Evidence for God from Science

Not sure what else I could mean by that. I mean I was a Christian but after much study I do not think that God exists now. Its very freeing to know that I am responsible for my self and not some god who is in the air. I have come to value life even more because I know that this is it and there wont be another chance to enjoy the ones I love.

What I mean is how you are defining, "Christian." Obviously not the same way most of us here are. If we properly use the word Christian as one who has come to know Christ as savior, you might see where we would take exception to your claim. For one it would be a self-defeating claim. If you were a genuine Christian, you knew Him, were in dwelt by the Holy Spirit. I don't think that is what you mean. So at worst, you aren't being honest with us when you say you were a Christian. At best, you are using the word Christian incorrectly. Perhaps you have some explanation different than these two, which you are welcome to share. There really isn't any point in discussing anything further until you've adequately explained this.

You then say that 'study' led you to disbelieve. Yet, this is very arbitrary. Study of what? Not really sure what this 'freeing' thing has to do with study, and I find it very interesting that you mention both in the same thought. I'm sure a child feels 'freed' when they leave the rule of their parent's home. But that hardly makes the child a non-child, or an orphan. Please feel free to share with us which evidence you studied that confirmed that Christ was the wrong choice. Let's be specific here.

Then you claim to have found more 'value.' I find it odd that you would attribute 'value' to something as arbitrary as your life. I'm speaking from a materialist/naturalist worldview here. Apart from the Christian world view life is meaningless. The result of random chance process. You can't even have value apart from what God has put in you. Not real value anyway. You see what you are doing here is trespassing on the Christian worldview. A real shame that you trespass on the Christian worldview and deny it in the same breath. I'm sure you don't see it that way.

I don't know, because I wasn't there. I do think there has to be a better answer than creationism or big bang or evolution though. I think all three of those theories have huge holes in them.

So you are an agnostic then? By your own admission you say, "I don't know." As far as I can tell, you have claimed to be two things, yet the evidence of your own words says you are neither. I've already addressed the Christian claim. And you certanly aren't being consistent with the atheist world view.

abc123 wrote:Its very freeing to know that I am responsible for my self and not some god who is in the air.

You don't think that Christian's are responsible for themselves? How did you come to this conclusion?

abc123 wrote:I have come to value life even more because I know that this is it and there wont be another chance to enjoy the ones I love.

How can you value life if technically there is no meaning to it? Under the atheist's view, you are a soulless meaningless mass of chemicals.. You are insignificant and when you die it will be better for everyone because it will curb overpopulation..

Is this how you want live?

abc123 wrote:I know the stereotypes from both sides.
Christians say we are hurt and angry with illogical arguments, and many from the Atheist point of view think that Christians are not intelligent enough to understand the facts. When both of these stereotypes are poppycock.

Not sure of the atheist's facts.. Only that they are probably their own facts..

jlay wrote:

Not sure what else I could mean by that. I mean I was a Christian but after much study I do not think that God exists now. Its very freeing to know that I am responsible for my self and not some god who is in the air. I have come to value life even more because I know that this is it and there wont be another chance to enjoy the ones I love.

What I mean is how you are defining, "Christian." Obviously not the same way most of us here are. If we properly use the word Christian as one who has come to know Christ as savior, you might see where we would take exception to your claim. For one it would be a self-defeating claim. If you were a genuine Christian, you knew Him, were in dwelt by the Holy Spirit. I don't think that is what you mean.
Then you claim to have found more 'value.' I find it odd that you would attribute 'value' to something as arbitrary as your life. I'm speaking from a materialist/naturalist worldview here. Apart from the Christian world view life is meaningless. The result of random chance process. You can't even have value apart from what God has put in you. Not real value anyway. You see what you are doing here is trespassing on the Christian worldview. A real shame that you trespass on the Christian worldview and deny it in the same breath. I'm sure you don't see it that way.

I don't know, because I wasn't there. I do think there has to be a better answer than creationism or big bang or evolution though. I think all three of those theories have huge holes in them.

So you are an agnostic then? By your own admission you say, "I don't know." As far as I can tell, you have claimed to be two things, yet the evidence of your own words says you are neither. I've already addressed the Christian claim. And you certanly aren't being consistent with the atheist world view.

I was a born again Christian if thats what you are looking for. Using the definition of main stream christianity. I had accepted christ, asked him to forgive my sins, followed after and worshipped him.
And no I am not agnostic. Just because I wasnt there at the so called begininng doesnt mean I am not sure that there is no god. After all I am staking my life on it.

So you were 'born again?' I am very confused. You experienced new spiritual birth, yet you have now 'studied' yourself out of it? You honestly don't see the contradicton here? I think what you are saying is that your religious experience is equal to being a genuine 'Christian.' I have no doubt that you were part of a relgious process, and you assumed this process made you a Christian. But, you'd have to provide more convincing testimony that you were 'born again.' Otherwise I'm calling balogne on this one. I'm not doubting you went through whatever relgious program you were brought up in. And thus you are equating that to being 'born again.' No argument there. The question is, does your usage of these terms stand up to the real deal. Never does Jesus describe being born again as what you describe. It is contradictory to claim to be genuinely 'born again,' and then say that being 'born again' isn't a genuine thing to begin with. You are lighting the fuse that blows up your own argument.

How can you ask someone who isn't to forgive your sins? This particular claim is very common amongst many so called religious programs. But this is a man made method and not part of being born again. Much like praying the sinner's prayer. Repeating a prayer, no matter how well worded it may be, will NOT make you, "born again." No where does Jesus or the Bible say that being born again is, asking Christ to forgive your sins. We could also go into a break down of 'accepting' and 'following' and 'worshipping.' For example, the bible says that TRUE worshippers worship in SPIRIT and TRUTH. (John 4:24) Very interesting that this follows the very dialog in chapter 3 where the term 'born again' is defined by Christ Himself.

