think are valid are what I think is reasonable.

And "if" God exists, then HE has every right to determine what He thinks is sufficient evidences for Nils - because He knows you far better than you know yourself - including all things the rest of us can't know or see about you.

Yes, if God exists he has all rights because he has the power. And if he knows better, why doesn't he present evidence that I can accept. That would be extremely easy to him. But he doesn't, so he probably doesn't exist.

Nils: If you discuss how much evidence is needed, that question isn't important now, I don't see any argument at all (but the argument that many believe in Christianity and have personal experiences but the contra-argument is that that's valid for many religions.

Every religion on the planet is based upon what people have been taught is true by one person, supposed prophet, etc. - like a Muhammad or Joseph Smith, etc. - but they don't have the massive amounts of validated prophecies, histories, and eyewitness accounts from documented by many people for around 1,600 years of time. And guess what, those that wrote the Bible are all on the same page in what they assert. Christ's disciples ALL knew whether or not they had seen the risen, crucified Christ or not - unlike other religions assertions. And almost all of them died hideous martys deaths - for what? Being delusional? Suicidal? Crazy? Sober mean don't invite barbaric treatment for what they KNOW to be a lie. And yet, as before they saw the risen Christ, the disciples were all hiding out and terrified, and then AFTER seeing Him alive, they boldly spread the news of the Messiah across the region - fully knowing the fate they were risking. Read their writings - do they sound like crazy religious fanatics full of wild talk? Absolutely not!

Ask persons from other religions and all of them have arguments why their religion is the correct one.

Nils: Yes, there is no proof of a Multiverse as well as there is no proof of God, but work is ongoing and maybe there will be some evidence.

Good luck with that one, Nils - it's a theory desperately believed by some as otherwise they must explain where the universe came from and how - you know, messy little details like observable facts that mere theories don't have to answer.

Both theories have little evidence, the Multiverse theory may get better evidence in the future.

Nils: Regarding intelligence I don't think that a Multiverse needs any intelligence at all.

A staggering statement with would appear exceptionally contradictory to your position - or perhaps, what is obviously required, you just don't like to define it as intelligence?

Nils: It needs a power to create a universe with certain characteristics and it has been discussed (and theorized) that new universes could be created spontaneously.

So, it just happens to have power that had to be, what? ETERNAL!

Nils: No energy seems to be needed.

SEEMS to be???

So an unlimited number of universes with different random characteristics could then easily be created without any intelligence. What you think is a sign of intelligence is only that we, of course, happen to live in a universe suitable for life while we don't notice the infinite number of universes not suitable for life.

Without power AND intelligence, an infinite number of universes cannot explain how things are designed and connected. They can't explain a cell or DNA, etc. And do these universes LEARN, scheme, plan, plot, tweak, or do they KNOW or think? Without consciousness and an ability to do these things, all we would have would be constant and eternal chaos!

Philip, it seems that you don't have any understanding at all of what randomness combined with selection can do, speaking of biological evolution. There is so much evidence of the evolution and the inherent algorithms have also been tested on computers and are often used in other fields as in electronics. They are used to find new solutions that are not possible to find with human intelligence only.

Taking about cosmology I have only read more popular articles. Therefore I use words like "seems". But I understand some basic facts. If there is an eternal entity, Multiverse, that can start a new universe with random properties and that is repeated an infinite number of times, a fine tuned universe like ours will be started some times. If you call this property to start random universes intelligence it's up to you but I don't.

Nils: Compare this with the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God. He needs an intelligence beyond all beliefs. Just as start, God has to fine tune the Universe, he had to forecast every event that will happen from the beginning to the end.

He doesn't need ANYTHING, Nils - He simply IS. He doesn't have to forecast, except perhaps for the benefit of His created beings - as He is all knowing. He is also in total control - as He is a God of unlimited abilities, how could He not be?

This is just playing with words. Needs to be intelligent or being intelligent.
"How could He not be?" He could not be if he doesn't exist.

[Nils]

God has given evidence that everyone can understand, from an uneducated person staring up at the stars, to the educated scientist who studies how the stars and the universe actually work.

The evidence is there for all to see.
Over 90% of the world's population believes some sort of a "god" exists, so the evidence is out there and the overwhelming majority of humans on the planet recognize at least some of the evidence that is out there.

