Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Also, we need to understand that the classical Theist God didn't just create ALL, but SUSTAINS all so that if evolution is happening, it is happening because of God.

I thought evolution was purposeless, and random?

Neo told me that, so it must be true.

A person must be careful in choosing which Scriptures to cherrypick.

neo-x wrote:People's beliefs have nothing to do with science, that is somewhat ironic as that is what I have always found wrong with ACB's posts on the subject. Einstien thought that quantum theory was bonkers (and he was wrong) and Aristotle believed that moving things stopped on their own because they got tired (thanks to metaphysics). I know of Atheists who believe in ghosts but not in God. People are inconsistent.

Metaphysics was once the only way to talk about the natural world, but the problem with that was that metaphysics only delved in philosophy, not empirical science. The rise of the empirical method contrary to the philosophical one is what separates these two. That is why the philosophical view that Earth was the centre of the universe was proven wrong, empirically by Copernicus and Galileo, or that a ball of cotton would fall slower than a ball of iron of the same weight which was what Aristotle believed but no one had considered to actually check it until Galileo did from the tower of Pisa.

Metaphysics is helpful in my opinion, that it asks what the scientific method doesn't. The why vs. the how. However to say that the empirical method or the modern method of science totally derives from metaphysics is not 100% true. Metaphysics was more interested in the why rather than the how. They share the same thing, curiosity but they both search for it via different avenues.

The only way to say that evolution doesn't work is not to philsophise but show empirical evidence that it doesn't or something else happens, a better theory with proper evidence.

You gotta be kidding.I reduced Truly to just preaching evolution is true and he has alot more scientific knowledge than I do and yet he is reduced to just declaring evolution is true while hiding behind peer review,which is typical of evolutionists. But hey if you doubt anything I have said or explained about evolution and why there is no credible mechanism for how life evolves,or any other of the things I've explained that are serious problems with the evidence used ffor evolution,etc.Then let's get into the evidence then.Because I'll show you that every example of evidence used for evolution is only demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations.

You can doubt me,but let's get into the evidence and then I'll be proven correct about everything I have explained that are serious problems for the theory of evolution. If you believe life evolves because scientists have proven that there is normal variation amongst the populations then you have alot of blind faith.There is no reason you should be convinced life evolves because scientists proved what we already knew for thousands of years and that would be normal variation amongst the populations.

There is no way that this evidence convinces that life evolves,not even close.And the only way it is believable is if you believe life evolves and want it to be true.There is no reason to believe life evolves based on so flimsy of evidence. I mean you must assume so much based on normal variations amongst the populations,which is just stating the obvious.Nobody denies that there is normal variation amongst the populations but it cannot be used for evidence life evolves,eventhough it is.

Now I heard you explain one time why you used to be a Gap Theorist but became a Theistic evolutionist,and I don't care what creation interpretation you accept because it is not a salvation issue but the Gap Theory is more believable if we remove everything from our mind about evolution and look at the evidence that came out of the earth from a two world perspective instead of just one world. But it is not my intention to try to prove it to you,you can seek and find yourself to discover the truth,right now I just want to be vindicated for everything I have explained about evolution and the serious problems with it.

So let's get into examples of evolution so that I can show you it just demonstrates normal variation amongst the populations from bacteria,to viruses,to finches,to salamanders,to fruit flies,etc the only thing scientists have proven is that there is normal variation amongst the populations and it really proves the bible correct and not evolution eventhough evolutionists don't even realize it.But the evidence proves that kinds produce after their kind and they do not change over time to become other kinds of life.Evolution confirms this correct.Because the only thing the evidence for examples of evolution demonstrates is that kinds produce after their kind and they do not change into other kinds of life,like evolutionists believe happened and is what their whole tree of life is based on.Throw the whole tree out if you have only proven that kinds produce after their kind.It must be thrown out because it is all built on normal variation amongst the populations.

The only reason some of you doubt me or think I don't understand or know about evolution is because nobody has taken me up on my offer to get into the evidence.I actually thought Truly would try to school me and present all kinds of evidence for evolution but he did'nt.It is easier to just imply I don't really know about evolution and are confused,etc.It is like pulling teeth to get evolutionists to get into the evidence used for evolution these days and they are deduced to just believing life evolves and declaring evolution true because the majority of scientists accept it as the most viable explanation for the life in our world.

neo-x wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Evolution simply is populations changing through time. Evolution actually fits in well with the biblical kinds idea.

