Evidence for God from Science

I personally don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.

It is not because I have seen or experienced God inexplicably. Or that I found God under a rock, prayed a prayer and fire came down from the heaven, or poked my finger into Christ's hand. Rather, Theism is more coherent at explaining what I intuit and know to be true whether it be:

1. moral right and wrong
2. freedom and responsibility
3. truth and meaning
4. origins
5. real purpose
6. my own existence...

On the other hand, to embrace a worldview which excludes God:

1. what is morally right is each to their own (e.g., Dr. Mengele is just as "good" or "bad" as Mother Teresa)
2. freedom boils down to a chain of events based on physics and chemical reactions taking place throwing responsibility out the window
3. truth and meaning, again each to their own
4. Origins: We just happened either from nothing, or an infinite regress of spawning universes (actual infinite) is possible despite the unfathomable and even unsoundness of such a concept. Ultimately I must believe our universe and life "just happened". Origin of physical laws which govern the interaction of spawning universes still remain inexplicable. So ultimately I must just ignore and call the popping into existence of physical laws a puzzle "science" (more likely pseudo) might one day explain.
5. There is no real purpose to life beyond the present. Ergo, when the present excludes my existence, I am no better off if I had saved millions of people in the world than if I had taken advantage of them. Furthermore, when the present excludes our world's existence which will eventually get torn apart, everything that had previously happened no longer matters. My intuitions, the way I behave in the world, and my caring to live on in the world show me to be a liar if I said there was no real purpose to it all.
6. "I" really do exist, in that I make choices I am responsible for, think and feel. I am not merely a bunch of atoms and chemical reactions taking place which would exclude any real individual sense of a "self".

I just chose six off the top of my head. And my conviction of the undeniably of God's existence leads me to believe the question asked should not be why does God play hide and seek, but rather why do people play hide and seek with God. It seems to me people hide, God seeks, people hide all the more.

I cannot deny God's existence. It is not an option on the table for me to not believe.

Kurieuo wrote:I personally don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.

sigh...it is not a faith, its more of an abence of faith IMO. It is SIMPLY the rejection of god claims. Why do Athiests need faith exactly? Is it because the scientists are looking for alternative answers and are happy with the "we do not know yet" responce?

funnly enough athiests probably DO have answers to all 6 of those, BUT the answers DOES NOT come from the athiesm it comes from else where for them. Which is probably why when people do the opposite of a conversion it is a very emotional and painful experience. I haven't even been fully converted BUT it is my own choice and if you are saying things like that the world is pointless with out god then I am going to have a hard time wanting this christianity thing because...I do not want a painful experience if it goes backend over frontend[bad].

I am sorry if i was Harsh, but sometimes that is the only choice available.

Anyway it is good to see you being a bit open minded by trying to come up with their responces.

PS. point V is morally Reprehensible, lots of Secular people(like in my society) would take offence. I think that they do not get their morals from Athiesm, they probably get those from another philosophy, like secular Humanism for instance.

Kristoffer wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I personally don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.

sigh...it is not a faith, its more of an abence of faith IMO. It is SIMPLY the rejection of god claims. Why do Athiests need faith exactly? Is it because the scientists are looking for alternative answers and are happy with the "we do not know yet" responce?

I said "I do not have enough faith to be an Atheist."

In the face of positive evidence I see for Theism and positive beliefs of Atheists I iterated in my previous message, I really do need faith (and a blind or ignorant faith at that) to believe Atheism is correct.

Kristoffer wrote:funnly enough athiests probably DO have answers to all 6 of those, BUT the answers DOES NOT come from the athiesm it comes from else where for them.

There are certain beliefs that are foundational to world views, and Atheism is a view of the world that positively precludes God's existence whether or not you think so. Take some of these other beliefs drawn from my previous post:

1. A belief in true moral right and wrong existing in the outworking on non-sentient physical laws and atoms is required by Atheism, or perhaps the more popular objective true right and wrong simply do not exist.
2. A belief that our actions aren't determined by environmental influences and a chain of physical reactions is incompatible with Atheism.
3. A belief that our universe is all there is given the odds flies in the face of Atheism.
4. A belief in the creation of our universe by a higher entity would be incompatible with Atheism.
5. A belief that there is lasting meaning to our actions is incompatible with Atheism.
6. A belief that we do exist apart from non-sentient physical laws and atoms bouncing and reacting to each other is incompatible with Atheism.

your list is all wrong, athiests can believe in all of those things, athiest can believe in after lifes athiests can believe in ghosts and demons. Its only one thing that a atheist cant put any trust in... Maybe they are wrong, or maybe they are right. Not everyone can be right and there is a absolute truth. btw ALIENS are the higher entity you just said they are not allowed to believe in

So an Atheist can believe an entity created our universe? If you want to convince me, would you be interested to perform the following test...