If anyone chooses to dismiss the evidence, for whatever reason, that is a decision that they choose to make and has nothing to do with either the quality or the quantity of the evidence that exists.

God has given everyone the ability to choose to accept him or reject him.
And some people simply choose to reject God and the evidence for God.

I don't even know which "evidence" you are talking about.

Here's a quick reminder

1. Science shows overwhelming evidence of an intelligent causal agent for the creation of the our universe
… that operates "super" naturally outside of space and time

What evidence are you talking about?

… that finely tuned the "laws of nature" of our universe

A have repeatedly mentioned the theory of Multiverse as a solution. You just repeat yourself.

… that has periodically infused new information into the biosphere of our planet

Evidence?

Does Science Point to God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y02a28FrMKs

2. The life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the best (if not the best) attested historical event in ancient history .

Stephen Meyers doesn't reflect the common position.

The Historical Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection That Even Skeptics Believe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4R ... sdxQnNSthB

But did he die?

There are astronomers that believe in God and other that don't, so referring to them doesn't prove anything.

Actually it does...
It demonstrates that the evidence is compelling enough for trained scientists to observe and recognize.

You have no idea why those Christian scientists believe. And you can't just ignore the others.

And the fact that over 90% of the humans on the planet believe in some sort of "god" demonstrates that this evidence is observable across a wide spectrum of cultures, levels of education, and occupations.

Se my answer to Philip above.

I don't "simply choose to reject God". If I did, why would I bother about this forum? Up to now, at least, God has not given me the ability to choose to accept him or reject him.

I'm not sure why you come to this forum, but I am very glad that you do!
Based on our discussions in the past, I know for a fact that you have all the information and evidence you need.
And I know that your choice to reject the evidence that has been presented to you repeatedly is not God's fault.

I have not been presented any evidence that I think is valid. It is certainly God's fault that I'm not presented better arguments.

Maybe just maybe, God brought you here so that repeated exposure to the truth would help you work through whatever it is that is causing you to reject what over 90% of the people on earth can at least partially see and recognize.

It seems to me that God had better bringing me evidence in some other way.
About 90%, see above.

I think that the discussion would benefit if you were more specific when arguing.

[DBowling]

1. Science shows overwhelming evidence of an intelligent causal agent for the creation of the our universe
… that operates "super" naturally outside of space and time

What evidence are you talking about?

Hawking has demonstrated that space and time began with the Big Bang
==> The causal agent of the Big Bang (which brought the laws of nature, space, and time into existence) by definition operates outside the laws of nature and outside of space and time that it created.

… that finely tuned the "laws of nature" of our universe

A have repeatedly mentioned the theory of Multiverse as a solution.

Actually the Multiverse is not a get out of jail free card.
- First and foremost there is no empirical evidence of a Multiverse
- Next the Multiverse hypothesis just kicks the can up the road. Every proposed mechanism for a Multiverse generator requires extremely tight boundary conditions and fine tuning for the Multiverse generating math to work.

So the same "fine tuning" and design realities that exist in our universe also exist for any alleged Multiverse generator.

… that has periodically infused new information into the biosphere of our planet

Evidence?

The fossil record and the code in the DNA of life in our planet today demonstrate that information has repeatedly been infused into the DNA of life throughout the history of life on our planet.

2. The life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the best (if not the best) attested historical event in ancient history .
The Historical Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection That Even Skeptics Believe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4R ... sdxQnNSthB

Steven Meyer is a Scientist not a Historian.
Steven Meyer shows the scientific evidence that points to a "God" that is consistent with classic Theism.
But to dig into the claims of specific religious beliefs you need Historians and Theologians.

And Historians like Gary Habermas and NT Wright have both done excellent research into the Historical reality of the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Apostle Paul tells us that the truth of Christianity is based on the historical reality of a single event, the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
So once science established the reality of an intelligent "God" who created the universe.
And once history established the reality of the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
The next step for me was to study what Jesus of Nazareth did and taught, and the rest of my faith journey proceeds from there.

There are astronomers that believe in God and other that don't, so referring to them doesn't prove anything.

Actually it does...
It demonstrates that the evidence is compelling enough for trained scientists to observe and recognize.

You have no idea why those Christian scientists believe. And you can't just ignore the others.

