Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:

Paul, I would sincerely expect a book inspired by God and intended by God to be his lone means of communicating his desires to us, to not be plagued by such petty nuisances as language, metaphor, idioms, and translation. If there is one thing that God should have ensured we would be able to trust and understand it should be the bible. If the bible is the inspired word of God and my only way of knowing about God and his desires, I should not have to worry about reading passages in the bible, and then being told "well thats not what it meant and the original language meant this and when it was translated this happened? The bible is my only resource to God. If I have to go to the internet and do a google search for what passages actually mean or do a google search for what actually happened, then what good is the bible? Do you realize how little sense it makes to claim that the bible is the word of God but that there is stuff in there that you wont really understand unless you look up what actually happened or what it meant happened on the internet, which has only been around for less than two decades. Why should I have to use outside sources to decode what in the bible means literally what it says, and what was messed up in translation? What good is the bible if I cant know if a certain passage can be taken to mean what it specifically says, or if the it really means something completely different and I have to go and search for what other men interpret specific passages to mean? These are issues I expect from a book conceived by men, not a book conceived through the divine will of the Supreme God. Do you really not see the problem with this? How can you witness to someone when the bible cannot be taken to mean exactly what it says? Do you not see the problem with telling people that they need to go to the internet to find out what passages in the bible really mean?

The Bible has been read for long before modern technology. In one way it helps and in another it hinders. We have to interpret everything we read. How we read is called hermaneutics. When we read fiction, poetry, news or history we automatically begin applying a hermaneutic whether we know it or not. Since the Bible was written in certain times, by certain peoples, then it only makes sense that we consider these things when handling the text. But you say, nay nay.
It just simply isn't an argument that human failure or shortcomings make the Bible uninspired. And I don't think that people failing to agree is a valid argument either. That certainly doesn't hold up when analyzing other written works.
Does the Bible have difficulties? Yes. Does the Bible have apparent contradictions? Yes. Does that cause it to be uninspired? No. You may say, the Bible should be this, and should be that, but you are only saying that YOU are the mearsuring stick. Why is your opinion more important than the millions of others who consider (and for sound reasons) the Bible inspired?

Mag, you say you "used to be a Christan." I'm curious to learn more about what you mean by that. If you genuinely used to be something, what did it mean to be one, and how did you 'un' be it?

All of that is completely fine if you can just explain your reasoning for believing it is inspired. I believe I asked that and was told to go research. So the bible has problems and apparent contradictions but people believe it is inspired but are unable or unwilling to say precisely why they think it is inspired. How does that make me the unreasonable one. All Im saying is if you think its inspired and think it should be seen as inspired, why do you feel that way?

Paul, I would sincerely expect a book inspired by God and intended by God to be his lone means of communicating his desires to us, to not be plagued by such petty nuisances as language, metaphor, idioms, and translation. If there is one thing that God should have ensured we would be able to trust that what is said is what happened it should be the bible. If the bible is the inspired word of God and my only way of knowing about God and his desires, I should not have to worry about reading passages in the bible, and then being told "well thats not what it meant and the original language meant this and when it was translated this happened? The bible is my only resource to God. If I have to go to the internet and do a google search for what passages actually mean or do a google search for what actually happened, then what good is the bible? Do you realize how little sense it makes to claim that the bible is the word of God but that there is stuff in there that you wont really understand unless you look up what actually happened or what it meant happened on the internet, which has only been around for less than two decades. Why should I have to use outside sources to decode what in the bible means literally what it says, and what was messed up in translation? What good is the bible if I cant know if a certain passage can be taken to mean what it specifically says, or if the it really means something completely different and I have to go and search for what other men interpret specific passages to mean? These are issues I expect from a book conceived by men, not a book conceived through the divine will of the Supreme God. Do you really not see the problem with this? How can you witness to someone when the bible cannot be taken to mean exactly what it says? Do you not see the problem with telling people that they need to go to the internet or to go to a library to scour through man mad books to find out what passages in the bible really mean?

