Evidence for God from Science

PaulB007 wrote:In my opinion, if the so called missing link that scientists say connect us to hominids, neanderthals, ect is found, would be a true disaster.

Hmmm, I don't really believe that.. If that was the method, God could still be involved in the process (theisitc evolution).

PaulB007 wrote:If human macro evolution can truly be proven, then as far as I can conclude our beliefs were all wrong. Theistic evolution is not a logical answer to me, as the bible states Gos created man in his image.

Again, not necessarily.. God could be in there somewhere too. Theistic evolution is plausible although macro-evolution has greater over tones of atheistic evolution. But macro-evolution has never "really" been proven. True..

PaulB007 wrote:Therefore, following that line of reasing God is a chimpanzee. Luckily that isn't the case. If human macroevolution from chimp slowly progressing into man over time is truly proven with certainty, all is lost. And I think most people would not be religious anymore either, except a few wishful thinkers. Microbal evolution is pretty much concrete, regadless of that I think that has zero impact as to whether or not God exists, and anyone who uses micro evolution to try and disprove God uses a weak argument.

The common ancestor belief states that man and chimpanzees had a common ancestor. Not that man descended from chimps but had a common ancestor. But yes many try to fuse their micro-evolutionary beliefs into their macro-evolutionary beliefs and claim victory.

A common ancestor yes, but broken off from the chimpanzee family. Personally, I think trying to connect theistic evolution to human macro evolution is pulling for straws.

PaulB007 wrote:A common ancestor yes, but broken off from the chimpanzee family. Personally, I think trying to connect theistic evolution to human macro evolution is pulling for straws.

No it is not. God made us in His image but God is not a physical being so which image is he referring to other than the spiritual? It makes no difference how the physical part came about. It is in His spiritual image that we're made. There's nothing in nature, past, present, or future that can contradict that.

Byblos wrote:

PaulB007 wrote:A common ancestor yes, but broken off from the chimpanzee family. Personally, I think trying to connect theistic evolution to human macro evolution is pulling for straws.

No it is not. God made us in His image but God is not a physical being so which image is he referring to other than the spiritual? It makes no difference how the physical part came about. It is in His spiritual image that we're made. There's nothing in nature, past, present, or future that can contradict that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember anything in the Bible that gives describes the physical attributes of god, or the appearance of god...
There's lots of mentions of his attributes/personality though, so "in his image" doesn't necessarily mean "sharing his appearance", right?

touchingcloth wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulB007 wrote:A common ancestor yes, but broken off from the chimpanzee family. Personally, I think trying to connect theistic evolution to human macro evolution is pulling for straws.

No it is not. God made us in His image but God is not a physical being so which image is he referring to other than the spiritual? It makes no difference how the physical part came about. It is in His spiritual image that we're made. There's nothing in nature, past, present, or future that can contradict that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember anything in the Bible that gives describes the physical attributes of god, or the appearance of god...
There's lots of mentions of his attributes/personality though, so "in his image" doesn't necessarily mean "sharing his appearance", right?

I thought that's what I was saying.

Byblos wrote: I thought that's what I was saying.

Sorry - that was aimed at Paul!

touchingcloth wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember anything in the Bible that gives describes the physical attributes of god, or the appearance of god...
There's lots of mentions of his attributes/personality though, so "in his image" doesn't necessarily mean "sharing his appearance", right?

It's a bit off topic but God can come in any image he wants... It just so happens he also came in the image of Christ as well..

Byblos wrote:

PaulB007 wrote:A common ancestor yes, but broken off from the chimpanzee family. Personally, I think trying to connect theistic evolution to human macro evolution is pulling for straws.

No it is not. God made us in His image but God is not a physical being so which image is he referring to other than the spiritual? It makes no difference how the physical part came about. It is in His spiritual image that we're made. There's nothing in nature, past, present, or future that can contradict that.

I'm not so sure Byblos.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember anything in the Bible that gives describes the physical attributes of god, or the appearance of god...
There's lots of mentions of his attributes/personality though, so "in his image" doesn't necessarily mean "sharing his appearance", right?

It's a bit off topic but God can come in any image he wants... It just so happens he also came in the image of Christ as well..

Sorry to continue this off-topic line of thought Gman, but what if God *does*, as you say come in many forms? The Hebrew for "image" is "tselem", from a root meaning "to cut off," "to chisel"; in the first instance, like a statue. God speaks, commands, makes freely, beholds the world, addresses his creatures... You and I have all these qualities. We are the most special of creatures, yet we are the most accountable. We are in one sense elevated "in His image" and in another sense merely an image. If man ever thinks he might be divine, he can think again.

Is it not the case that we are in one sense made in a "physical image" of God and also in a spiritual image of God, where we have the attributes to comprehend and love Him? What I'm saying is perhaps God is not just a spiritual being...God has a physical image also.

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulB007 wrote:A common ancestor yes, but broken off from the chimpanzee family. Personally, I think trying to connect theistic evolution to human macro evolution is pulling for straws.

No it is not. God made us in His image but God is not a physical being so which image is he referring to other than the spiritual? It makes no difference how the physical part came about. It is in His spiritual image that we're made. There's nothing in nature, past, present, or future that can contradict that.

I'm not so sure Byblos.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember anything in the Bible that gives describes the physical attributes of god, or the appearance of god...
There's lots of mentions of his attributes/personality though, so "in his image" doesn't necessarily mean "sharing his appearance", right?

It's a bit off topic but God can come in any image he wants... It just so happens he also came in the image of Christ as well..