Actually a number of scientists have explained how the evidence of design convinced them that God exists, so we do know why a number of Christian Scientists believe.

What I can't ignore is the evidence that has convinced over 90% of people on the planet (including many scientists) that some sort of God exists.

I don't "simply choose to reject God". If I did, why would I bother about this forum? Up to now, at least, God has not given me the ability to choose to accept him or reject him.

I'm not sure why you come to this forum, but I am very glad that you do!
Based on our discussions in the past, I know for a fact that you have all the information and evidence you need.
And I know that your choice to reject the evidence that has been presented to you repeatedly is not God's fault.

I have not been presented any evidence that I think is valid. It is certainly God's fault that I'm not presented better arguments.

God is not the problem here,,,
"that I think is valid" has nothing to do with the quantity or quality of the evidence for the existence of God.
It just speaks to your rejection of evidence that has convinced over 90% of people on the planet, including many scientists, that some sort of "god" exists.

[Philip]

Nils: Most persons believe without evidence, they are taught to believe. Check the correlation between parents and children. The chance to become a Christian if you have parents that are Muslims is extremely low (and the other way around).

Yes, but most DO believe in A god, gods or God – even amongst those that are merely accepting the deity of their parents’ religion! WHICH deity or the true God they believe in has nothing to do with the fact that they find belief in their recognized god or God to be intellectually reasonable.

Nils: Yes, if God exists he has all rights because he has the power. And if he knows better, why doesn't he present evidence that I can accept. That would be extremely easy to him. But he doesn't, so he probably doesn't exist.

You simply don’t realize how arrogant it is to say that! Certainly not to the Creator of the universe, Whom has prolifically made it clear across 16 centuries of written Scripture that He DOES want people to believe and understand – and vast millions and many great scientists and thinkers have – but YOU can’t? I don’t find THAT reasonable. I don’t believe your unbelief is intellectual, but rather, is emotional in origin!

Nils: Ask persons from other religions and all of them have arguments why their religion is the correct one.

Yes, Nils – but the problem is that NONE of the world’s religions can point to centuries of examinable, historical facts and evidences that Christianity can! The rest are like, so and so when off in a cave and came back with “revelations from god” or found some golden tablets, etc. Many, like Mormonism, can’t even establish geographical places in their supposed holy book!

Nils: Philip, it seems that you don't have any understanding at all of what randomness combined with selection can do, speaking of biological evolution. There is so much evidence of the evolution and the inherent algorithms have also been tested on computers and are often used in other fields as in electronics. They are used to find new solutions that are not possible to find with human intelligence only.

So, you use the word “selection,” as if blind things chose, planned, designed, and utilized things to build sophistication – blind things can do NONE of those things – and yet, you throw the word “selection” around like it’s a scientific fact. And so what exists does have sophistication and designs that can be tested – BUT WHERE DID THEY COME FROM??? And what good were they to blind things? Do blind, random things test, analyze, find meaning, plot goals, have ambitions? You do have it right, however, in that what can be observed PROVES that how things work and what exists is FAR beyond human understandings!

Even if eternal, there would have always existed only X amount of the same elements with the same limitations that would be unable to create or build without an intelligence behind them. Meaning that, an unlimited chain of such things would still all have the same blind / non-conscious limitations - as again, BLIND THINGS DON'T LEARN OR TWEAK, nor do they recognize anything whatsoever - they just exist. To blind things, there is no difference between great complexity and design and total random chaos! Nils, blind things plus unlimited time do NOT eventually build a sophisticated universe - not to mention, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a multiverse to begin with - it's the desperate fantasy playground of atheists!

Nils: Taking about cosmology I have only read more popular articles. Therefore I use words like "seems". But I understand some basic facts. If there is an eternal entity, Multiverse, that can start a new universe with random properties and that is repeated an infinite number of times, a fine tuned universe like ours will be started some times. If you call this property to start random universes intelligence it's up to you but I don't.