May I suggest the following:

God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship by Kenton L. Sparks

Mag, you say you "used to be a Christan." I'm curious to learn more about what you mean by that. If you genuinely used to be something, what did it mean to be one, and how did you 'un' be it?

By that I mean I used to believe that Jesus came to Earth and died for the sins of humanity, that he was my Lord and Savior and I tried my best to live my life according to his teachings. The way I 'unbecame' a Christian was by no longer believing that God exists. I wavered back and forth in my belief seriously starting about 4 years ago maybe and I would say its only very recently that I completely lost faith in his existence but I will say that even now I am not 100% certain that he doesnt exist. I feel strongly that he doesnt exist but if he were to come down out of the sky right now and show himself I would not be the least bit shocked or surprised. My case is more that my faith has slowly been beaten into submission like a slave trying to escape and repeatedly captured and eventually realizing he will never be free. Slowly but surely the sad state of this world and the evil it brings forth has chipped away at my faith much like A flowing river carving the rock of a canyon it flows through. As strongly as I argue against the existence of God now, I used to argue in favor of his existence.

MAGSolo wrote: Not accepting answers does not mean you are not open to discussing them. I could give you answers on why the American slavery system was a good thing. That doesnt mean you have to accept them and you being unconvinced by my answers does not mean you were not open to discussion. Do you understand that? This is not a rhetorical question.
I asked in the first thread why was Gods punishment and curse of Adam and Eve a reasonable punishment. Not a single person has answered. I have asked numerous times why a good and allpowerful god that permits evil and suffering is worthy of worship and praise. Not a single person has answered. I have asked what evidence is there that the Bible was inspired by God. The only answer I got was that there is a lot of evidence if you are willing to research. Is that what you mean when you say I get answers and I dont want to accept them? If they have been answered then please show where they have been. Please show me a specific question I have asked and where you think it was answered to your own personal satisfaction.

Not accepting an answer is not the same as agreeing with it, it means you see the validity and the point of the answer.
I do NOT agree with euthanasia, for example, YET I can see the validity and the point in some arguments for it.
Back to your question that you say no one answered:
Yes, they did answer, you just didn't accept the answer is a valid based on what YOU want to believe, that's fine.
Just don't say that there are no answers or that no one answered.
BUT, giving you the benefit of the doubt, lets try again:

I asked in the first thread why was Gods punishment and curse of Adam and Eve a reasonable punishment.
Answer: The got what they asked for, how is that unreasonable?

I have asked numerous times why a good and allpowerful god that permits evil and suffering is worthy of worship and praise.
Answer: That is subjective to what YOU think may deserve "worship and praise".

I have asked what evidence is there that the Bible was inspired by God.
Answer: All research aside, I would like to ask you this question so as I can get an idea of what you want to know:
How do you define "inspired by God"?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Paul, I would sincerely expect a book inspired by God and intended by God to be his lone means of communicating his desires to us, to not be plagued by such petty nuisances as language, metaphor, idioms, and translation. If there is one thing that God should have ensured we would be able to trust that what is said is what happened it should be the bible. If the bible is the inspired word of God and my only way of knowing about God and his desires, I should not have to worry about reading passages in the bible, and then being told "well thats not what it meant and the original language meant this and when it was translated this happened? The bible is my only resource to God. If I have to go to the internet and do a google search for what passages actually mean or do a google search for what actually happened, then what good is the bible? Do you realize how little sense it makes to claim that the bible is the word of God but that there is stuff in there that you wont really understand unless you look up what actually happened or what it meant happened on the internet, which has only been around for less than two decades. Why should I have to use outside sources to decode what in the bible means literally what it says, and what was messed up in translation? What good is the bible if I cant know if a certain passage can be taken to mean what it specifically says, or if the it really means something completely different and I have to go and search for what other men interpret specific passages to mean? These are issues I expect from a book conceived by men, not a book conceived through the divine will of the Supreme God. Do you really not see the problem with this? How can you witness to someone when the bible cannot be taken to mean exactly what it says? Do you not see the problem with telling people that they need to go to the internet or to go to a library to scour through man mad books to find out what passages in the bible really mean?