Btw, I sort of touched on this in another post of mine, about whether Neanderthals should be considered a different species of human or a subspecies of ours, and how this fits with theology.
Here's an article about Neanderthal humans evolving.
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderth ... umans.html

I would say it's difficult to fit with the biblical stories, as evolution simply doesn't allow for special creations, nor purposeful ones.

Edit:
That being said, you can say that Adam and Eve are special-purposed creations, nothing wrong with that but then you can't say that evolution allows it or is in line with this.

You are very correct. Don

neo wrote:
I would say it's difficult to fit with the biblical stories, as evolution simply doesn't allow for special creations, nor purposeful ones.

As usual, I don't want to assume what you mean by this, so could you elaborate?

Let's assume for sake of discussion, that molecules to man evolution is true. With that said, God couldn't have created Adam as a special creation, while there were preexisting humans?

neo-x wrote:

Nicki wrote:

neo-x wrote:That is why the philosophical view that Earth was the centre of the universe was proven wrong, empirically by Copernicus and Galileo, or that a ball of cotton would fall slower than a ball of iron of the same weight which was what Aristotle believed but no one had considered to actually check it until Galileo did from the tower of Pisa.

Just wondering, I read the other day in one of my son's school science workbooks (he hadn't done a lot of his work very carefully - misreading and getting things wrong ) that two objects of the same size and shape will fall at the same speed regardless of weight. Is that version correct?

Yes, it is. And holds out even if you drop a ball of 1kg and a ball of 10kg, both will fall at the same speed as well and that is because the gravitational and inertial masses are equal for all objects. I was merely pointing out earlier that before Galileo, nobody had checked that for one and a half millennium. And as such people did think that lighter things fell slowly whereas heavier things fell faster.

Now, if you drop a feather and a 10 kg iron ball the feather will drop at the same rate but because of its shape the air will affect it and therefore the drop rate changes, hence human beings can use parachutes however, that doesn't negate the above, because in a vacuum the feather and the 10 kg iron ball will drop at the same speed, as there will be less to no friction affecting the shape of the feather.

You are absolutely correct, that in a vacuum(no molecules to resist the force of Gravity), the only force that accelerates an object is Gravity. You are correct that the inertial mass(not actual mass) of any object in a Gravitational field is zero. Therefore, the only force acting on the object is Gravity. If you were standing on the roof and released a feather and a ball from your hands, they will begin to fall at the same time, since the only force acting against Gravity are the muscle of your hand. Since the feather's density, shape, and surface area, will make it more affected by air resistance, it will fall slower than the ball. It will also reach terminal velocity(a constant speed, like driving at 30 km per hour), sooner than the ball. But in a vacuum, there is no air resistant molecules, so both objects will be accelerated only by the force of Gravity. Both objects will never reach a terminal velocity, and will continue to accelerate at the same rate.

Although both objects accelerate at the same rate, the Gravitational force acting on them IS NOT THE SAME. A simple analogy would be trying to pull two boxes with a rope attached. If one box was twice as heavy as the other box, one of your arms would be pulling twice as hard to maintain the same rate of motion, right? So in order for objects of different shapes, densities, and surface areas, to fall at the same rate in a vacuum, gravity MUST exert a different force on each to compensate for their differences. This is what is observe, and what we can mathematically account for. Don

neo-x wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

neo-x wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Evolution simply is populations changing through time. Evolution actually fits in well with the biblical kinds idea.

Btw, I sort of touched on this in another post of mine, about whether Neanderthals should be considered a different species of human or a subspecies of ours, and how this fits with theology.
Here's an article about Neanderthal humans evolving.
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderth ... umans.html

I would say it's difficult to fit with the biblical stories, as evolution simply doesn't allow for special creations, nor purposeful ones.

Edit:
That being said, you can say that Adam and Eve are special-purposed creations, nothing wrong with that but then you can't say that evolution allows it or is in line with this.