First place, to build a functioning universe like ours, began with EXACTLY the right things and elements coming (immediately, at the Big Bang) into existence. But those things required an Intelligence to strategically and brilliantly manipulate and arrange them. This is the oldest false belief of many atheists, as if infinite time is some magic genie that could eventually produce a magnificent universe. So, you have blind, random things driving a magnificently designed race car that just happened to pop into existence (as did the racetrack) and then it wins the Grand Prix. Actually, it’s far more absurd than that. But Nils, this sort of sophisticated-SOUNDING nonsense is precisely what a person is left with when they think no intelligence was required to create our universe. But I can understand the desperation of people who have no other options that might be realistically have the ability to explain what we know about the Big Bang, physics, biology, etc.

[Nils]

About 90% of the population

DBowling and Philip repeats the argument that 90% of all people are convinced by the arguments we discussed. This is misleading and I try to explain why.

What we discuss is mainly two arguments, the cosmological/philosophical argument about what entity exists that created the universe, and the evolutionary argument about if there is teleology in the evolution or not, if God controls it. I think very few of the worlds population understand those discussions at all or know something about the pros and cons. Therefore it isn't possible that they mostly used these arguments as a reason for there beliefs.

The 90% includes a wide variety of world views from theism with one God, with several Gods, animism, new age views etc. Most of them are not compatible with each other. So the 90% argument is instead an argument against the existence of a God. How is it possible that an almighty God has failed so completely to submit at least some basic truths.

The obvious explanation is that it is a positive feature to societies that the persons have a disposition to believe in some common religion. For instance it is easier to persuade persons to risk there lives fighting for the tribe if there is a life after this where the heroes are rewarded. Evolution will favour persons with that instinct. Recently there has been lot of research on this.

[Philip]

Nils: The 90% includes a wide variety of world views from theism with one God, with several Gods, animism, new age views etc. Most of them are not compatible with each other. So the 90% argument is instead an argument against the existence of a God.

First place, it does not matter that people believing in some other god or gods embrace teachings and beliefs which don’t match up with the true God of Christianity – because these people still have the alternative of atheism if they don’t find ANY god or gods to be necessary to explain what they see and do know of.

Nils: How is it possible that an almighty God has failed so completely to submit at least some basic truths.

Anyone looking at the information content in DNA or the design of a cell realizes they did not randomly self-assemble. To realize the razor-thin margins of so many things that just small modifications would render life impossible – and not only that, but these many things must perfectly interaction in harmonious synergies for the universe and life to function as it does. I call this examinable evidences – and VERY powerful ones, at that! And God sent prophets and apostles over 16 centuries with detailed, examinable writings - with them being written by a great diversity of people, from differing times and cultures, and yet they are all in agreement on the God of the Bible. Sixty-six books of detailed information to ponder - and yet you say God has failed to communicate basic truths? Please!

Again, you ignore the Scriptural evidences and fulfilled prophecies – which I’m guessing you know very little about. They are powerful and unmistakable – not like some ridiculous musings of Nostradamus or similar nonsense. And you’ll not find more than a caricature or superficial examination of such things (verified by history and events) on atheist sites, etc.

Nils: The obvious explanation is that it is a positive feature to societies that the persons have a disposition to believe in some common religion.

You do realize that millions embrace a certain faith because they are FORCED to – especially in Islam, atheism or other faiths are not tolerated. People leaving a faith will lose friends and family – or worse. But in many societies, there is no ONE common faith. Look at the pantheon of gods and diverse beliefs of their followers in India. Across the world, there is no ONE faith tradition! And in democracies and places with more freedom (most of the world), people have the right to choose their faith – which is where your theory falls apart, given the immense diversity of beliefs. Yes, places without such freedoms (think the various Islamic Kingdoms of dictatorships) do have a forced uniformity. Notice as well, places with severe dictatorships like North Korea, the former Soviet Union, the various communist countries – these typically mandate or heavily promote a monolithic atheism.

[DBowling]

About 90% of the population

DBowling and Philip repeats the argument that 90% of all people are convinced by the arguments we discussed. This is misleading and I try to explain why.

We repeat it because it is a factually true statement, and you have yet to present a cogent rebuttal to this fact.
Philip has done a good job responding to your argumentation on this.

What we discuss is mainly two arguments, the cosmological/philosophical argument about what entity exists that created the universe, and the evolutionary argument about if there is teleology in the evolution or not, if God controls it. I think very few of the worlds population understand those discussions at all or know something about the pros and cons. Therefore it isn't possible that they mostly used these arguments as a reason for there beliefs.

