Evidence for God from Science

amann wrote:i stumbled across this forum and saw the bashing of atheism or those who do not fully subscribe to Christianity. Well you said you wanted one to come and reply, here i am. im going to post a quote of myself from a conversation i recently had and then i will address each individual in the forum, here it goes.

Challenge accepted.

amann wrote:"lawrence, are you saying that a 2,000 year old text which we cannot factually verify,

What do you mean, we can't? There is an entire section of this site (not to mention numerous other) dedicated to the authenticity of the Bible, so you shouldn't have even brought this point up before looking up the relevant data.
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/authenticity.html

amann wrote:dont know who actually wrote it,

Does it matter? I believe the main thing that matters is whether it's true.

amann wrote:and half of the book is nothing but an angry vengeful man in the sky who enjoys long walks through eden and the torture and sacrifice of his own creations is less flawed at explaining the natural world than science as a whole??

Wow, three fallacies in a part of a sentence. Promising.
1. Straw man+appeal to emotion+arbitrariness (On what do you base your statement that God is angry or vengeful? Your opinion?)
2. That is, simply, a lie. God doesn't torture anyone, humans rebelled against Him. Sometimes we have to learn our lessons the hard way. Problem?
3. Another straw man.

amann wrote:HA, stop being a sheep and be a shepard. you need a reality check dude.

And you obviously need a spelling check. I thought the correct spelling was shepherd.
Nasty thing, when a guy from the Balkans corrects your writing in your own language.

amann wrote:"the majority is assumed" you say? thats not the case at all, if you knew anything about science you would know that anything can be simulated with mathematical formulas, and you would know that science is moving very fast tword trying to understand the natural world around us. We have already come so far.

That's a cool story, bro, but I don't see what it has to do with God.
The existence of God, as you may not know, doesn't negate the existence of natural world.

amann wrote:just a few hundred years ago the general consensus was the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, and the earth as a whole was only a few 1,000 years old.

Yet none of what you mentioned was written in the Bible (it even suggests a round Earth, as ancient mathematicians were proposing). Nothing that we've discovered throughout the history, is in contradiction with the Scripture.
By the way, the idea of an old Earth (progressive Creation) was come up with long time before the discovery of radiometric dating.

amann wrote: you can read a book, take it to heart in the most literal way possible, and think you have all the answers (a sheep) or you can go out and learn about things from multiple sources like the higgs bosen, string theory, evolution, ect. and decide what you believe not from a book but from your own mind (a Shepard)"

Or, you can dance to the molecules in your brain, as naturalism proposes, and be a... I don't know, a byproduct of random movement of atoms?
Whatever, I just don't know how such chemical reactions could think and be self-aware?

But your sheep vs. "shepard" comparison was very revealing, I must admit. That seems to be the point of atheism - to be your own god and not be held accountable for your actions in this world. There are many people who find this idea attractive, more attractive than Christianity.

amann wrote:just a few hundred years ago the general consensus was the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, and the earth as a whole was only a few 1,000 years old.

Oh good... you get your history from anti-Christian atheists born in the last 200 years. The 'flat earth' thing is a myth. People haven't thought the earth was flat for thousands of years, and usually there was more to it than that. This is a garbage, non-existent argument.

You know I keep thinking that I've seen it all from the typical atheist position ("all" being "not much", simply the absurd position of scientism) and I hope that I see something different. But I just don't. Its the same stuff that we've all seen a thousand times. Maybe there are a few ones out there that come up with different, fresh approaches, but its been a while since I've seen any.

So yeah, you guys can handle this one because honestly I feel like I'm ready to move on from the atheist/theist debate that I spent a lot of my earlier studying into apologetics on. No offense Amann, but a little soul-searching and research (from the proper sources) would go a long way. We have all heard these statements a thousand times and they've been dealt with pretty forcefully and conclusively by people far more intelligent than you or I.

I find it hard to believe anyone still throws around the term "string theory" as if it has any merit. An unobservable, philosophically bankrupt idea that conveniently takes God out of the picture? Yea, maybe it's just me but I think there's a little bias with that one .

neo-x wrote:Hi lily Welcome to the board. Could you please point out what are referring to when you said " KNOW all that stuff"?

I'm referring to the arrogance of stating that atheists simply KNOW that God doesn't exist. Arguments or no arguments, God doesn't need anybody to KNOW that. It's about feeling and believing. Making the "leap of faith" until God catches you. Only then, you can KNOW that God exists. It has nothing to do with who read more books.

Echoside wrote:I find it hard to believe anyone still throws around the term "string theory" as if it has any merit. An unobservable, philosophically bankrupt idea that conveniently takes God out of the picture?

Echo, please, that's science. We ordinary mortals, Christians especially, don't get to understand the scientific background of such theories.
That's why we need brights, such as the individuals you're referring to, to clarify those ideas for us - kinda like prophets, it's just that they don't belong to a religion. Or do they?

Echoside wrote:I find it hard to believe anyone still throws around the term "string theory" as if it has any merit.

It is certainly an example of inconsistency. "Theory" in science is often said to represent an accepted, broad explanation of various observations (theory of gravity, atomic theory). Yet here it is clearly referring to a hypothesis, and possibly an untestable one at that.

Reactionary wrote:

Echoside wrote:I find it hard to believe anyone still throws around the term "string theory" as if it has any merit. An unobservable, philosophically bankrupt idea that conveniently takes God out of the picture?