Visit a largely Atheist discussion board such as http://www.freeratio.org/. Introduce yourself without declaring yourself Atheist or Theist one way or another, however in your introduction state you believe the following:

1. That objectively true moral right and wrong do exist. Some things really are wrong, and some things really are right.
2. Our actions aren't entirely determined by environmental influences and physical laws.
3. Our universe is all there is and was created.
4. There is lasting meaning to our actions and a purpose in the world.
5. Our "self" really does exist apart from non-sentient physical laws and atoms bouncing and reacting to each other.

Then let me know the response you get from the Atheist segment. If you are right, then they shouldn't react too much if at all. If you are wrong, then I expect you'll receive a lot of displeased Atheists.

Kristoffer wrote:
PS. point V is morally Reprehensible, lots of Secular people(like in my society) would take offence. I think that they do not get their morals from Athiesm, they probably get those from another philosophy, like secular Humanism for instance.

The thing is , the standards by which I have seen many people attribute something as "morally reprehensible" usually are incompatible with taking offense to that. An event such as a hurricane, while destructive, is considered to be neutral in regards to morality, while a human causing the same suffering would be said to be immoral. In an atheistic worldview the human is as naturally occuring as the hurricane, no choice = not a moral agent. To be so presupposes a God which is non atheistic of course.

It's amazing to think how many justifications for meaning/morality exist in atheistic/agnostic thought. I have even heard it pushed so far that a world without god is a better world, where people can be nice because they want to. These viewpoints are logically inconsistent with a perfectly "natural" world, yet they occur everyday.

Is this because people know what is right, and simply "borrow" morality from a more christian/religious worldview while denying the source? I can't say I would be too surprised to learn that.

Kristoffer wrote:I haven't even been fully converted BUT it is my own choice and if you are saying things like that the world is pointless with out god then I am going to have a hard time wanting this christianity thing because...I do not want a painful experience if it goes backend over frontend[bad].

I stopped short of reading your response just before this paragraph. So just reading it now.

You should not commit to Christ if you do not believe in Him. If you believe in Him, then you will have come to a realisation whether you wanted to believe or not that God is true. Your "want" is not really what dictates your belief. However, once you have enough belief then it is up to you to make a decision.

I don't know how someone in my situation could end up seriously ever going "backend over frontend". If I did then a lot of things would be open on the table for me which were previously never there. I can either choose to just end my life, or I can choose to make the fullest of it as I see fit. I would probably be a very scary person to be around if I did loose Christ. I wouldn't be forgiving in the least if someone got on my bad side. It is only for Christ I try to be better than how I often feel and desire to react.

Anyhow, whether you want Christianity or not doesn't come into it. Once you believe, you believe. If you don't, then you don't. If you do believe though, then you're in a situation where you are forced into a choice. Will you follow Christ, or won't you?

Kris wrote:PS. point V is morally Reprehensible, lots of Secular people(like in my society) would take offence. I think that they do not get their morals from Athiesm, they probably get those from another philosophy, like secular Humanism for instance.

The point I am making is not that "Atheists" are without morals. I know some truly moral Atheists. Rather I am inconsistent with my beliefs that some actions really are wrong if there is no logical foundation for believing such a thing.

For example, if a moral standard does not exist apart from us that is higher than us, then we make up our own standards of what is moral. I could say it is fine to steal to benefit myself. You might say no its not. It's me vs you. Who is right? Well, the broader society and laws might dictate I am wrong, but now it seems this is just because I'm in the minority... not because the majority is right. Not unless a moral standard apart from humanity exists could it be truly said I am morally wrong to steal.

Christians believe this righteous standard is rooted in God's own righteous nature. So Christians have a foundation and something outside themselves to appeal to in which to call something really morally wrong or right. On the other hand, Atheists just have their self and human constructs.

To end, this does not matter as to whether Theism or Atheism is more true. However, if I really believe some actions really are wrong... that some moral values are really good... then I am more consistent with myself if I adhere to a form of Theism such as Christianity which provides a logical foundation for such beliefs.

Morality could of dare I say it, evolved perhaps. You are right about not committing to Christ without believing in him, I think when there is evidence to convince me...That is when I will believe.

Kristoffer wrote:Morality could of dare I say it, evolved perhaps. You are right about not committing to Christ without believing in him, I think when there is evidence to convince me...That is when I will believe.