May I suggest the following:

God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship by Kenton L. Sparks

And herein lies the issue with these discussions. I ask a specific question or series of questions, you post a link to a book, claim my questions have been answered and that I dont want to accept them and am not open to discussion and the whole crowd nods in agreement and I am the bad guy. Here again I have asked numerous questions, they have been ignored and yet you or someone else will claim that I am not open minded and Im not open to discussion.

PaulSacramento wrote:

MAGSolo wrote: Not accepting answers does not mean you are not open to discussing them. I could give you answers on why the American slavery system was a good thing. That doesnt mean you have to accept them and you being unconvinced by my answers does not mean you were not open to discussion. Do you understand that? This is not a rhetorical question.
I asked in the first thread why was Gods punishment and curse of Adam and Eve a reasonable punishment. Not a single person has answered. I have asked numerous times why a good and allpowerful god that permits evil and suffering is worthy of worship and praise. Not a single person has answered. I have asked what evidence is there that the Bible was inspired by God. The only answer I got was that there is a lot of evidence if you are willing to research. Is that what you mean when you say I get answers and I dont want to accept them? If they have been answered then please show where they have been. Please show me a specific question I have asked and where you think it was answered to your own personal satisfaction.

Not accepting an answer is not the same as agreeing with it, it means you see the validity and the point of the answer.
I do NOT agree with euthanasia, for example, YET I can see the validity and the point in some arguments for it.
Back to your question that you say no one answered:
Yes, they did answer, you just didn't accept the answer is a valid based on what YOU want to believe, that's fine.
Just don't say that there are no answers or that no one answered.
BUT, giving you the benefit of the doubt, lets try again:

I asked in the first thread why was Gods punishment and curse of Adam and Eve a reasonable punishment.
Answer: The got what they asked for, how is that unreasonable?

I have asked numerous times why a good and allpowerful god that permits evil and suffering is worthy of worship and praise.
Answer: That is subjective to what YOU think may deserve "worship and praise".

I have asked what evidence is there that the Bible was inspired by God.
Answer: All research aside, I would like to ask you this question so as I can get an idea of what you want to know:
How do you define "inspired by God"?

Since the bible is called "The Word of God", I define inspired by God as God talked to them and told them what to write. What evidence is there that God talked to bible writers directly and they wrote what he told them to?

MAGSolo wrote:The way I 'unbecame' a Christian was by no longer believing that God exists. I wavered back and forth in my belief seriously starting about 4 years ago maybe and I would say its only very recently that I completely lost faith in his existence but I will say that even now I am not 100% certain that he doesnt exist. I feel strongly that he doesnt exist for some reason if he were to come down out of the sky right now and show himself I would not be the least bit shocked or surprised. My case is more that my faith has slowly been beaten into submission like a slave trying to escape and repeatedly captured and eventually realizing he will never be free. Slowly but surely the sad state of this world and the evil it brings forth has chipped away at my faith much like A flowing river carving the rock of a canyon it flows through. As strongly as I argue against the existence of God now, I used to argue in favor of his existence.

Rather than go through a million other rabbit trails trying to answer secondary (IMO) questions, it is perhaps best that we tackle the issue of the existence of God first since this is foundational to all other topics.

To further define, is the only issue you have with the existence (or not) of God is that of the existence of evil? If there are other reasons, please list them in order of importance to you and we will attempt to tackle them one at a time, how does that sound?

Evil and suffering are my only objections to the existence of God.

