Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:I was raised with very strong positive values, no religion to any of it.

Religion is optional to strong positive values. Actually, religion is more a guarantee of pride, self-righteousness and boundless evil, as history and current events attest to.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:I was raised with very strong positive values, no religion to any of it.

Religion is optional to strong positive values. Actually, religion is more a guarantee of pride, self-righteousness and boundless evil, as history and current events attest to.

FL

Kind of overgeneral for my taste. Depends on the religion, for one.

To me it seems more that people find ways to pervert religions
or invent them to taste, to justify evil. The OT has God approving or
directing atrocities.
Hint: If its checking girls for virginity after killing the family, its not
God.

Audie wrote:Kind of overgeneral for my taste. Depends on the religion, for one.

Yes and no. Yes, I made a gross generalization but no, it doesn't depend on the religion. Even Buddhists in Sri lanka have started persecuting Christians, according to Voice of the Martyrs. Perhaps the Baha'i religion has yet to persecute someone, but give it time and it will. Guaranteed.

Audie wrote:To me it seems more that people find ways to pervert religions or invent them to taste, to justify evil.

Actually, to be more precise, any dogmata can be perverted to justify evil. The problem isn't so much the worldview you hold but the nature of the human spirit. I include atheism & atheists in this assessment as well.

Audie wrote:The OT has God approving or directing atrocities

That's a misreading of the OT, or reading with intent to disparage. Most atheists read the OT with the intent to disparage but you seem smarter so I think it is just a lack of seeing the whole picture in your case.

Keep on thinking rationally! (Are you a man or a woman?)

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:Kind of overgeneral for my taste. Depends on the religion, for one.

Yes and no. Yes, I made a gross generalization but no, it doesn't depend on the religion. Even Buddhists in Sri lanka have started persecuting Christians, according to Voice of the Martyrs. Perhaps the Baha'i religion has yet to persecute someone, but give it time and it will. Guaranteed.

Audie wrote:To me it seems more that people find ways to pervert religions or invent them to taste, to justify evil.

Actually, to be more precise, any dogmata can be perverted to justify evil. The problem isn't so much the worldview you hold but the nature of the human spirit. I include atheism & atheists in this assessment as well.

Audie wrote:The OT has God approving or directing atrocities

That's a misreading of the OT, or reading with intent to disparage. Most atheists read the OT with the intent to disparage but you seem smarter so I think it is just a lack of seeing the whole picture in your case.

Keep on thinking rationally! (Are you a man or a woman?)

FL

Female.

True about any -ism or -ology.

Some are more preadapted than others

I dont know what most atheists do. Disparaging goes on
all around. The Bible is what it, no occasion to "disparage" it.

It does to read in places, as self serving. If some or any of what is between the covers is "of God", it was
men who decided what writings are in or out. N'est-pas?

Audie wrote:True about any -ism or -ology. Some are more preadapted [to violence] than others

Yes...that seems to be the case, anecdotally at least. A religion that says ''Sacrifice this chicken!'' (Hassidic Judaism) is going to appear more violent than Jainism which encourages its members to wear a face mask in order to not ingest a flying insect, and to sweep the ground in front of the pilgrim so that he does not crush a bug by accident. To the outside observer, however, both groups are freak shows.

Audie wrote:I dont know what most atheists do. Disparaging goes onall around. The Bible is what it [is], no occasion to "disparage" it.

Actually, you are right: I don't really know what most atheists do either. Something tells me that they just don't care one way or another about faith & religion, and they just live out their lives in quiet indifference. You would have to visit an atheist forum to see the disparaging remarks some atheists make about the Bible.

Audie wrote:It does to read in places, as self serving. If some or any of what is between the covers is "of God", it was men who decided what writings are in or out. N'est-pas?

Well, most of the books in the Bible claim direct inspiration from God, so God is the ultimate source of the Bible. The human authors were not allowed to write what they wanted, they were not to please those around them, they were called to write what God wanted and only that. This usually got them killed. An analogy might be helpful here: I have a friend who is CEO of a large corporation. He had a personal secretary with him for over 25 years. This woman knew my friend's business intimately and when a decision had to be made, she could guess the CEO's decision ahead of time. She wrote letters according to her understanding of the CEO's position on diverse matters, and he signed them. She conducted day-to-day business in his name, usually with the briefest of instructions from him. She knew her Boss so well that she could suspend her own opinions and interests and acted according to his directives. This is what is meant by inspiration.

As for the Bible being self-serving, it is serving the interests of God. God inspired it, so I guess you could say that it serves His interests. All of history, for that matter, serves God's interests: history is the outworking of God's plan.

FL

Audie wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:OK...Thanks. Positive values are nice but you don't have to be Christian to have such values. Positive values keep the surroundings clean: Japan and Switzerland are good examples of neat & tidy countries.