So, here is the thing.
As hard as it is to look at something as established as the Genesis account from the perspective of no-bias, if we do what we see ( doctrines aside) is TWO accounts:
One of the planet in general with no explicit direct divine intervention for how humans came along ( Let the earth bring forth all living creatures) but a divine command to be the image bearers of God ( Genesis 1) and an account of special creation in a specific area ( Genesis 2) with a specially created couple that lead to a specific genealogy.
In short:
Genesis 1 is an account of creation in general.
Genesis 2 is an account of a the beginning of a special group of people.

Neither account either advocates or denies evolution.

Yes. And had it been just that I would concede that there isn't a confirmation or negation of evolution. The thing that I see is an overall connotation to both these accounts (and later on through the Bible that humans are indeed special creation - divinely purposed) that does indeed show God having a purpose. That, to me is impossible to overlook. I am not sure if you agree with me on this. That over all connotation which introduces God as a creator with a plan is one problem.

The second is, that evolution itself is not compatible with purpose or special creation so it is not as much as only making a concession that the scriptures allow such open meaning but also that if evolution itself could integrate what the scriptures say, and it doesn't.

The third problem is, that why do we need to make a case of evolution in the scriptures at all?
It wasn't meant to be understood in that manner nor was read as such since no one had a clue about it back then. The author wasn't aware of it as such nor implied it as such which if it had been the case, he would have. But he puts it back to God again and again.

I have made this case before as well that if God had to intervene in the evolutionary process then there was no need of this process to begin with. It's an oxymoron. For instance we don't need God to initiate an earthquake everytime two tectonic plates collide. The process works independently. Why go all the trouble of making so many things and killing them over eaons if you only had to get to man? Why not just make man?

This latter point in conjunction with what I have said above seems to result in my position.
Your thoughts?

I agree, and well said. Don

RickD wrote:

neo wrote:
I would say it's difficult to fit with the biblical stories, as evolution simply doesn't allow for special creations, nor purposeful ones.

As usual, I don't want to assume what you mean by this, so could you elaborate?

Let's assume for sake of discussion, that molecules to man evolution is true. With that said, God couldn't have created Adam as a special creation, while there were preexisting humans?

Yes, Rick, He certainly could. I am not saying he couldn't.
What I said earlier was that even if we accept it, we still can't say that evolution is in line with the biblical story. You see, while in this way you have solved the apparent issue from the biblical side, the evolution theory itself wouldn't allow the Bible to mesh with this concept. On the evolutionary tree, it is simply impossible for one pair of humans to suddenly pop out without a common ancestor. It isn’t possible. If evolution happened, it happened all the way. We can't cherry pick where it happened or where it didn’t. And we can't break up TOE to only use parts where we think they should. We have to be consistent, either take it all or none of it.

So then while you can say that God made Adam and Eve as a special creation and can say it's a miracle. You can't say that evolution is compatible with the Bible or the Bible with evolution. Because that is not what evolution says or entails. It specifically says that all humans share common ancestry, no exceptions, no miracles needed or are allowed. But that is not what the Bible says, even if we agree on molecules to man evolution for the sake of this argument and make a case for special creation.

For discussion here is a thought I had on this hypothetical:
Taking your premise that molecules to man evolution were possible and happening - I think that it is certainly possible that God could make Adam and Eve as special creations. But I would ask why?

It seems futile. If molecules to man evolution were successful then why make one separate pair? There isn't any need for it.

Also, your premise assumes that since macroevolution was happening that God indeed willed it or designed it or was somehow in control of it or its intended outcomes?

This alone defeats the very purpose for special creation as it means that whatever had God intended through evolution wasn't happening so he had to intervene to fix things. The only problem is it makes God a poor planner. The only way you intervene in something is when things are not going as you want them to be. And since evolution is happening already as God's intended it to be, then there is no need to make a special case.
In this scenario, God is either inefficient and unintelligent and that is something we both agree on, that God isn't both.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Yes. And had it been just that I would concede that there isn't a confirmation or negation of evolution. The thing that I see is an overall connotation to both these accounts (and later on through the Bible that humans are indeed special creation - divinely purposed) that does indeed show God having a purpose. That, to me is impossible to overlook. I am not sure if you agree with me on this. That over all connotation which introduces God as a creator with a plan is one problem.