Echo, please, that's science. We ordinary mortals, Christians especially, don't get to understand the scientific background of such theories.
That's why we need brights, such as the individuals you're referring to, to clarify those ideas for us - kinda like prophets, it's just that they don't belong to a religion. Or do they?

Oh. Lord in Heaven. Reactionary, how I've missed your delicious sarcasm.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:

Reactionary wrote:Echo, please, that's science. We ordinary mortals, Christians especially, don't get to understand the scientific background of such theories.
That's why we need brights, such as the individuals you're referring to, to clarify those ideas for us - kinda like prophets, it's just that they don't belong to a religion. Or do they?

Oh. Lord in Heaven. Reactionary, how I've missed your delicious sarcasm.

Well, I've missed you too. It's good to see you back.

Reactionary wrote:

amann wrote:"lawrence, are you saying that a 2,000 year old text which we cannot factually verify,

What do you mean, we can't? There is an entire section of this site (not to mention numerous other) dedicated to the authenticity of the Bible, so you shouldn't have even brought this point up before looking up the relevant data.
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/authenticity.html

Dead Sea Scrolls are a great witness to the authenticity of scripture. Also they were found around the same time Israel became a nation in 1948. Coincidence? I don't think so.. G-d sends witnesses to His word at crucial times.

Gman wrote:

Reactionary wrote:

amann wrote:"lawrence, are you saying that a 2,000 year old text which we cannot factually verify,

What do you mean, we can't? There is an entire section of this site (not to mention numerous other) dedicated to the authenticity of the Bible, so you shouldn't have even brought this point up before looking up the relevant data.
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/authenticity.html

Dead Sea Scrolls are a great witness to the authenticity of scripture. Also they were found around the same time Israel became a nation in 1948. Coincidence? I don't think so.. G-d sends witnesses to His word at crucial times.

Wow i never knew that Gman, thanks.

One post and he already left.

Swimmy » Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:59 pm

One post and he already left.

Most just do a hit and run...some claim they will be back but don't...and some just don't like to listen to our un-intelligent musings, some stay, though that's not very often.

Hello. I'm new to this forum and I hope that you don't mind me being here. I'm not an atheists in the sense that I do believe in a "higher power", but you might say that about me because I do not believe in God as described by the Christian bible.

I see that at some point you were talking about the authenticity of the scripts that were put together in order to make the bible. I can't question that. Those scripts exist and are the foundation of the bible.

Never the less, these scripts were written by men/persons/people. These scripts are not the creation of God. These scripts are the "word" of God which has been put into human words by men/persons/people. The scrips were written by different people and at different time intervals.

As you all have noticed people are different and we have different opinions about religion, God and all related subjects. The people who wrote the scripts make no exception from these human traits of personality.

The bible as a whole is a useful book that teaches us to be good people, moral values, respect for others, equality between all peoples of the world.

BUT from my point of view, the bible can't be taken seriously as a PROPHECY.

If I would agree to the fact that the Bible is true in its prophecies, well, that would also mean that the OTHER religions of the world are TRUE as well and needless to say that other religions and I'm specifically refering to religions that can be found in Asia, Africa and the Arab world don't mention an apocalypse and a judgement day.

To make things more clear, Christianity is not the only true religion in the world. If you agree that God exists and it is something real, well, then you have to agree that other deities are also real. You can't just say: "My God is true and yours is a figment of your imagination". That would be arrogance and would mean that you disobey the true values that the Bible wishes to teach. Christianity says: "There is only one true God and only way to Heavens!". Really? So other older religions in the world, much more older than Christianity, are wrong and pagan:)) That's arrogance, blatant arrogance.

I have said enough things for now. Waiting for some feed back as well.

I think I have said enough thing for the moment. Waiting for soem feed back.

BryanH wrote:Hello. I'm new to this forum and I hope that you don't mind me being here. I'm not an atheists in the sense that I do believe in a "higher power", but you might say that about me because I do not believe in God as described by the Christian bible.

I see that at some point you were talking about the authenticity of the scripts that were put together in order to make the bible. I can't question that. Those scripts exist and are the foundation of the bible.

Never the less, these scripts were written by men/persons/people. These scripts are not the creation of God. These scripts are the "word" of God which has been put into human words by men/persons/people. The scrips were written by different people and at different time intervals.

As you all have noticed people are different and we have different opinions about religion, God and all related subjects. The people who wrote the scripts make no exception from these human traits of personality.

The bible as a whole is a useful book that teaches us to be good people, moral values, respect for others, equality between all peoples of the world.

BUT from my point of view, the bible can't be taken seriously as a PROPHECY.

If I would agree to the fact that the Bible is true in its prophecies, well, that would also mean that the OTHER religions of the world are TRUE as well and needless to say that other religions and I'm specifically refering to religions that can be found in Asia, Africa and the Arab world don't mention an apocalypse and a judgement day.

To make things more clear, Christianity is not the only true religion in the world. If you agree that God exists and it is something real, well, then you have to agree that other deities are also real. You can't just say: "My God is true and yours is a figment of your imagination". That would be arrogance and would mean that you disobey the true values that the Bible wishes to teach. Christianity says: "There is only one true God and only way to Heavens!". Really? So other older religions in the world, much more older than Christianity, are wrong and pagan:)) That's arrogance, blatant arrogance.

I have said enough things for now. Waiting for some feed back as well.

I think I have said enough thing for the moment. Waiting for soem feed back.

Bryan, welcome to the forum. Please take time to read the "Board Guidelines".http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=2517
You are welcome here, if you stay within the guidelines.

Thanks