MAGSolo wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Paul, I would sincerely expect a book inspired by God and intended by God to be his lone means of communicating his desires to us, to not be plagued by such petty nuisances as language, metaphor, idioms, and translation. If there is one thing that God should have ensured we would be able to trust that what is said is what happened it should be the bible. If the bible is the inspired word of God and my only way of knowing about God and his desires, I should not have to worry about reading passages in the bible, and then being told "well thats not what it meant and the original language meant this and when it was translated this happened? The bible is my only resource to God. If I have to go to the internet and do a google search for what passages actually mean or do a google search for what actually happened, then what good is the bible? Do you realize how little sense it makes to claim that the bible is the word of God but that there is stuff in there that you wont really understand unless you look up what actually happened or what it meant happened on the internet, which has only been around for less than two decades. Why should I have to use outside sources to decode what in the bible means literally what it says, and what was messed up in translation? What good is the bible if I cant know if a certain passage can be taken to mean what it specifically says, or if the it really means something completely different and I have to go and search for what other men interpret specific passages to mean? These are issues I expect from a book conceived by men, not a book conceived through the divine will of the Supreme God. Do you really not see the problem with this? How can you witness to someone when the bible cannot be taken to mean exactly what it says? Do you not see the problem with telling people that they need to go to the internet or to go to a library to scour through man mad books to find out what passages in the bible really mean?

May I suggest the following:

God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship by Kenton L. Sparks

And herein lies the issue with these discussions. I ask a specific question or series of questions, you post a link to a book, claim my questions have been answered and that I dont want to accept them and am not open to discussion and the whole crowd nods in agreement and I am the bad guy. Here again I have asked numerous questions, they have been ignored and yet you or someone else will claim that I am not open minded and Im not open to discussion.

In YOUR view.
In regards to the bible question, it is NOT a one page answer, hence the book.
Dude, I KNOW where you are coming from and I had FAR MORE issues about the bible and Christianity than you appear to do.
I learned that, like any OTHER subject, half a dozen questions and half a dozen answers is NOT what it's about.

MAGSolo wrote:Evil and suffering are my only objections to the existence of God.

Have you read the counter-arguments to these?
Stuff by William Lane Craig for example?

MAGSolo wrote:How do I know that an invisible, make believe being, that never talks to us or shows himself isnt preventing some suffering? Gee, I guess I dont know for sure. Maybe Im not starving to death right now because God is watching over me. So what makes me any more special that God is preventing me from suffering while some child is starving somewhere or getting sexually abused?

No one here should take you seriously if you load your replies with question begging.

Ill ask again, do angels in heaven have free will? Will we have free will when go to heaven?

Honestly, I don't know how to competely answer this. I would assume that angels had some sort of will, since, some rebelled against God.

Let me just roll with this idea of yours for the sake of argument. Lets say I couldnt care less about starving children, we live in a world where the young of all species die early and human children are no different. I dont personally care about children dying of starvation, and I dont intend to do anything about it, but I do believe the fact that many children suffer and die every year from starvation, disease, and neglect, is strong evidence that there is no all powerful, good, and loving God watching over us. You see, you saying that I dont really care about starving children doesnt diminish the strength of my argument at all because even if I didnt care a bit about them, that doesnt change the fact that God still allows them to suffer and die daily.

The problem with your assesment, is that you are having to presume a God to deny him. If there is no God, and no inherent value, then why are you concerned? How do you judge that it is good to help and evil to ignore? It also presumes that you are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent and able to assess the situation in its eternal implications and results. Are you?

So angels dont have free will and we wont have free will in heaven? If angels in heaven can survive without free will then not having free will must not be that bad so what is so great about free will?

Why don't you actually posit an argument? what are you arguing for or against? YOu do understand we are talking about what makes a human a human?