God's plan was to have humans as His Image bearers on Earth - To govern it for Him.
He decided to do this via a select genealogy.

The second is, that evolution itself is not compatible with purpose or special creation so it is not as much as only making a concession that the scriptures allow such open meaning but also that if evolution itself could integrate what the scriptures say, and it doesn't.

Evolution "cares" about survival and adaptability. It has made it so that man is Governing the planet.
Good and bad that goes with it.

The third problem is, that why do we need to make a case of evolution in the scriptures at all?
It wasn't meant to be understood in that manner nor was read as such since no one had a clue about it back then. The author wasn't aware of it as such nor implied it as such which if it had been the case, he would have. But he puts it back to God again and again.

We do NOT need to make sense or reconcile evolution with scripture and I am sure that 100 or 1000 years from now, our view on evolution will be quite different then it is now.

I have made this case before as well that if God had to intervene in the evolutionary process then there was no need of this process to begin with. It's an oxymoron. For instance we don't need God to initiate an earthquake everytime two tectonic plates collide. The process works independently. Why go all the trouble of making so many things and killing them over eaons if you only had to get to man? Why not just make man?

The process that god the world, the universe, to where it is today was change and adaption, why would humanity be any different? why WOULDN'T God do it this way?

This latter point in conjunction with what I have said above seems to result in my position.
Your thoughts?

It is a valid position.
I don't think that evolution is what we think it is today. We have a small picture and the more we learn the more the picture gets clearer.

Remember, 1000 years ago everyone KNEW that the sun revolved around the world ( and observation and science agreed).
500 Year ago everyone KNEW that man could NOT fly, NEVER go to the moon.
100 years ago every KNEW that a virgin couldn't give birth, that people can NOT communicate across the planet, instantaneously.

And Yet...here we are.

As always, I think I agree with you mostly, except a small thing here or there.

1. As I also wrote to Rick, we can't use evolution selectively the same way we should use scriptures selectively.
2. Yes, we will have a much better understanding 1000 years from now, but I do believe that some basic facts are painfully obvious. But again, who knows, you are right in it, we may discover something completely different.

Philip wrote:

Truly: I only wanted to give a scientific perspective, regarding science-related questions. That is my true expertise. Not wasting time with these fallacious, endless, and boring metaphysical arguments.

Yeah, I guess you're above questions most of mankind has always pondered, including some of the most brilliant minds the planet has ever known.

Regarding your experiment. If I asked you to subject Theism to the scrutiny of the scientific method of inquiry, would you want to take part in that experiment?

First of all, I think we agree that science cannot PROVE God, NOR anything you might speculate that otherwise might be possibly responsible for what exists, or existed before the universe began. And the very same evidences can be looked at in different ways. But what it CAN do is point to probabilities of things that I think are unreasonable to think unintelligent things could EVER produce by themselves - without some unbelievably great intelligence behind them, no matter the amount of time given. I ask no more of science than what it can actually provide: Powerful clues about what seems necessary to explain the universe and life. Not to mention, asking of science to do more than what it is capable of is absurd. The scientific method and observations can only show evidences and probabilities based upon what can be known about the universe and biological life.

On the other hand, what I am asking you is whether you are willing to submit to a test that only an existing, thinking Being could answer for you - but you're comparing THAT to me asking non-intelligent things to provide an answer they cannot ultimately answer???
This shows me that you don't really want to know the truth of the matter, and that you are so prideful you are unwilling to merely experiment - in a way which no one would ever know; no need to be embarrassed that you've done a "silly" experiment, all off by yourself. Vast millions of people can attest to having an understanding that transcends but doesn't in any way contradict what we can know through empirical observations - and they've been radically changed by this understanding. You just don't know what you what you don't WANT to know, or that you have preconceived ideas about.

TrulyE: So, I'm asking you to provide just one objective fallacy-free reason, that would justify me devoting my life to a life of pious servitude, just to discover YOUR truth.