FL

I was raised with very strong positive values, no religion to any of it.

and no real meaning to any of it either.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:True about any -ism or -ology. Some are more preadapted [to violence] than others

Yes...that seems to be the case, anecdotally at least. A religion that says ''Sacrifice this chicken!'' (Hassidic Judaism) is going to appear more violent than Jainism which encourages its members to wear a face mask in order to not ingest a flying insect, and to sweep the ground in front of the pilgrim so that he does not crush a bug by accident. To the outside observer, however, both groups are freak shows.

Audie wrote:I dont know what most atheists do. Disparaging goes onall around. The Bible is what it [is], no occasion to "disparage" it.

Actually, you are right: I don't really know what most atheists do either. Something tells me that they just don't care one way or another about faith & religion, and they just live out their lives in quiet indifference. You would have to visit an atheist forum to see the disparaging remarks some atheists make about the Bible.

Audie wrote:It does to read in places, as self serving. If some or any of what is between the covers is "of God", it was men who decided what writings are in or out. N'est-pas?

Well, most of the books in the Bible claim direct inspiration from God, so God is the ultimate source of the Bible. The human authors were not allowed to write what they wanted, they were not to please those around them, they were called to write what God wanted and only that. This usually got them killed. An analogy might be helpful here: I have a friend who is CEO of a large corporation. He had a personal secretary with him for over 25 years. This woman knew my friend's business intimately and when a decision had to be made, she could guess the CEO's decision ahead of time. She wrote letters according to her understanding of the CEO's position on diverse matters, and he signed them. She conducted day-to-day business in his name, usually with the briefest of instructions from him. She knew her Boss so well that she could suspend her own opinions and interests and acted according to his directives. This is what is meant by inspiration.

As for the Bible being self-serving, it is serving the interests of God. God inspired it, so I guess you could say that it serves His interests. All of history, for that matter, serves God's interests: history is the outworking of God's plan.

FL

I dont think there is any reasonable discussion as to whether some isms or ologies promote violence. All probably are as you suggest, open to misuse.

To me btw, all war is basically armed robbery on a grand scale. Armed robbery is seriously uncool, and it seems to me that to get everyone on board with it, there is a need for a narrative. "God" said to do it, is a good one. That is where I see the self-serving nature of it, along with that all people's seem to think they are The People.
Self serving that God chose US, you know? I dont see the Bible as being self serving, it was self serving for people to write in their excuse for killing their neighbours.That is my perspective.

As for inspiration, that is of course what "they" all say. What David Karesh had to say got him killed, and likewise J Smith. Always wise to look for something fishy, is it not?
Obviously, none can say for a certainty that nobody was ever inspired; but we do know for sure, that not all who so claim are legit.

The Book of Mormon may have been inspired, but a fishy aspect is that there is no archaeological trace of the extensive civilization that the book speaks of.

That is an example of the "outside corroboration' that I spoke of

Looked at with only itself for reference, the BoM may be as unassailable as the Bible.

Oh, about atheists again, and what "they" do or dont do.

I think in China, most are pretty indifferent. It is hard to be indifferent to religion if you live in the USA!

One feels at times called on to fight against the zeal of some religious groups who with
to extend their reach into areas where they do not properly belong. This apples, betimes, to those of faith as well as the rest of us.

Audie wrote:I dont think there is any reasonable discussion as to whether some isms or ologies promote violence. All probably are as you suggest, open to misuse.

Actually, I wanted to go further than saying that -isms and -ologies are open to misuse. I want to say that they are all guaranteed to be used immorally. From a Christian perspective, the reason for this is man's innate sin nature. In secular terms, it is just human nature. You don't have to teach a child to lie...

Audie wrote:To me btw, all war is basically armed robbery on a grand scale. Armed robbery is seriously uncool, and it seems to me that to get everyone on board with it, there is a need for a narrative. "God" said to do it, is a good one. That is where I see the self-serving nature of it, along with that all people's seem to think they are The People. Self serving that God chose US, you know? I dont see the Bible as being self serving, it was self serving for people to write in their excuse for killing their neighbours.That is my perspective.

''All war is basically armed robbery''? I guess it is your turn to make grand generalizations now! I agree that a narrative is necessary for war, even a defensive war...but we need to make sense of the world around us, so the need for a narrative is part of our nature.

As for the ''Chosen People'', that term applies only to the Jews and to no one else. The Koran doesn't speak of Allah's worshippers as ''chosen''; actually, Muhammad calls Jews and Christians ''People of the Book''* over and over. I've read - and fallen asleep over - vedic literature and nowhere did I come across the idea of being chosen. However, this isn't to say that individuals who practice these religions don't think of themselves as special in some way (thinking of ourselves as ''special'' is just our pride expressing itself...). Only in the Bible does God specifically call out a people and pronounce them Chosen.

To the point that ''it was self serving for people to write in their excuse for killing their neighbors,'' that is an reasonable conclusion for an atheist to make.