So, please forgive us if we don't just submit to your self-defeating claims and contradictory usage of these terms. You were either genuinely converted, and are now having delusions, or you were a wolf in sheeps clothing. An imposter who never really knew Christ in the 1st place. Again, it is fallacious to claim to have been a genuine, "born again" believer, and then claim that being born again isnt' a genuine thing at all.

And no I am not agnostic.

Then I suggest you speak consistently. Otherwise you are again falling into obvious fallacies. "I can't know, but I can be sure." This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. If you don't adhere to sound logic, then I assure you this board is the wrong place for you.

Just because I wasnt there at the so called begininng doesnt mean I am not sure that there is no god.

That is arbitrary. Let me demonstrate. Just because I wasn't there at the so called beginning doesn't mean I am not sure
there is a God. You see, we can all make arbitrary statements like that, but it doesn't mean a thing. How certain or sure we are, has no bearing on reality. God doesn't suddenly pop into existence when we beleive. And equally, he doesn't cease to be because you 'studied' something, or trusted in some faulty program to being with.

The only thing you can really say is that, in your opinion, your religious experience did not result in a genuine knowing of Christ. Instead, what you are essentially saying is your experience defines all reality. I mean you are claiming to be sure after all. I would guess that you know that bible claims that Christian faith is being sure. (Heb 11:1) So, either you were really sure when you called yourself 'Christian,' or you really weren't. Since you claim to be sure in your non-belief, it would be rather ridiculous to assert that you were truly sure in your belief. Not arguing whether you were convinced or persauded at the time. I have no doubt there are millions of Muslims and Hindus, etc. that are convinced they are right. I'm arguing whether you were SURE, genuine. A TRUE worshipper who worshipped in spirit and truth. One with a true foundation built on rock. Or, one who would wash away when the rains and floods came. One who experienced true 'power,' (Rom 1:16) or one who expereinced a man made religious process.

jlay wrote:How certain or sure we are, has no bearing on reality. God doesn't suddenly pop into existence when we beleive. And equally, he doesn't cease to be because you 'studied' something, or trusted in some faulty program to being with.

I like this a lot. How often it is that people can misinterpret their ideology for reality.

abc123 wrote:I was a born again Christian if thats what you are looking for. Using the definition of main stream christianity. I had accepted christ, asked him to forgive my sins, followed after and worshipped him.

Does anyone happen to know any percentages in terms of the number of "atheists" being "former Christians"? This idea of desiring to be free from a previous commitment to God seems to be a common theme.

- N

abc123 wrote:Its not that we don't acknowledge the love of God for mankind. We don't acknowledge that there is a god or gods at all. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove god doesn't exist. Its on anyone who wants to prove god does exist- and to do so without using the bible.

The resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus convinced me.

Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:
"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.

[Note: the fixed day was Sunday, the day Jesus rose from the dead.]

abc123 wrote:"Not sure what else I could mean by that. I mean I was a Christian but after much study I do not think that God exists now."

On what authority will you make such a claim? Why kind of "study" can support the non-existence of God?

abc123 wrote:The burden of proof isn't on me to prove god doesn't exist.

Why is that? If atheism is to be considered a valid worldview, then it is fair game, not a "default" position. We are prepared to defend our faith. Why do you think that you may just assume yours?

abc123 wrote:Its on anyone who wants to prove god does exist- and to do so without using the bible.

OK, (though the Bible is valid proof for God's existence, since He could not have revealed Himself if He didn't exist.)

P1: If the human mind may obtain knowledge, then God exists, since God is the precondition for human knowledge.
P2: The human mind may obtain knowledge.
Conclusion: God exists.

puritan lad wrote:

abc123 wrote:Its on anyone who wants to prove god does exist- and to do so without using the bible.

OK, (though the Bible is valid proof for God's existence, since He could not have revealed Himself if He didn't exist.)

P1: If the human mind may obtain knowledge, then God exists, since God is the precondition for human knowledge.
P2: The human mind may obtain knowledge.
Conclusion: God exists.

That's true. I think the common atheist approach of saying 'prove God exists' is an indicator of their severe lack of logical background and deduction. "Proving" is something reserved for mathematics and actual logical proofs. A courtroom trial doesn't 'prove' or disprove innocence or guilt. Evolution isn't 'proven'. Gravity isn't a 'proof'. Our own concsiousness isn't 'proven'. A proof is a series of propositions that together lead to a conclusion, as you show.

Just an honest question but is God the only viable precondition for human knowledge?

abc123 wrote:The burden of proof isn't on me to prove god doesn't exist. Its on anyone who wants to prove god does exist- and to do so without using the bible.

I'm just curious to know where this "burden of proof" comes from? Is it a natural law? Where is it written? Who administers it? Is it impartial?

- Nathan

CeT-To wrote:Just an honest question but is God the only viable precondition for human knowledge?

Yes. That's the transcendental proof for God's existence, that without Him, we cannot know anything. All secular theories of knowledge fail before they even get off the ground.

ABC, if you hearken back to your faith days and dust off that Bible for just a moment and turn open 1 Corinthians:

F"or after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

You will find that, while citing lacks of "proof" for God for your current situation, that expectation is not one you were or are entitled to. Whether you believe it or not, the faith you now reject never promised to engage you on "proof".

- Nathan