BINGO - a HUGE preconceived notion. WHERE did you get the understanding that this experiment I speak of involves the necessity for a "life of pious servitude??? In fact, what you've just described is the way every other faith type besides Christianity believes. We don't discover God or learn of him by doing good STUFF. That's what all RELIGIONS think and assert. Not Christianity. So, you've apparently bought into the false belief that discovering God has to the this long, complicated ordeal of tasks. And, unfortunately, many Christians - or SO-CALLED ones don't truly know Scripture. At any rate, what I suggest is simple, easy, and its premise is based upon the "possibility" that there is a way to learn the answer to this question that is more than science can ever teach anyone.

TrulyE: Just one rational reason for me to take part in this experiment will do. Don

Because science alone cannot answer your question. And only "if" there is a God could the experiment produce an affirmation of Him. I'd further advise, that God will honor one truly seeking the truth of His existence, a person who sincerely wants to know. Also, the answer to the experiment may or may not be instantaneous, and it also might be in an unexpected way. But make no mistake, if you really want to know, you can - it's so simple - but people mistakenly think it has to be complex. And while the answer will be rational, it may not be an especially intuitive way one would think to go about it.

One of my past business partners, an agnostic, cynical, amazingly intelligent attorney did this same test. He also asked God, "IF you exist and are real, please make it obvious to me - please don't be vague, because "vague" will not convince me." In fact, this guy's wife first became a Christian and he laughed, made fun, and angrily told her, "They just want your money or something else!" He eventually came to an empty, dark point, which prompted him to really want to know the answer - he had seen such remarkable changes in his wife. And that's just one story amongst countless others such ones.

It's up to you Don, I sincerely hope you will, at some point, consider doing this.

Philip, you do not know me at all! So please keep your self-serving psych evaluations to yourself. I have asked God to make his presence known to me many times, and in such a way that there could be no doubt. In Viet Nam, the death of my first child, the death of my closest friends, the death of my father, etc. No one was there, but me. Considering the level of pestilence, wars, diseases, starvations, crimes, deaths, greed, hate, and apathy that we see in the world today, why would I want to seek someone, or "some thing", that would stand-by and allow these conditions to not only continue, but to flourish? I don't feel that, "life after death will be better", is an adequate explanation since we are all going to die anyway.

Do you really think that most of mankind is sitting around pondering the meaning of life? It is a mental exercise for a mind that needs to create a perception of importance and enlightenment. It is pure mental masterbation, without the same results. So YES I guess I'm not as bright as, "the most brilliant minds the planet has ever known"(the planet has ever known????). Nor, do I claim to be.

I asked you if you would be willing to subject Theism to scientific scrutiny? You side stepped this issue by saying that science can only point to the probability of things that you would consider as being unreasonable. Like, unintelligent things creating themselves, or that I'm asking for, "non-intelligent things to provide an answer they cannot ultimately answer???". You are correct that I have a preconceived notion that pigs can't fly. Therefore, I see no reason to search for an all-powerful intelligence, that has the power to make pigs fly. Without evidence first, I don't see any purpose for this type of venture. Unless, the goal is to keep looking until I eventually convince myself(confirmation bias). So without all the editorializing and excuse-making, you are just saying NO, you are not interested in subjecting Theism to any scientific method of scrutiny. Period!

Since you do not KNOW every other Religion or every other Faith, you have no idea what they assert or think, please comment only on what you do know. Since you can't(or won't) provide one piece of rational or objective evidence, your entire rationale supporting this experiment becomes unclear and obscure. Irrespective of your "snake-oil" salesman's pitch. But just in case I am misjudging the obvious, what exactly would this experiment entail? Would I need to read scripture for years, until cognitive dissonance convinces me that what I am reading is real? Should I abandon critical thinking, and immerse myself into the possibility that alternative realities exist? Maybe you can explain why any experiment that must presuppose only one outcome is possible, and ignore any other? Hardly very scientific!.

So unless you can provide just one piece of objective evidence, or one fallacy-free reason for this experiment, I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass for now. But out of respect, I thank you for the invitation. Don

PaulSacramento wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

What metaphysical or Theological discoveries have been discovered in the last 1000 years? Name one new discovery!