If "morality" evolved, then there is no oughtness to it. Having discovered morality evolved we should stop feeling guilty about anything we do "wrong" and just shake it off to our benefit. Further still, if morality evolved, then it presumably evolved for survival and not because some actions really are good or bad.

The oughtness we feel with morality, desire for moral virtues such at self-sacrifice and belief that some actions really are good (building others up) while other actions are bad (destroying someone's self-worth) make morality what it is. Any explanation of morality which cannot account for these things does not really explain morality at all.

There is no evidence of morality evolving. The same matters that confont mankind today, have since the beginning of written history. There is simply no reason to even consider this.

Belief in this sense is an action. Trust. Obvioulsy you can not trust Christ if you do not believe the things about Him to be the truth. That would be my challenge to you. To examine the case for Christ, and make a conscious decision regarding His life, death and resurection.

I disagree there is certainly evidence or atleast arguments that morality evolved, for instance living in a way that helps the species as a whole survive rather than just a single individual. Evolution does not have to lead to selfishness. The very fact that we have language means that we are trustworthy, there would be no point communicating with language if everything we said was just lies upon lies. The fact that a good lie relies on most of what is being said being the truth points to it. But also there is a such thing as a white lie, a "noble" lie. Humans must of invented lying, it is terrible to let satan take the claim for this incredible skill! Its something that many people even in the bible use, to save lives. Elijah for instance makes a lie, dispite being a prophet and he saves lives with it!

Also I think it would be very difficult for us to go against natural Inclinations, if we are evolved or even "designed" to feel guilty then it would be difficult to not feel it, we do not have on off switches for things like guilt. Mere strength of will, can not take care of guilt.

You want to have your cake?

Then those who feel no remorse for their crimes are justified under your conditions.

But also there is a such thing as a white lie, a "noble" lie.

There is a difference in discretion and lying. Telling your wife she looks great, even when she's having a rough day, is not lying. Unless you are doing it for your own gain. Stop trying to justify your own lying and come into the light.

I would conceed that subjective morality can evolve. Not objective. Of course the word, evolve, is highly suspect in the way its being used here.

The worldview that proclaims that morality evolves MUST accept the idea that ALL moralities are equal. The current ideas of morality are simply the current evolutionary "solution". In other words, the morals that we have currently (at least the majority of us) are simply the results of years and years of selection.

The person that accepts that morality evolved MUST accept the idea that early man's use of rape to subdue sexual partners is just as valid a morality as ours today that rape is a heinous act.

If, in five hundred years, we return, for whatever reason, to that system, we must accede that it is a perfectly valid system of morality. Same as tribal fighting and murder. If it was valid then as a sytem of morality, then it is just a valid now. The only reason it isn't "in vogue" is that the majority of people with those brains wired that way are succeeding and reproducing. But that means nothing to it's inherent "rightness" or "wrongness". There IS NO inherent rightness or wrongness.

According to the evolutionary history, if I had been raped a million years ago, there would have been nothing to it. It was perfectly fine and reasonable. ONe tribe fighting another and kiling each other would be fine. Therefore there is nothing wrong now other than majority rule. We are, when all is said and done, morality bullies. How arrogant of us to presume, then that the rapist and muderer is wrong?!!?!??

Whatever right and wrong is simply accidents of neural wiring that simply allowed society to survive NOW. It potentially has no bearing on what will survive in the future.

zoegirl wrote:The worldview that proclaims that morality evolves MUST accept the idea that ALL moralities are equal. The current ideas of morality are simply the current evolutionary "solution". In other words, the morals that we have currently (at least the majority of us) are simply the results of years and years of selection.

The person that accepts that morality evolved MUST accept the idea that early man's use of rape to subdue sexual partners is just as valid a morality as ours today that rape is a heinous act.

If, in five hundred years, we return, for whatever reason, to that system, we must accede that it is a perfectly valid system of morality. Same as tribal fighting and murder. If it was valid then as a sytem of morality, then it is just a valid now. The only reason it isn't "in vogue" is that the majority of people with those brains wired that way are succeeding and reproducing. But that means nothing to it's inherent "rightness" or "wrongness". There IS NO inherent rightness or wrongness.

According to the evolutionary history, if I had been raped a million years ago, there would have been nothing to it. It was perfectly fine and reasonable. ONe tribe fighting another and kiling each other would be fine. Therefore there is nothing wrong now other than majority rule. We are, when all is said and done, morality bullies. How arrogant of us to presume, then that the rapist and muderer is wrong?!!?!??

Whatever right and wrong is simply accidents of neural wiring that simply allowed society to survive NOW. It potentially has no bearing on what will survive in the future.

AMEN sister!!