Evidence for God from Science

zoegirl wrote:What would you say to us proposing (any of the readers can do so) several apologetics books and you reading through them?

You're welcome to suggest apologetics materials, but I've got far too much on my plate right now to make any promises about reading them. But if you propose some particular book or article, there is a small chance I might eventually get around to reading it, in which case I will be happy to report back here.

However, I'm quite happy to engage in discussion here. So, you are free to borrow whatever ideas or evidence appears in those apologetics books and present them yourself on the forum.

Gman wrote:It 's not that you are a horrible person.. But we all fail at some point of "perfect" love. That is what sin is.. Imperfect love. The only real person that was perfect in his love was Jesus.

So, it's not that we are bad people, but we are not perfect in love.. If we want to be "accurate" with ourselves, then that is most likely how we will best understand ourselves. Not that we have a "good" image of ourselves, but an accurate one..

Does that make sense?

Do we deserve eternal torture? If not, then great! But most Christians I've encountered believe that our sin demands that nasty punishment.

I hasten to add, though, that this is not keeping me from believing in the God of Christianity. If God sends people to Hell, then so be it---all the more reason for me to obey Him.

hatsoff wrote:Doubts are fine... I still have my own. It's what makes us human.

But if we look at faith as a table with only one leg, that table will probably fall. In other words the more legs (beliefs) we have for our belief table the stronger it will stand. This is one thing where the godandscience web site might help..

I appreciate what Mr. Deem is trying to do with this website, but his arguments leave much to be desired. For example, in his case for Christianity, he uses a threefold defense: first, atheism is internally inconsistent; second, fine-tuning demonstrates that the universe was designed by a deity; and third, fulfilled prophecy confirms the divine origin of Scripture. I am familiar with these arguments from other sources, and they are all seriously flawed, for a variety of reasons. Deem's brief overview of them is no better than their traditional treatments.

Do you have any specific questions about creation or Genesis?

Not at this time, thank you.

If you could be more specific about your doubts, we might be able to help.. Could you list them for us?

Thanks.

Sure, but I think maybe I wasn't clear about this before... my "doubts" are all in my past. I do not simply doubt the existence of God at this point---rather, I outright deny it. This is due to the conspicuous lack of evidence for God, and is unlikely to change unless such evidence is presented or discovered to my satisfaction. But as an atheist, I have no theological concerns, because I have no theology.

You needn't worry that I'm an ignostic, either; I freely acknowledge that many forms of Christianity are perfectly consistent. I require only evidence that one of them is true, or indeed that God exists at all.

No problem at all Hat.. Back in the 80's I ran away from Christianity too. But now I'm back and feeling strong.. Thank you for being upfront with us.

No problem.

Hatsoff, it's hard to convey to someone without a relationship with Christ how arvelous it is. Like plato's cave, we try to convince you of the beauty of the outside world when you are entranced with shadows dancing on the wall.

You mention eternal torture. Here's one other aspect of it. If you have a chance at an amazing relationship, the best relationship out there, and you don't seek it out (whether or not you want to say "reject" it), you would be entering into your life separated from that most amazing relatoinship ever. And that would be the ultimate torture.

You say you don't have time and yet you have obviously had the time to read all sorts of philosophy books. One I can think of right off the bat would be Mere Christianity, which is an relatively short read.

hatsoff wrote:

Gman wrote:It 's not that you are a horrible person.. But we all fail at some point of "perfect" love. That is what sin is.. Imperfect love. The only real person that was perfect in his love was Jesus.

So, it's not that we are bad people, but we are not perfect in love.. If we want to be "accurate" with ourselves, then that is most likely how we will best understand ourselves. Not that we have a "good" image of ourselves, but an accurate one..

Does that make sense?

Do we deserve eternal torture?

I don't have time right now, but along with most others here I appreciate your willingness to provide your story of how you drifted from Christianity, and I hope to respond a bit more later.

