Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: ... you can't prove a negative...

Oy! We're not back on this one again, are we?

Huh. I should look into this more. So, if I said that I'm not a male, does that mean I can't prove it?



(Maybe I should qualify this. I meant that if I don't have certain gross anatomical features - a negative - that I can't prove this negative . . . but then having to explain takes away from any humor . . .)

cslewislover wrote:

Byblos wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: ... you can't prove a negative...

Oy! We're not back on this one again, are we?

Huh. I should look into this more. So, if I said that I'm not a male, does that mean I can't prove it?



(Maybe I should qualify this. I meant that if I don't have certain gross anatomical features - a negative - that I can't prove this negative . . . but then having to explain takes away from any humor . . .)

either way it's hysterical.

(I felt I had to explain so that no one would seriously think that the negative I meant was merely being male. Didn't want to get into trouble . . . )

To me, it sounds like qq is trying to sort through alot of ideas to come up with a belief system he is comfortable with and is trustworthy. I can understand that, as I was certainly there once. To say there is no objective truth cannot be true. If there were only two people on an island, once the two agreed on something that would become objective truth to those two people. What I think he is referring to is universal truth. That is something qq is going to have to study, question, and continue to do so until he makes sense of all the religion, opinions, philosophy, ect. that is out there. I think one starts to form a trustworthy belief system when there are commonalities between them. For Christians, proof, prophesy, spirituality, science, and the holy spirit begin to mesh together with a synthesis that is very hard to deny. It is a belief that makes sense as it uses all the above in a unified manner and makes it clear that there is purpose and sense to everything. I wish you luck with your endeavor qq, and it sounds to me like you are a seeker of truth whether you are clear on the definition or not. I believe that is all you need, so continue seeking and you will find your way.

robyn hill wrote:... To say there is no objective truth cannot be true. If there were only two people on an island, once the two agreed on something that would become objective truth to those two people. What I think he is referring to is universal truth...

No, that would be absolute, not objective truth (when the two on the island agree). Objective truth is truth in and of itself, irrespective of how many agree or disagree.

There is no such thing as absolute truth. But objectivity is just a removal of individual biases. The more these are weeded out ... the more objective a truth becomes.

- Sivakami.

Hey Byblos, the above is just a quick definition of objective truth I tend to agree with. I personnaly believe that God is a universal truth, but know that all certainly don't agree with this, making it a non absolute, or non universal, truth to most. What has been agreed apon often does depend on the masses that deemed it to be true, therefore making it an objective truth, something we should be able to identify without bias. I think the difference between the two could be seen as the following example. Helping someone who needs it has never been a universal truth, however, to most of us, we can "agree" it is the right thing to do, thereby using a cohesive logic to prove it so, and therefor making it objective yet still not absolute.

robyn hill wrote:There is no such thing as absolute truth. But objectivity is just a removal of individual biases. The more these are weeded out ... the more objective a truth becomes.

- Sivakami.

So is that statement absolutely true or not? If not, then why should we believe it?

I believe God is absolute truth, however, obviously not everyone does. I do, however, think that different groups of people think their truths to be correct when perhaps they are incorrect. The idea being that if many people agree on a fact it becomes objective rather than subjective. As far as whether the statement I posted earlier being correct or not, is not for me to say. I posted it to show my opinion as to the correct definition of objective truth. I guess maybe the definition of objective truth is perhaps subjective.

Objective truth is that which remains true despite people's opinions. If millions of people started believing that 2+2=5, it would still not be objective truth.

The quote contained an absolute statement which is self-defeating, thus rendering the whole statement pretty useless.

I think of objective truth is where we can distinguish truth based on logic, which can be fallible at times, where abolute truths are those proven scientifically. However, I am willing to admit I many be wrong as my logic (sometimes fallible) could be off as it has been a while since I have taken my philosophy classes whereby certain definitions have been agreed apon. Either way, this is not where I was going with my reply to qq. My response to him was to continue to search and that in my search, all the schools of thoughts I have studied (scientific, biblical, logical, reason, historical) work together when I read the bible. Whereas when I studied them all before becoming a Christian, they all remained fragmented. That is why I see God as an absolute truth as it results in purpose and pulls all beliefs together in a linear fashion. I had to study all areas to come to this and as a result am very certain of my belief system. It is my hopes that qq will have a similar experience.

Also, you might wonder how I consider God an absolute truth if he is not proven scientifically. However, I think there is a supernatural occurence which takes place, that would seem could be proven scienifically, (or mathematically) in that there is so much coincidence, cohesiveness, and direction once you except God and Christ. Hope this makes sense.

robyn hill wrote:I think of objective truth is where we can distinguish truth based on logic, which can be fallible at times, where abolute truths are those proven scientifically.

Robyn, given that science is an inductive process, how can it ever arrive at absolute truth? The closest one can come with an inductive process is to approximate truth.

I would also not think that objective truths are not logically fallible. That would be true for subjective truths, but objective truths cannot be false.

Either way, this is not where I was going with my reply to qq. My response to him was to continue to search and that in my search, all the schools of thoughts I have studied (scientific, biblical, logical, reason, historical) work together when I read the bible. Whereas when I studied them all before becoming a Christian, they all remained fragmented. That is why I see God as an absolute truth as it results in purpose and pulls all beliefs together in a linear fashion. I had to study all areas to come to this and as a result am very certain of my belief system. It is my hopes that qq will have a similar experience.

That is a great statement. I agree with you that people should investigate all areas and try to reason it out. Ultimately God is the only explanation that makes sense.

Amen and thank-you August.

I don't understand how any of you (Christians) can question anything when you believe in a medieval ideology created to control the ignorant masses. You follow a bible that's creation was by man, and reprinted by man. The storybook you follow has constant contradictions of itself and is logically flawed in any light you look at it. To speak of any brilliant mind and still refer to god in any way is blasphemy. To believe in god you need to be hopeless, foolish, and mindless.

August wrote:

robyn hill wrote:I think of objective truth is where we can distinguish truth based on logic, which can be fallible at times, where abolute truths are those proven scientifically.

Robyn, given that science is an inductive process, how can it ever arrive at absolute truth? The closest one can come with an inductive process is to approximate truth.

I would also not think that objective truths are not logically fallible. That would be true for subjective truths, but objective truths cannot be false.

Either way, this is not where I was going with my reply to qq. My response to him was to continue to search and that in my search, all the schools of thoughts I have studied (scientific, biblical, logical, reason, historical) work together when I read the bible. Whereas when I studied them all before becoming a Christian, they all remained fragmented. That is why I see God as an absolute truth as it results in purpose and pulls all beliefs together in a linear fashion. I had to study all areas to come to this and as a result am very certain of my belief system. It is my hopes that qq will have a similar experience.

That is a great statement. I agree with you that people should investigate all areas and try to reason it out. Ultimately God is the only explanation that makes sense.

How in the world does god make sense? Honestly, the existence of god and Santa Clause are equally viable, only reason you don't believe in Santa is because we gave a way to disprove his existence. If we gave that ultimatum with god or Jesus Christ, you'd find out just the same that what you believe is nothing more than someone's wish for something more. Someone please explain though, how Educated, cognitive beings, could believe in something so obviously false? How do they not research psychological theory and realize that our minds and social influences are the only thing leading us to believe or want to believe anything. We can still advance so far, and we till haven't left these foolish religions behind. Even if Christianity is right.... Why practice it? There is no benefit, but if its false, then you wasted the little time you had... Believing in Christianity does nothing but hold you back from your full potential. Why believe in something no one can truly comprehend, something that has ZERO fact to it.