Those are some of the "scientific" evidences.
But as has been mentioned before, one does not have to have to have a degree in science to observe the evidence in nature for the existence of a "god"

One of basic aspects of human intellect is the ability to recognize "design". And this basic intuitive human ability to recognize "design" is a significant contributor to the understanding of the overwhelming majority of the human population that the existence of "design" logically points to the existence of a "designer".
Science just confirms what natural human intellect intuitively recognizes.

This is why 90% of humans from different cultures, educational levels, and occupations all recognize the evidence that is abundant in nature at both the intuitive and scientific levels that some sort of "god" exists.

The 90% includes a wide variety of world views from theism with one God, with several Gods, animism, new age views etc. Most of them are not compatible with each other. So the 90% argument is instead an argument against the existence of a God.

There is one very significant similarity among the many different world views that provides yet another evidence of the existence of a God.
As we look at very different cultures and faiths across the planet, there is an incredibly strong instinctive desire within the human creature to know his creator.
So where did this instinctive longing that is present in an overwhelming percentage of humans across the globe come from? Why is it there?...

The answer is pretty straightforward...
Whoever or whatever designed the human creature, designed it with a strong instinctive drive to know its creator.

So we have two very powerful evidences of God that are available to every human on the planet (not just scientists).
1. The intuitive intellectual ability in humans to recognize design.
2. The instinctive drive in humans to know their creator.

[Nils]

Actually the Multiverse is not a get out of jail free card.
- First and foremost there is no empirical evidence of a Multiverse
- Next the Multiverse hypothesis just kicks the can up the road. Every proposed mechanism for a Multiverse generator requires extremely tight boundary conditions and fine tuning for the Multiverse generating math to work.

So the same "fine tuning" and design realities that exist in our universe also exist for any alleged Multiverse generator.

From where did you get this?

… that has periodically infused new information into the biosphere of our planet

Evidence?

The fossil record and the code in the DNA of life in our planet today demonstrate that information has repeatedly been infused into the DNA of life throughout the history of life on our planet.

You refer apparently to the ideas of Intelligent Design that has been refuted repeatedly. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it can't be falsified. How could you possibly show that a specific step in the evolution is made by infusion of DNA? By fossil records ?!! Check what is written about Stephen Meyer on Wikipedia.

2. The life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the best (if not the best) attested historical event in ancient history .
The Historical Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection That Even Skeptics Believe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4R ... sdxQnNSthB

Steven Meyer is a Scientist not a Historian.
Steven Meyer shows the scientific evidence that points to a "God" that is consistent with classic Theism.
But to dig into the claims of specific religious beliefs you need Historians and Theologians.

And Historians like Gary Habermas and NT Wright have both done excellent research into the Historical reality of the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Apostle Paul tells us that the truth of Christianity is based on the historical reality of a single event, the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

How do you prove historically that Jesus really died. There were only a few persons that witnessed the burial of Jesus and they could easily have agreed that Jesus was dead even if he wasn't. They had a motive and an opportunity.

So once science established the reality of an intelligent "God" who created the universe.
And once history established the reality of the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

I understand that this is what you want believe, but is totally wrong in one case (evolution) and not proven in the other case (Jesus' death).

The next step for me was to study what Jesus of Nazareth did and taught, and the rest of my faith journey proceeds from there.

There are astronomers that believe in God and other that don't, so referring to them doesn't prove anything.

Actually it does...
It demonstrates that the evidence is compelling enough for trained scientists to observe and recognize.

You have no idea why those Christian scientists believe. And you can't just ignore the others.

Actually a number of scientists have explained how the evidence of design convinced them that God exists, so we do know why a number of Christian Scientists believe.

What I can't ignore is the evidence that has convinced over 90% of people on the planet (including many scientists) that some sort of God exists.

I discuss this in a separate post.

[Nils]

About 90% of the population

DBowling and Philip repeats the argument that 90% of all people are convinced by the arguments we discussed. This is misleading and I try to explain why.

We repeat it because it is a factually true statement, and you have yet to present a cogent rebuttal to this fact.
Philip has done a good job responding to your argumentation on this.

I respond to him seperately

What we discuss is mainly two arguments, the cosmological/philosophical argument about what entity exists that created the universe, and the evolutionary argument about if there is teleology in the evolution or not, if God controls it. I think very few of the worlds population understand those discussions at all or know something about the pros and cons. Therefore it isn't possible that they mostly used these arguments as a reason for there beliefs.