However, this comment, and many Christians may use the term "torture" who I guess delight in the suffering of others in some way... this makes God out to be malicious. Better is the terminology "eternal punishment". Such punishment also makes logical sense (at least to me) once you put the issue into a relational context of us with God, and understand who God is, His nature, etc.

hatsoff wrote:

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Mistakes or not - nice guy or bad guy - you'll still roast for eternity because you're an unbeliever.

You say "nice guy or bad guy," as if it's up in the air, but that's not really what you believe, is it? No doubt you think that I deserve to be tortured eternally. According to the Bible, it must be the case that I am a wretched, filthy human being.

It doesn't really matter what you do, hatsoff, because nice or nasty, you are estranged from God. As long as you stay in that condition, you're toast. It isn't about what I believe, it is about what the Bible says. Your use of the words «deserve to be tortured eternally » give us a glimpse into what you really think of God...it seems awfully close to contempt. (Who was it that kept repeating that atheism is hatred of God?!) As for being a wretched human being, Zoegirl got it right:

zoegirl wrote:well, we are all deserving of wrath....you aren't alone there....

FL

hatsoff wrote: Do we deserve eternal torture? If not, then great! But most Christians I've encountered believe that our sin demands that nasty punishment.

I hasten to add, though, that this is not keeping me from believing in the God of Christianity. If God sends people to Hell, then so be it---all the more reason for me to obey Him.

Yes, although my approach may be a bit different from others. I don't think that people would necessarily turn to God out of fear. Like, if you don't do this, this will happen to you. Ultimately I believe we come to Him out of love and not fear.. I know it may sound corny, but would you really want to marry someone out of fear? It sounds too controlling for me. I don't know, I would question this...

I thought this was a great article too on the subject.. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... 3eSHxlOztA

Also, about Hell.. I don't believe that God sends us to Hell, but it is on our own merit... In other words, we send ourselves to Hell. God, on judgment day, will simply expose the darkness that we put into our hearts.. The darkness, along with the choices we made in this life. Were they in love or hatred, envy? Love will stand whereas hatred must be destroyed. Hatred cannot exist in a loving world...

hatsoff wrote:I appreciate what Mr. Deem is trying to do with this website, but his arguments leave much to be desired. For example, in his case for Christianity, he uses a threefold defense: first, atheism is internally inconsistent; second, fine-tuning demonstrates that the universe was designed by a deity; and third, fulfilled prophecy confirms the divine origin of Scripture. I am familiar with these arguments from other sources, and they are all seriously flawed, for a variety of reasons. Deem's brief overview of them is no better than their traditional treatments.

That's fine, but what specifically Hat? we cannot help unless you allow us to help. You could also PM us too if you want..

hatsoff wrote:Sure, but I think maybe I wasn't clear about this before... my "doubts" are all in my past. I do not simply doubt the existence of God at this point---rather, I outright deny it. This is due to the conspicuous lack of evidence for God, and is unlikely to change unless such evidence is presented or discovered to my satisfaction. But as an atheist, I have no theological concerns, because I have no theology.

Yes, I believe we tackled this before to some extent. I have been on this forum for years and have never once encountered anything in science, math, or philosophy that denies the existence of God.. Nothing. When I was in my 20's I too also rejected Christianity since I believed in evolution. I still remember fighting with Christians over this.. But it was all for nothing. Because I have learned that science does not interfere with the existence of God. And I have tackled some pretty high top atheists here too..

hatsoff wrote:You needn't worry that I'm an ignostic, either; I freely acknowledge that many forms of Christianity are perfectly consistent. I require only evidence that one of them is true, or indeed that God exists at all.

Such as? We are only here to help.. Again, I'm sorry if I was harsh with you earlier. My bad...

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:It doesn't really matter what you do, hatsoff, because nice or nasty, you are estranged from God. As long as you stay in that condition, you're toast. It isn't about what I believe, it is about what the Bible says. Your use of the words «deserve to be tortured eternally » give us a glimpse into what you really think of God...it seems awfully close to contempt. (Who was it that kept repeating that atheism is hatred of God?!)

