Evidence for God from Science

Food for thought:

Psalms 33:6,By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. NASB

Heb 4:12, For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. NASB

Even in and through creation itself, God's words cuts to the heart exposing what is within, controlling person, revealing all subtle and overt hubris.

Romans 1:20, For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse NASB

Heb 4:13-16 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. 14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. NASB


Ken we are wasting time.

Cut to the chase - why do you hate Christianity - what is the real reason?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Ken we are wasting time.

Cut to the chase - why do you hate Christianity - what is the real reason?

I will answer that question only after you quit beating your wife!

Ken

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Ken we are wasting time.

Cut to the chase - why do you hate Christianity - what is the real reason?

I will answer that question only after you quit beating your wife!

Ken

Touché!

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Ken we are wasting time.

Cut to the chase - why do you hate Christianity - what is the real reason?

I will answer that question only after you quit beating your wife!

Ken

I do not beat my wife nor treat her with any disrespect so with your comment please publicly apologize like real a man.

You are insulting my wife and I will not take that lightly, do you understand Ken?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Ken we are wasting time.

Cut to the chase - why do you hate Christianity - what is the real reason?

I will answer that question only after you quit beating your wife!

Ken

I do not beat my wife nor treat her with any disrespect so with your comment please publicly apologize like real a man.

You are insulting my wife and I will not take that lightly, do you understand Ken?
-
-
-

B. W.,

Kenny was pointing out that your question was loaded. He was not insulting your wife!

Asking why he hates Christianity, is like asking if you've stopped beating your wife.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2

Your asking why Ken hates Christianity, presupposes that he actually hates Christianity. Therefore, it's a loaded question.

Ken has posted disdain for Christianity but never the real reason why for such disdain, just symptoms. Like to know the real reasons, not the intellectual symptoms for a change and deal with these.

I suggest that posters refrain from insinuations made about or against their spouses no matter what. This is disrespectful as well as a forum rule violation.

Ken can say whatever about me but leave my wife out of it. That is not cute nor jest, it is really bad judgment....

So much for Ken's self stated moral superiority he said he has...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:
I suggest that posters refrain from insinuations made about or against their spouses no matter what. This is disrespectful as well as a forum rule violation.

Ken can say whatever about me but leave my wife out of it. That is not cute nor jest, it is really bad judgment....

Ken was not talking about your wife. He used a generic example of a loaded question, to show that you asked him a loaded question.

Lennox always talks so calmly, and reasons through to a conclusion in a dialogue manner rather via colder logical deductions. Around 3:30 in, he draws the important distinction calling that no matter if one sees no good, no bad, no justice but just a harsh, cold, world with DNA dancing around... the Philosophy of such is inconsistent with their Being.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3guguZbD6M

B. W. wrote:Ken has posted disdain for Christianity but never the real reason why for such disdain, just symptoms. Like to know the real reasons, not the intellectual symptoms for a change and deal with these.

I suggest that posters refrain from insinuations made about or against their spouses no matter what. This is disrespectful as well as a forum rule violation.

Ken can say whatever about me but leave my wife out of it. That is not cute nor jest, it is really bad judgment....

So much for Ken's self stated moral superiority he said he has...
-
-
-

B.W. for as long as we have been discussing back and fourth over the years, do you really believe would insult your wife? That was not my intention; I thought you knew me better than that. RickD was right; you asked me a loaded question and I responded with the textbook/dictionary example of a loaded question hoping you would see the fallacy in the question you asked; apparently you did not. When considering the debating experience you have, I assumed you would recognize a loaded question when presented with one and would recognize the point I was making; obviously I was wrong. Again I can assure you it was not my intention to offend you or insult your wife.

You also said I posted “distain” for Christianity. Would you mind pointing out what I said that you see as distain for Christianity?

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:Lennox always talks so calmly, and reasons through to a conclusion in a dialogue manner rather via colder logical deductions. Around 3:30 in, he draws the important distinction calling that no matter if one sees no good, no bad, no justice but just a harsh, cold, world with DNA dancing around... the Philosophy of such is inconsistent with their Being.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3guguZbD6M

I saw the video. IMO He makes a common mistake many theists make when he quotes; if God does not exist, everything is permissible. But assuming God does exist, isn’t everything still permissible? True; you might be going against God’s word, but if you don’t care about God’s word, what is to stop you from doing what you want?

He also says if no God, there is no right or wrong. People will always decide what they feel is right or wrong. they may not always agree, but people will always make that distinction; even animals make that distinction.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Lennox always talks so calmly, and reasons through to a conclusion in a dialogue manner rather via colder logical deductions. Around 3:30 in, he draws the important distinction calling that no matter if one sees no good, no bad, no justice but just a harsh, cold, world with DNA dancing around... the Philosophy of such is inconsistent with their Being.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3guguZbD6M

I saw the video. IMO He makes a common mistake many theists make when he quotes; if God does not exist, everything is permissible. But assuming God does exist, isn’t everything still permissible? True; you might be going against God’s word, but if you don’t care about God’s word, what is to stop you from doing what you want?