Those are some of the "scientific" evidences.
But as has been mentioned before, one does not have to have to have a degree in science to observe the evidence in nature for the existence of a "god"

One of basic aspects of human intellect is the ability to recognize "design". And this basic intuitive human ability to recognize "design" is a significant contributor to the understanding of the overwhelming majority of the human population that the existence of "design" logically points to the existence of a "designer".

Yes, you are right that it is a basic intuitive human ability to recognize "design". But now, with Darwin, the evolution, and computer science, it is shown by massive research that that intuition often is mistaken.

Science just confirms what natural human intellect intuitively recognizes.

You should read real science and not only Meyer.

This is why 90% of humans from different cultures, educational levels, and occupations all recognize the evidence that is abundant in nature at both the intuitive and scientific levels that some sort of "god" exists.

The 90% includes a wide variety of world views from theism with one God, with several Gods, animism, new age views etc. Most of them are not compatible with each other. So the 90% argument is instead an argument against the existence of a God.

There is one very significant similarity among the many different world views that provides yet another evidence of the existence of a God.
As we look at very different cultures and faiths across the planet, there is an incredibly strong instinctive desire within the human creature to know his creator.
So where did this instinctive longing that is present in an overwhelming percentage of humans across the globe come from? Why is it there?...

The answer is pretty straightforward...
Whoever or whatever designed the human creature, designed it with a strong instinctive drive to know its creator.

I have an other explanation (which you choose not to quote!)

So we have two very powerful evidences of God that are available to every human on the planet (not just scientists).
1. The intuitive intellectual ability in humans to recognize design.
2. The instinctive drive in humans to know their creator.

Not any evidence at all!

[Nils]

Nils: The 90% includes a wide variety of world views from theism with one God, with several Gods, animism, new age views etc. Most of them are not compatible with each other. So the 90% argument is instead an argument against the existence of a God.

First place, it does not matter that people believing in some other god or gods embrace teachings and beliefs which don’t match up with the true God of Christianity – because these people still have the alternative of atheism if they don’t find ANY god or gods to be necessary to explain what they see and do know of.

Sorry, I don't understand what you try to say.

Nils: How is it possible that an almighty God has failed so completely to submit at least some basic truths.

Anyone looking at the information content in DNA or the design of a cell realizes they did not randomly self-assemble.

Nobody claims that they randomly self-assemble. (Do you understand the evolution theory?)

To realize the razor-thin margins of so many things that just small modifications would render life impossible – and not only that, but these many things must perfectly interaction in harmonious synergies for the universe and life to function as it does. I call this examinable evidences – and VERY powerful ones, at that!

I'm not clear about what you are talking. Is this the fine-tuning argument?

And God sent prophets and apostles over 16 centuries with detailed, examinable writings - with them being written by a great diversity of people, from differing times and cultures, and yet they are all in agreement on the God of the Bible. Sixty-six books of detailed information to ponder - and yet you say God has failed to communicate basic truths? Please!

I was talking about how he communicated to majority of the 90%, the non-Christians . Those who never read these books.

Again, you ignore the Scriptural evidences and fulfilled prophecies – which I’m guessing you know very little about. They are powerful and unmistakable – not like some ridiculous musings of Nostradamus or similar nonsense. And you’ll not find more than a caricature or superficial examination of such things (verified by history and events) on atheist sites, etc.

Nils: The obvious explanation is that it is a positive feature to societies that the persons have a disposition to believe in some common religion.

You do realize that millions embrace a certain faith because they are FORCED to – especially in Islam, atheism or other faiths are not tolerated. People leaving a faith will lose friends and family – or worse. But in many societies, there is no ONE common faith. Look at the pantheon of gods and diverse beliefs of their followers in India. Across the world, there is no ONE faith tradition! And in democracies and places with more freedom (most of the world), people have the right to choose their faith – which is where your theory falls apart, given the immense diversity of beliefs. Yes, places without such freedoms (think the various Islamic Kingdoms of dictatorships) do have a forced uniformity. Notice as well, places with severe dictatorships like North Korea, the former Soviet Union, the various communist countries – these typically mandate or heavily promote a monolithic atheism.