Sorry to continue this off-topic line of thought Gman, but what if God *does*, as you say come in many forms? The Hebrew for "image" is "tselem", from a root meaning "to cut off," "to chisel"; in the first instance, like a statue. God speaks, commands, makes freely, beholds the world, addresses his creatures... You and I have all these qualities. We are the most special of creatures, yet we are the most accountable. We are in one sense elevated "in His image" and in another sense merely an image. If man ever thinks he might be divine, he can think again.

Is it not the case that we are in one sense made in a "physical image" of God and also in a spiritual image of God, where we have the attributes to comprehend and love Him? What I'm saying is perhaps God is not just a spiritual being...God has a physical image also.

Not only does God have a physical image, he also has a physical body in Christ. But this physical body didn't come about until after man's creation. Certainly God foreknew what our physical creation would look like but I don't see that as relevant since the original Genesis audience would not have understood it in those terms.

If an archetitect designs a building in 'his image,' does that mean the building will physically look like him?

jlay wrote:If an archetitect designs a building in 'his image,' does that mean the building will physically look like him?

What sane and fully functioning human being would use such such language as "I design this building in my image"? I think your question is defunct from the very beginning.

Gman wrote:It is often debated on this forum that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god or supernatural power, for such questions are outside the the bounds of science. Science, therefore, is not subject to ultimate questions such as how did life come into existence and the likes...

So the question here is, in the view of Darwinian evolutionary beliefs, is it purely scientific or is it philosophical? Is it neutral to the existence of a god? What is science and what were Darwin's beliefs on this subject? Can definitions of science truly be philosophically free?

Thoughts?

What is science and what is philosophy, that is your first question.

You have to find out what scientists are working on, in order to know what is science.

And you have to find out what philosophers are working on, in order to how what is philosophy.

As regards what Darwin was concerned with, how about looking up the title page of his book, which I think is about the origin of species.

Then see if inside that book what was he really examining, and how; is the what and the how similar to what scientists today are into, or is his what and his how similar to what philosophers today and also in the history of philosophy are into.


I love to pursue your questions with you, and we can both learn what is science into and what is philosophy into, and what was Darwin into, science or philosophy.

If you ask me, I think the man was into philosophy and got his philosophy from the competition of commercial products, how some products succeeded to seize a lasting place in the market and others did not.

For example, toothpaste and toothbrush are commercial products and have succeeded in the market to this day and will continue to enjoy a good market even into the future.

But imagine that at the time when toothpaste and toothbrush were introduced in the market, some inventors and merchants where trying to sell dental wipes, i.e., small pieces of chemically treated cloths for rubbing one's teeth to clean them, this product did not last long in the market and today we don't see any trace of it.

I however also rub my teeth with a wet handkerchief or small wet towel when I happen not to have any toothpaste and any toothbrush or only one of the two.

Still given a choice I prefer toothpaste and toothbrush to wet handkerchief or towel.

Here is another practice I engage in, at present I don't use toothpaste but shower soap, just scrape my toothbrush on the soap to get soap on its bristles, and then use the toothbrush as usual like having squeezed toothpaste on the bristles.



Yrreg

soupy mouth taste good. NOT.

Also the answer is Both.

The11thDr. wrote:soupy mouth taste good. NOT.

Also the answer is Both.

I like soupy mouth....chicken noodle soupy, beef & barley soupy, etc.

Yrreg wrote: What is science and what is philosophy, that is your first question.

You have to find out what scientists are working on, in order to know what is science.

And you have to find out what philosophers are working on, in order to how what is philosophy.

As regards what Darwin was concerned with, how about looking up the title page of his book, which I think is about the origin of species.

Then see if inside that book what was he really examining, and how; is the what and the how similar to what scientists today are into, or is his what and his how similar to what philosophers today and also in the history of philosophy are into.


I love to pursue your questions with you, and we can both learn what is science into and what is philosophy into, and what was Darwin into, science or philosophy.

This statement is a copy from another section but I think it's appropriate here..

Of course there are many that believe that philosophy and science must conflict too. Science and philosophy deal with the same thing. Human life. But they try to understand it under different types of considerations. One physical or natural and the other philosophical. And that is why they conflict because that are trying to come to an understanding of the same thing, human life, from two different points of view. People try to divide them where they don't interfere, but you can't do that. As an example, scientific research into human life will want to account for it in terms of events dealt with the so called natural sciences. Physics, chemistry, biology and the likes.. This philosophical approach to this is called naturalism. Naturalism, in itself, is not a bad thing. It helps us to understand diseases, the weather, the planets, and more. Science, as assumed, therefore tries to account for the factual character of the natural world and tries to create theories to explain these facts. Religion or philosophy on the other hand supposedly tries to operate in the equally important but utterly different realm of human purposes meanings and values. Something that science could illuminate but never resolve. Science studies how the heavens go, and philosophy how to go to heaven. Philosophy therefore is not even needed. The claim is that meaning and values are reduced to something entirely human that has no factual basis in the world in which we live. It's something that can't be reduced to the physical and is something we have to decide on our own. Basically it boils down to this, sense perceptible structures are facts where feelings are not in the area of truth or reality. But there is no good reason to think that all properties are sense perceptible or natural and therefore there is no good reason to think that all facts are natural. There might be non-natural facts too such as the study of one's consciousness.

Can natural facts really explain everything? I don't think so... It doesn't mean that we don't know anything about our world but if you are locked into the natural explanations as the only body of knowledge and the correspondence to it as the only reality, then you are making yourself your own reality or philosophy.. Back where you started again. Circular reasoning.