I will provide for the children I create. I cant save the world and Im not going to try. If I personally saw a child starving I would give that child food (which seems to be more than all powerful God is willing to do) and if it were within my power to feed every last starving child I would, but I cant and starving children are just a part of living in a natural world where no invisible supernatural being is watching over us and protecting us

.
Let's just say that everyone followed your simple model. Would there be any starving children?
And on what basis SHOULD you provide for the one's you create. Obviously, it is obvious to you. I would say it is OBVIOUS to all. Yet, we blame God for not doing what He has made obvious to us?
FYI, there are literally millions who are fed due to organizations that are motivated by faith, and feel compelled to help the less fortunate. let me ask you. If there is no God, why shouldn't we just consider the starving a perfectly natural result of nature correcting course? Survival of the fittest. In fact, wouldn't we just be going against nature to intervene? How can you trust that your conscience (which you can't account for) is in line with nature?

Do angels have free will? Will we have free will in heaven?

It is a tough question. I've seen it answered a couple of ways. The Bible says, that when resurrected, we will be made like Him. (Christ) Now, Christ was human, and had free will, but never sinned. There was something different in His nature (divine). Now you could literally go into a 20 page discussion on dualism, and a variety of other philosophical discussions, and still not have a perfect answer. But one might simplify it this way. If I offer you a cookie, you might be glad to take it. Even if it isn't the best cookie ever made. However, if the free choice came down to my cookie, and the world's best cookie ever made with amazing aroma and flavor, there wouldn't be any decision so to speak. In God's presence, all the things this world has to offer, will offer no comparison. Romans 8:18, 2 Cor. 4:17.

Let's not also forget that although suffering is a difficult reality, Christ suffered in every way. He fasted, willingly, for 40 days, and faced temptations in the wake of such suffering.
(Matt. 4)

People who produce children they cant provide for are responsible.

So, if there is a God, should He hold people accountable for such things?

No it doesnt matter. We arent special and this proves it. In the bibles Jesus asks are we not much more valuable than birds, and he provides for them so he will provide for us. The fact that children die of starvation and lack of clean water shows that the bible is wrong, that we actually arent any more special than birds and grass, we are just smarter than them.

Let me get this straight. In your worldview, it doesn't matter that children suffer and starve? There is nothing inherently better about offering a starving person food, than witholding it? If you say there is a difference, then please account for such. Simply saying it is, isn't an answer.
If not, Then why does your opinion matter? Your not special. Truth doesn't matter and likely doesn't exist, as there would have to be some objective standard outside of man. And so, even if you were correct, it doesn't matter. Why are you on this forum exactly?

For suffering to matter to whom?

Meaning. You've already admitted that humans suffereing is no more significant than grass wilting. It either matters or it doesn't. If it does, you've already been challenged to account for it.
So, perhaps we are all deluded into believing there is a God, and that right and wrong objectivley matter. But in your world, this doesn't matter either, since nothing is inherently right or wrong. Yet, here you are saying it does. Does that seem reasonable to you??

If he has the power to stop it and doesnt, I dont see how that can be seen as anything but indifference. If he cared about children starving and could prevent it, for what good reason would he not do so?

I would say God cares. Let me ask you a question. If you could go back in time and meet Adolf Hitler as a child, would you feed him if he were starving, even if you knew what would happen if he grew up, and thus could save millions of people? This is called a moral dilema. Your knowing the future might have an incredible affect. We assume that God is sitting in heaven, looking down, and wondering if He should choose to do something. But, we may be in error to assume this is how things are playing out. I would say God has already done something.

If God created the universe, then He created it a certain way with an eternal purpose. We assume, option A, B or C, but this notion fails as well. For one to suggest man without freewill is a logical contradiction. It would be like me putting a gun to your head and forcing you to give to a charity, and then saying that you did a 'good' deed.

There are atheist all around you and they probably dont go around torturing puppies and starving children. To assume that a lack of belief in an invisible being that never speaks or shows himself automatically means one has no concept of right and wrong is a very ignorant.