I was talking about an evolutionary developed genetic disposition to believe in religions.

[DBowling]

Actually the Multiverse is not a get out of jail free card.
- First and foremost there is no empirical evidence of a Multiverse
- Next the Multiverse hypothesis just kicks the can up the road. Every proposed mechanism for a Multiverse generator requires extremely tight boundary conditions and fine tuning for the Multiverse generating math to work.

So the same "fine tuning" and design realities that exist in our universe also exist for any alleged Multiverse generator.

From where did you get this?

A number of places actually...
The hypothetical mathematical constructs that make up the different inflationary cosmology models for the Multi-verse are extremely complex and have no basis in observed reality.

But the complexity of these models do speak to the incredible creativity and intelligence required to dream up these mathematical models. Which yet again reinforces the fine tuning/design argument.

Meyer talks about it a little bit here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ7GBZm087Y

… that has periodically infused new information into the biosphere of our planet

Evidence?

The fossil record and the code in the DNA of life in our planet today demonstrate that information has repeatedly been infused into the DNA of life throughout the history of life on our planet.

You refer apparently to the ideas of Intelligent Design that has been refuted repeatedly. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it can't be falsified. How could you possibly show that a specific step in the evolution is made by infusion of DNA?

Design is of course evident in the code in the DNA of life on our planet.
I think you would agree that there is more information in the DNA of life on the planet today than there was in the DNA of life on out planet 1 billion years ago. So it is a simple fact that information has somehow been infused into the DNA of life on our planet over the last billion or so years.

And yes, many have attempted to refute "Intelligent Design", but to date their argumentation is simply unsupported by any empirical data.
In fact as we gather more and more empirical evidence about the behavior and inherent limits of Darwinistic "random" mutation, the case for intelligent design continues to grow stronger and stronger.

2. The life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the best (if not the best) attested historical event in ancient history .
The Historical Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection That Even Skeptics Believe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4R ... sdxQnNSthB

Steven Meyer is a Scientist not a Historian.
Steven Meyer shows the scientific evidence that points to a "God" that is consistent with classic Theism.
But to dig into the claims of specific religious beliefs you need Historians and Theologians.

And Historians like Gary Habermas and NT Wright have both done excellent research into the Historical reality of the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Apostle Paul tells us that the truth of Christianity is based on the historical reality of a single event, the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

How do you prove historically that Jesus really died. There were only a few persons that witnessed the burial of Jesus and they could easily have agreed that Jesus was dead even if he wasn't. They had a motive and an opportunity.

Actually the opposite is true.
Jesus closest followers had given up all hope after Jesus was executed by the Romans... and the Romans were trained professionals at executions and crucifixions.

And when some women told Jesus disciples that they had seen him alive, his disciples didn't believe them until Jesus made an appearance to them.
They had no motive, no opportunity, and no expectation.
And with the exception of John the Apostle, the other 11 disciples were martyred because they continued to proclaim the reality of Jesus' resurrection from the dead.

This is another area where those who don't know history, make assertions with no basis in historical reality.

So once science established the reality of an intelligent "God" who created the universe.
And once history established the reality of the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

I understand that this is what you want believe, but is totally wrong in one case (evolution) and not proven in the other case (Jesus' death)

Once again, the reverse is true...
And when the evidence is evaluated, it is your beliefs that are shown to be inconsistent with both the historical and scientific evidence and reality.
There is no event in ancient history that is more well historically attested than the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

And as far as evolution goes, natural selection is a scientific fact, there is DNA and fossil evidence that is consistent with the possibility of common descent.
But the fatal flaw in Darwinistic theory is the concept of "random" mutation. The observed behavior of "random" mutation in the real world and in the lab continues to provide hard empirical evidence that random Darwinistic mutations are incapable of providing the scope and rate of mutations necessary to facilitate the changes we observe in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.
That is a simple fact. And Darwinists are left to appeal to a "science of the gaps" argument...
"We can't explain it now, but just trust us. We''ll eventually figure out a way to weasel around the empirical evidence some day"

These two lectures by Behe discuss the observed behavior and limitations of Darwinistic processes.
The Edge of Evolution
https://www.c-span.org/video/?199326-1/ ... -evolution
Darwin Devolves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4