But it is about you and your beliefs. My point in reminding you that you think human beings deserve eternal torture is to bring your attention to the moral implications thereof. I confess it is perhaps an appeal to emotion, but one aimed at prompting you to critically examine your beliefs. This isn't about God at all; I don't believe such an entity exists.

As for being a wretched human being, Zoegirl got it right:

zoegirl wrote:well, we are all deserving of wrath....you aren't alone there....

Sure, but this hardly mitigates such a negative view of your fellow human beings. To defend your opinion that I'm a horrible person who deserves to be tortured for all eternity, you would opine further that nobody on earth deserves better. You have condemned all of humanity based on a personal and divisive interpretation of ancient literature!

Gman wrote:Thanks.. Even stranger were the recordings in the Talmuds around 30 AD before the destruction of the temple (right after Christ's death). One is that the western light on the Menorah (next to the holy of holies) went out for the same period of forty years.. Another during that same period for 40 years the temple doors would open by themselves at night. Both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds state this.. Interesting huh?

I love it! That is so profound, Elvis has indeed left the building.

Dazed and Confused wrote:

Gman wrote:Thanks.. Even stranger were the recordings in the Talmuds around 30 AD before the destruction of the temple (right after Christ's death). One is that the western light on the Menorah (next to the holy of holies) went out for the same period of forty years.. Another during that same period for 40 years the temple doors would open by themselves at night. Both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds state this.. Interesting huh?

I love it! That is so profound, Elvis has indeed left the building.

Isn't that strange? I forgot.. There were actually 4 prophetic signs given to the Jews after Christ's death (around 30 AD).

1. The western light on the Menorah (next to the holy of holies) went out for the same period of 40 years.



2. For 40 years the temple doors (on the Temple Mount) would open by themselves mysteriously at night.



3. The priest's crimson strap (used during the Day of Atonement) never changed it's color to white as it often had done for the last 2 hundred years. If it changed to white, it meant that God approved of their day of atonement..

4. The Babylonian Talmud lists the first sign as being that in which the lot 'for the Lord' did not come up in the right hand. The High Priest and lots were cast over the goats (one source says the lots were in the form of a white and black stone, the white stone was 'for the Lord' and the black was 'for the Scapegoat'). The priest would put his right hand into a receptacle containing the two stones and without looking down, select a stone with his right hand and place it over the right hand goat. In other words.. For 40 years, the priest would always accidentally select the black stone since 30 AD. For 40 years in a row... Coincidence?



On a special note, the chamber of Hewn Stones (near the alter of Burnt Offering in the temple) was destroyed (30 AD) preventing the Sanhedrin from entering it. Something happened to it. Is it possible that it was the earthquake at the crucifixion that caused this damage?



All of this is found in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds around that time (non-Christian sources)... A fact.

Interesting?

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote: It isn't about what I believe, it is about what the Bible says.

But it is about what you believe, if you don''t believe what the bible claims you wouldn't be citing it.

It's not about what I believe, it's about what the Koran, Upanishads, Sutra's etc says. It's not about what I believe, instead it's about what my favourite book says.

I understand Hatsoff struggle with hell. It does seem confusing that we would spend an eternity there. However, if God created us to feel love, his love, than I believe he simply takes it away when we refuse to accept him. It is like if we don't accept God, why should be leave a part of himself with us when we die? If we don't want him, why would he force us to accept his love? I am not sure what hell is but I can say that it most definitely is not having God, and this would mean taking love and joy out of the equation by our own choice. That seems pretty fair to me. I can't think of another way God could offer us free will and a chance to choose for ourselves? Can you?

hatsoff wrote:But it is about you and your beliefs.

Proinsias wrote:But it is about what you believe, if you don''t believe what the bible claims you wouldn't be citing it.