No, it is actually ignorant on your part. No one here is saying atheist CAN'T do good. They do. The problem is they can't defend why. Why is this a problem? Exactly what you ignorantly state. You are BOASTING that people are making a BETTER choice. That helping starving people is BETTER than ignoring them. Yet, you can't even begin to say why that is the case. You have to presume an objective moral standard that man SHOULD live up to. Yet, if there is an objective moral standard for man to live up to, then it has to exist apart from man. Yet, you deny outright, that an objective moral being exist outside of man. And thus you are back to square one. Nothing matters. So, please tell us, why do you live in contradiciton? Why are you saying out of one side of your mouth it is a good thing to know right from wrong, but then say it doesn't matter?

So are you saying you cant prove there is an afterlife without the bible?

I could prove it, but the experiement is one I doubt you would agree to.

What point are you trying to make? Are you saying Im evil, are you judging me?

I'm making judgments about the logical problems in your worldview. I'm making an assesment, that if evil exist, then people are evil. You are a person, therefore you are evil. Wasn't it you that said you want God to eliminate evil people? Do you consider yourself a good person?

This may seem weird but I dont think there is an argument that could convince me that a good and allpowerful God would justifiably allow suffering and evil. Its like listening to someone trying to convince you why slavery was a good thing. I would just like to say that if I seem bitter, it is because the loss of my faith was one of the hardest things I have gone through in my life. I am not lying when i say I have been a Christian my entire life and having a belief system I had adhered to my entire life, slowly chipped away was and has been a very emotional, angering, bitter, upsetting experience for me.
This was me a few years ago:
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/se ... chid=16190

I would go on several websites and argue in favor or a creator, an intelligent, sentient being responsible for the creation of the universe and life and I strongly believed that creator to be the biblical God . I would argue that life was to intricate to have come about by chance, to complex to have evolved by any random process and a part of me still believes that and I strongly believed that creator to be the biblical God. It was not easy at all to come to grips with the realization that I was most likely wrong, not something I accepted with no reluctance and a cheery disposition. Beyond just being a casual christian who goes to church lives well and never really tackles any serious questions about the existence of God, I actively and eagerly spent a great deal of time arguing for and trying to convince people why I thought there was good evidence for a God. So these last few years have been a very hard time for me as I slowly saw my worldview crumbling.

Mag, I think you are trying to make it more complicated than it actually is.

You are not even willing to read books when you should to clear your head. You want others to do explain everything for you. nor does the answer is a two liner. I cant convince you if you dont want to be convinced. I wanted to show you the flawed logic you are using, its actually self contradictory, as I pointed out over and over again, you don't want to accept my take on the matter, I'm okay with this.

For the record, I didn't say I agree with your opinion, I don't. I only said that using your logic the Israelites were justified.

By the way did you even bother to look up and read the link I posted, or my posts? No one is making you the bad guy here. You are not the only atheist on this board. Many are here and we get perfectly along fine. What I do not like is when you show no competency to back up the argument you are so insisting upon. I have told you in plain words before, all you have is an emotional appeal. No logic, no construct.

Your argument is simply invalid because of a lot of factors, go back re-read all my posts, when you have spare time, and try to think on it. I am sure you can look up a lot f counter argument for yours as well, and try to study yourself too. May be that would help.

Read Paul capon's "is God a moral monster". Try to understand the the difference between, law and grace, the old testament and the new covenant. Simply put, you want to understand maths but you insist that there be no numbers involved.

And you can assert all you want, but infact there is no objectivity without God, that is a fact, you can not prove otherwise. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion.

It will be much better if you can understand the basics and then try to argument those. Perhaps then we might have a more meaningful discussion, for now, I'm out, as I see this going no where but circular logic. No use in going around in circles. Take one issue stick to it, I wish all, the best.

MAGSolo wrote:Evil and suffering are my only objections to the existence of God.

Good so let's just concentrate on those and those alone for now. Jlay's post above is certainly on point so we'll wait to hear your response for that.

PaulSacramento wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:Evil and suffering are my only objections to the existence of God.

Have you read the counter-arguments to these?
Stuff by William Lane Craig for example?

I've heard much of WLC and I always find his arguments extremely dissatisfying. I would prefer if man would not pretend to speak on behalf of God.