You do realize that the CORE of science, the scientific method, the is a view that we CAN know the universe around us and that there is a degree of "predictability" ( repeat-ability) and a "goal orientedness" in nature ( which makes the scientific method possible), is from metaphysics and theology, right?

More absolute rubbish. Maybe it is you that should realize that the scientific method of inquiry, is an evolved procedure that is based entirely within the NATURAL WORLD. It is not based on theology or the metaphysics. Maybe you can demonstrate anything that is metaphysical, using the scientific method? Maybe you can demonstrate anything theological using the scientific method? I didn't think so! As I stated before, The question was rhetorical, THERE IS NOTHING!

You are correct, the scientific method is used to explain and understand only the natural world around us. You are also correct that part of this method is "predictability"(not sure what you mean by goal-orientedness in nature). But how did we jump from one stated truism, to stating that it is metaphysics and theology that is responsible? They both are neither mutually inclusive or exclusive. But I guess you can assert anything you like. Don

Other than the insult, do you agree or disagree with my comments? And why? Don

Honestly?
While some prefer to hide behind snide remarks and airs of superiority, I simply call them as I see them.
I don't think you read what I wrote and if you did and didn't understand it, it means either you aren't as smart as you are tying to pass yourself off as or you are obtuse.

Science developed from the understanding that nature has a degree of predictability and repeat ability and a certain goal-directedness and those views came from metaphysics and theology and that is well documented ( all the greatest pre-modern scientists believed in God). The view that we can understand the universe and that there is an order to things and that we are able to observe and comprehend is directly from metaphysics and theology.

If you don't know that then maybe some reading about the history of science is in order.
Real history and not revisionist crap.

Of course I don't have the same luxury as you do in expressing myself. But be that as it may, why don't you just assume that I am as mad as a hatter, and as dumb as a box of nails. Hopefully, this might make you feel better. Maybe then you will stop using my intellect as an excuse to avoid explaining your position. Also repeating the same thing over again, is not an explanation. Being predictable is a testable outcome, that can be observed and practiced. Nature allows for only four things. It allows an organism to survive or become extinct, or procreate or not procreate. That is it. Just like any other animal.

My understanding of history is that metaphysics was used to explain superstitions and myths. It was those that actually tested the metaphysical explanations, that were the ones doing science. They were the ones that used and developed the scientific method of inquiry. If you are saying that metaphysics and theology has influenced science, in the same way as a smoker with lung cancer, has influenced people not to smoke, then I agree with you. So, other than the factless claim that pre-modern scientist believed in God, or that there is order in things that we observe, what documentation supports a direct relationship between science and metaphysics? Don

PaulSacramento wrote:Also, we need to understand that the classical Theist God didn't just create ALL, but SUSTAINS all so that if evolution is happening, it is happening because of God.

Paul, I agree with you but it seems to me that it is maybe a little too vague a statement?
For instance, how would you separate the two if someone said that by the same logic, God not only created evil, he sustains it as well? I mean if God never created, there'd be no evil, to begin with.

Now I know you are not saying this nor meant it as such but it got me thinking as that may lead to the above conclusion unless I thought there should be some qualifier in your original statement. But I'd like to know your thoughts?

Thank you.

Truly: Philip, you do not know me at all! So please keep your self-serving psych evaluations to yourself.

Don, I'm only what seems obvious to me. But you're right, I don't know of your background or your life.

Truly: I have asked God to make his presence known to me many times, and in such a way that there could be no doubt.

Good - then you realize it's not a foolish quest, and that it's a natural thing for a person to wonder about.

Truly: In Viet Nam, the death of my first child, the death of my closest friends, the death of my father, etc. No one was there, but me. Considering the level of pestilence, wars, diseases, starvations, crimes, deaths, greed, hate, and apathy that we see in the world today, why would I want to seek someone, or "some thing", that would stand-by and allow these conditions to not only continue, but to flourish? I don't feel that, "life after death will be better", is an adequate explanation since we are all going to die anyway.

Christians don't like these many terrible things any more than you do. We all struggle to understand. But much of the suffering and evil comes at the hand of man, but not all. Many people find God, not in the midst of peace and prosperity, but that they sought Him hard in the midst of their sufferings. But we'll never perfectly understand this. But God does tell us our experience here has a purpose, and that it's certainly not all about THIS world. A book that might be helpful to you, is C.S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain": https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S ... 0060652969 - perhaps it might offer you some valuable insights you'd not ever considered.