Do either of you understand what is meant by a «new nature»? A person is born with an predisposition of hostility to God (just as you demonstrate,) this is what is called the sin nature, or Original Sin. We are all born with this. Spiritual birth replaces the sin nature with a favorable disposition towards God, and a willingness to please Him. This is what is called circumcision of the heart.

So I must repeat myself again: it isn't about what I believe, it is about what the Bible says.

hatsoff wrote:To defend your opinion that I'm a horrible person who deserves to be tortured for all eternity, you would opine further that nobody on earth deserves better. You have condemned all of humanity based on a personal and divisive interpretation of ancient literature!

You sound like a whiny schoolgirl who just broke her nail! I don't care if you're a horrible person or not. You choose to go to hell, I have nothing to do with your choice, and neither does God. Unlike God, your going to hell won't bother me but he'll be very sorry to see you go that route. Like I said, it isn't what I believe, it is about what the Bible says.

FL

DannyM wrote:

SweetMonkeyLove wrote:
The only atheists I am interested in facing down are the militant atheists, which is why I sometimes frequent an atheist forum. The Christian is called upon to stand up for his faith and give answers to those who question his faith. If you are an atheist then I have no interest in "facing you down" as you know how to have a discussion without resorting to mockery and anti-empirical rhetoric. So you and I would discuss at will.

I am an atheist and former Christian. In defending Christianity you want to do it well. Going to a forum to face down radicals might actually do harm to Christianity

We make two types of decisions: Emotional or intuitive decisions and logical decisions. Both types are important and needed. During my transition phase from a Christian to an atheist, the logical decision was vastly easy. The emotional decision was tough. I struggled with the idea of losing the romanticism of faith.

During my transformation, I often took a moral stock of my position in life. I took a moral stock at lives, actions, and words of christians. I could see no advantage to being a Christian. Also, I was highly repulsed by some Christian dialog. Yet, I still could not break the emotional bond to faith. The repulsion to negative dialog placed me on the fence however I could not cross the fence removing the belief in god.

Reading a book (The God Delusion), I discovered that romantic idealism is not necessarily a religious endeavor. The discovery changed my life and I quickly jumped the fence removing god from my life. Now, I am vastly happy. What is my point? Well, a person can't be argued into believing. However, a person can be argued into repulsion. Blasting argument can place people on a fence and all that is needed is a little taste of the other side.

The best argument for a belief is happiness and joy. I have this in my life and I am highly thankful for life. If friends ask, I tell them I am an atheist. And then, I try to live a good life hoping my actions give credit to my values.

hatsoff wrote: Do we deserve eternal torture? If not, then great! But most Christians I've encountered believe that our sin demands that nasty punishment.

Faith has many logical paradoxes. These paradoxes naturally bring answers which are unsatisfying. For example, god is all knowing. Thus before he created humans he KNEW that humans would fail and he KNEW that he would torture many souls. He knew that he would wipeout a vast majority of humans including children and infants in the womb. But, he still created us anyway. It seems vastly egoistical.

Let me present an analogy. Let's say I was a dog breeder. When breeding my dogs, I KNEW that I would endlessly torture some dogs for sins like barking in the night or peeing on the carpet. Generation after generation of puppies, I tortured some of each litter. The puppies had a choice to submit to my authority or suffer the consequences. In god's view are humans not as ignorant as puppies?

What kind of person would I be?

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:A person is born with an predisposition of hostility to God (just as you demonstrate,)

This is your personal religious belief, not something which has been "demonstrate[d]" by my behavior.

it isn't about what I believe, it is about what the Bible says.

You may not want it to be about what you believe, but if you think that I deserve eternal torture, then you're going to face criticism for your beliefs. You don't get to offload responsibility for those beliefs by pointing to your favorite holy book.

You sound like a whiny schoolgirl who just broke her nail!

I think I'll let the conversation die with that.