Here, let me take a different tact to standard Moral Relativism vs Moral Objectivism, and fwiw it was an Atheist YouTuber who provoked my thoughts here... but what you say, is simply saying well morality is relative to God, but so what? A person is still permitted to do what they want. That is true, at least, God allows us to go against Him, though Christian theology says the time for such is limited and will come to an end. Our Universe bears witness to the fact things are temporary and that we won't live forever.

Here, I will say, that morality, love, righteousness and goodness, is relative to God. God, not morality, is the objective "force" that is and will always be. Perhaps out of laziness or ease, many theists say because there is an objective standard, that morality is objective. But, no, morality is relative to God and God is objective (Divine Simplicitans should understand the distinction I am making here).

So then, our moral compass which includes loving others, indeed we are designed naturally to feel guilt and empathy (though such can be perhaps "nurtured" out of us), such is a direct acknowledgement of a source greater than ourselves. One that we cannot but pay heed to, but it is built into our very nature by the one who is our own source...

Understand that God as God is the source of ALL. Source of all life, source of righteousness, source of goodness, source of love and we see such attributes displayed more or less in our world. God is the absolute source for such things. Yet, it is possible for us to turn against such things. Nonetheless, our ability is restrained, even our very nature acknowledges concepts such as justice, fairness, love, goodness in people and the like, and by our own acknowledgement to such we will stand condemned. As the Apostle Paul says in Romans 2:

1 Therefore you have no excuse,everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Understand, the thing that emanates out from the source, cannot be greater to or equal to that source. A Sun ray can never be brighter than the Sun. In this way, it can be said that the Sun is "Sovereign" over rays of light.

God, as our Creator, indeed our nature which bears witness to these laws within our hearts, even if there is one law that you acknowledge -- the Law of Love -- such nonetheless find their basis, their grounding in God who is the source for and imparted such.

This, is what many theologians, either wrongly or rightly, term "Objective Morality." God is by no means an object or even morality itself. Rather this morality, this love, indeed our very nature and all life, is grounded in or upon the source of our all such things -- the one whom Christians and many others call God. There is no bedrock that is lower.

Kenny wrote: I saw the video. IMO He makes a common mistake many theists make when he quotes; if God does not exist, everything is permissible. But assuming God does exist, isn’t everything still permissible? True; you might be going against God’s word, but if you don’t care about God’s word, what is to stop you from doing what you want?

He also says if no God, there is no right or wrong. People will always decide what they feel is right or wrong. they may not always agree, but people will always make that distinction; even animals make that distinction.

Ken

Provide example for animals making that distinction, please.

To answer the OP, of course people can be good without God. The basis for something or someone being good or for something or someone being bad is purely subjective though and hence can vary.

IceMobster wrote:

Kenny wrote: I saw the video. IMO He makes a common mistake many theists make when he quotes; if God does not exist, everything is permissible. But assuming God does exist, isn’t everything still permissible? True; you might be going against God’s word, but if you don’t care about God’s word, what is to stop you from doing what you want?

He also says if no God, there is no right or wrong. People will always decide what they feel is right or wrong. they may not always agree, but people will always make that distinction; even animals make that distinction.

Ken

Provide example for animals making that distinction, please.

Don't animals of packs have rules to those packs?

Ken

While I would not have stated that ken hates Christianity, I don't think that it is a loaded question by BW.

Ken, by his posting history, doesn't appear to LIKE Christianity and since he ACTIVELY posts views against Christianity he is NOT indifferent to it so, ergo, if one does not like and is not indifferent then, logically, a valid possibility is that one HATES it.

Far from being a loaded question, it is a valid assumption.

Now, unless BW had posted ANYTHING that could be viewed as even the most minor of indication that he viewed beating a spouse as acceptable, Ken's reply is the only loaded question in this thread.

Kenny wrote:

IceMobster wrote:

Kenny wrote: I saw the video. IMO He makes a common mistake many theists make when he quotes; if God does not exist, everything is permissible. But assuming God does exist, isn’t everything still permissible? True; you might be going against God’s word, but if you don’t care about God’s word, what is to stop you from doing what you want?

He also says if no God, there is no right or wrong. People will always decide what they feel is right or wrong. they may not always agree, but people will always make that distinction; even animals make that distinction.

Ken

Provide example for animals making that distinction, please.

Don't animals of packs have rules to those packs?

Ken

Perhaps (since I don't know to which animal packs you are referring to), but how does having rules allow them to have a distinction between right or wrong?