Truly: Do you really think that most of mankind is sitting around pondering the meaning of life? It is a mental exercise for a mind that needs to create a perception of importance and enlightenment.

Well, vast millions obviously do. But many others are merely caught up in religion, as an extension of the expectations of friends, family and social network - as to leave it would be to be shunned and to lose many relationships. But that's religion - rather, man trying to please some supposed god so as to gain heaven or whatever post-mortal state. NO Christian is promised Heaven upon the basis of being "good." It's upon entering into a committed, loving relationship with God - one in which we're still gonna continuously screw up, even as He refines and changes us to what He desires.

Truly: It is pure mental masterbation, without the same results.

And yet massive numbers of people who have lived on this planet claim a very different experience and result. So just because you haven't experienced that, isn't it a bit arrogant to claim it's a pointless thing. And part of that pondering is, obviously, WHICH claimed deity is actually GOD

Truly: I asked you if you would be willing to subject Theism to scientific scrutiny? You side stepped this issue by saying that science can only point to the probability of things that you would consider as being unreasonable.

No, I merely agree with many of your statement that say that science cannot prove to us God - it's abilities end with what can be measured and observed. So, even if one sees the evidences, as many scientists have, that those evidences re-enforce their belief in God, they can't PROVE it. So why would one seek proof in human-designed processes that have not such ability? That seems rather obvious. And, of course, the seeking I speak of IS an experiment - and for many, it's an experiment that may take time - in God's time - as He reveals Himself to people. You can't know when the experiment has been proven a waste of time. But God also knows the person whose heart is closed to Him, who is insincere and truly doesn't want to know the truth - OR that only wants some truth defined as they assert it must be or desire it to be.

Truly: Therefore, I see no reason to search for an all-powerful intelligence, that has the power to make pigs fly.

And right there we see your cynical, sarcastically noted presupposition reveals your closed your mind.

Truly: Without evidence first, I don't see any purpose for this type of venture.

So, you want evidence before seeing evidence of God??? Weird strategy.

Truly: Unless, the goal is to keep looking until I eventually convince myself(confirmation bias).

No, Don, this is what the masses do - they convince themselves of non-existent gods of false, man-made religions - which people obviously do, sadly.

Truly: So without all the editorializing and excuse-making, you are just saying NO, you are not interested in subjecting Theism to any scientific method of scrutiny. Period!

Quite redundant. A) I've already known and experience God in amazing ways. B) I've patiently explained - and you've made statements that agree - that the scientific method cannot produce proof of God. Why keep asserting it can, when you, yourself, have admitted it cannot, that you "might be wrong?"

Truly: Since you do not KNOW every other Religion or every other Faith, you have no idea what they assert or think, please comment only on what you do know.

I've spent 40 years looking at what religions believe around the world. None are remotely compared to the faith and historic evidences of Christianity. They are ALL "works-based" ways at pleasing God. None have a figure like Jesus who claimed to be God and was resurrected - with many witnesses testifying to that - at the threat of death and resurrection, they claimed to see a risen Jesus. Not one lunatic, but many people - all of whom taught this risked a horrific death themselves. Then there is a lot of prophecy that can be examined. God sent many prophets and apostles - not just some lone guy who goes off in a room and says "God" communicated with them.

Truly: But just in case I am misjudging the obvious, what exactly would this experiment entail?

Sincerely, openly, and without presuppositions, seeking God to reveal Himself to you - making yourself truly open to an answer "if" an answer can be had. But God knows who wants to really know, and who just wants to self-justify their own continued unbelief - and He'll let them have their wish in that. Just be honest with Him - even in your unbelief, acknowledge that you can't believe without whatever it would take - and remember, you can't know what exactly YOU, individually, might need to have your eyes opened. Some, like you and my lawyer friend, require something really personally powerful and obvious. God will give you WHATEVER YOU personally need to come to belief in Him - and that "whatever" evidence comes in differing and often-unexpected ways to different people.

Truly: Would I need to read scripture for years, until cognitive dissonance convinces me that what I am reading is real?

No. Many in churches are only practicing religion, even reading their Bibles, but have never come to faith in Christ. Ritual and religion will never reveal God to a person.

Truly: Should I abandon critical thinking, and immerse myself into the possibility that alternative realities exist?

Absolutely NOT! God is the one who gave us our intellect, logic, free will, and often-insatiable curiosity. Which is why most of humanity at least wonders about God, or who or what they think he is, or might be.

Truly: Maybe you can explain why any experiment that must presuppose only one outcome is possible, and ignore any other? Hardly very scientific!

Because it's an experiment not detected by scientific methodology.

Truly: So unless you can provide just one piece of objective evidence, or one fallacy-free reason for this experiment, I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass for now. But out of respect, I thank you for the invitation. Don

Don, it's really up to you. Just know that I am not your adversary and that God loves you. I've prayed that you do seek and will find Him. I know He wants you to know Him - but He'll never force anyone, anywhere, to seek Him. But not seeking, constant avoidance, permanent resistance, a closed mind and hard heart - such things add up to and equal rejection of God - the one reason why people will fail to enter Heaven. I think the stakes are more than worthy of the experiment.

Blessings to you, Don!

RickD wrote:

neo wrote:
I would say it's difficult to fit with the biblical stories, as evolution simply doesn't allow for special creations, nor purposeful ones.

As usual, I don't want to assume what you mean by this, so could you elaborate?

Let's assume for sake of discussion, that molecules to man evolution is true. With that said, God couldn't have created Adam as a special creation, while there were preexisting humans?

He could very well have. Kinda similar to how Jesus is fully human though He was born from a virgin.
The point is is that Adam and Eve were representatives, like Jesus. It would seem that Adam and Eve were pretty around early on in humanity's existence if they weren't the first people.

neo-x wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Also, we need to understand that the classical Theist God didn't just create ALL, but SUSTAINS all so that if evolution is happening, it is happening because of God.

Paul, I agree with you but it seems to me that it is maybe a little too vague a statement?
For instance, how would you separate the two if someone said that by the same logic, God not only created evil, he sustains it as well? I mean if God never created, there'd be no evil, to begin with.

Now I know you are not saying this nor meant it as such but it got me thinking as that may lead to the above conclusion unless I thought there should be some qualifier in your original statement. But I'd like to know your thoughts?

Thank you.

Evil is a bad example for you because evil is an ABSENCE of something ( good).
God doesn't sustain evil, God sustains what is good BUT when good is lacking ( for whatever reason) we have evil.

At a physics level look at it like this:
Things exists and change and they do this at any given point via being effected in someway ( to whatever degree) by something else, agreed?

As always, I think I agree with you mostly, except a small thing here or there.

1. As I also wrote to Rick, we can't use evolution selectively the same way we should use scriptures selectively.
2. Yes, we will have a much better understanding 1000 years from now, but I do believe that some basic facts are painfully obvious. But again, who knows, you are right in it, we may discover something completely different.

My point is this, we do NOT know the process that God uses to create life and to allow life to change.
The bible doesn't mention it at all.
It could be evolution.
It could be a "program" in all living cells put there by God which allows for evolution and change and adaptability.
We don'y know that.
The bible simply states that all existence owe itself to God - the ALL powerful force of creation.
The bible says that humans came from the earth.
It doesn't address or even try to address HOW humans came to be.

The issue of Adam and Eve is that the bible does portray them as a special creation, different from the rest of mankind ( so not really applicable to evolution).

It would be impossible for the writers of the bible to express evolution even IF, SOMEHOW, God was able to make THEM understand it.
OF course the question needs to be asked: Why would God reveal this to them anyways?

To accept evolution as being compatible to Genesis requires reading into it what isn't there.
Which doesn't mean to say that God didn't choose a process, which we call evolution, to bring forth life.

As for your 2nd point I would simply say that I agree that certain basic things PROBABLY won't change BUT I warn against staking too much on that view since, as we know, science cares very little about consensus and opinion.
100 years from now we may have a very different view ( we did have it 200 years ago, right) and 300 form then, even a more different view.

We may find out the evolution is NOT as "unguided" as we thought.