Audie wrote:As for inspiration, that is of course what "they" all say.

I'm not sure...actually, I doubt it. Muhammad wasn't inspired, he was just holed up in a cave and wrote down what an apparition told him. Vedic litterature is so tedious... it has only the inspiration of boredom. Raël wasn't inspired, he was brought to another planet where he met Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and all the starry host. The Bible writers claim inspiration over and over, and produced prophecies to justify their claim. Prophecies which come true: therein lies the difference between the true & the false writers in God's service.

Audie wrote:The Book of Mormon may have been inspired, but a fishy aspect is that there is no archaeological trace of the extensive civilization that the book speaks of.That is an example of the "outside corroboration' that I spoke of Looked at with only itself for reference, the BoM may be as unassailable as the Bible.

The BoM is a load of Junk. As you said, there is no archaeological trace to corroborate it. The Bible is different! Archaeology and secular historians such as Josephus and Hereodotus offer the skeptic outside references. The following site has a list of 50 Bible people confirmed archaeologically:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/50

Audie wrote:One feels at times called on to fight against the zeal of some religious groups who withto extend their reach into areas where they do not properly belong.

Mao tse tung?

FL

*The Book being the Bible.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:I dont think there is any reasonable discussion as to whether some isms or ologies promote violence. All probably are as you suggest, open to misuse.

Actually, I wanted to go further than saying that -isms and -ologies are open to misuse. I want to say that they are all guaranteed to be used immorally. From a Christian perspective, the reason for this is man's innate sin nature. In secular terms, it is just human nature. You don't have to teach a child to lie...

Audie wrote:To me btw, all war is basically armed robbery on a grand scale. Armed robbery is seriously uncool, and it seems to me that to get everyone on board with it, there is a need for a narrative. "God" said to do it, is a good one. That is where I see the self-serving nature of it, along with that all people's seem to think they are The People. Self serving that God chose US, you know? I dont see the Bible as being self serving, it was self serving for people to write in their excuse for killing their neighbours.That is my perspective.

''All war is basically armed robbery''? I guess it is your turn to make grand generalizations now! I agree that a narrative is necessary for war, even a defensive war...but we need to make sense of the world around us, so the need for a narrative is part of our nature.

As for the ''Chosen People'', that term applies only to the Jews and to no one else. The Koran doesn't speak of Allah's worshippers as ''chosen''; actually, Muhammad calls Jews and Christians ''People of the Book''* over and over. I've read - and fallen asleep over - vedic literature and nowhere did I come across the idea of being chosen. However, this isn't to say that individuals who practice these religions don't think of themselves as special in some way (thinking of ourselves as ''special'' is just our pride expressing itself...). Only in the Bible does God specifically call out a people and pronounce them Chosen.

To the point that ''it was self serving for people to write in their excuse for killing their neighbors,'' that is an reasonable conclusion for an atheist to make.

Audie wrote:As for inspiration, that is of course what "they" all say.

I'm not sure...actually, I doubt it. Muhammad wasn't inspired, he was just holed up in a cave and wrote down what an apparition told him. Vedic litterature is so tedious... it has only the inspiration of boredom. Raël wasn't inspired, he was brought to another planet where he met Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and all the starry host. The Bible writers claim inspiration over and over, and produced prophecies to justify their claim. Prophecies which come true: therein lies the difference between the true & the false writers in God's service.

Audie wrote:The Book of Mormon may have been inspired, but a fishy aspect is that there is no archaeological trace of the extensive civilization that the book speaks of.That is an example of the "outside corroboration' that I spoke of Looked at with only itself for reference, the BoM may be as unassailable as the Bible.

The BoM is a load of Junk. As you said, there is no archaeological trace to corroborate it. The Bible is different! Archaeology and secular historians such as Josephus and Hereodotus offer the skeptic outside references. The following site has a list of 50 Bible people confirmed archaeologically:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/50

Audie wrote:One feels at times called on to fight against the zeal of some religious groups who withto extend their reach into areas where they do not properly belong.

Mao tse tung?

FL

*The Book being the Bible.

I wont of course agree with the "sin nature' bit, but close enough. People who will, will find a way to act rotten.

If there are exceptions to the war-as-armed-robbery thing I said, they are just that, the exception.


As for "chosen people" each language has its own words and they dont translate all that well. My meaning was that each group has its own way of thinking that they are the special ones. The people.

The belief that people get messages from the supernatural is spread thro all peoples and cultures, so the exact word for it is irrelevant. Inspired is one word.

As for archaeology corroborating the Bible, that is fine; sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. No Red Sea crossing, no Sodom and Gomorrah. More problematic, no Flood. So one may want to steer clear of the science unless its allowed to cut both ways.

Mao, there was someone with a quasi-religion against whom one might well fight.
Side note, I have an uncle who you do not want to get him started, old time hard line Maoist, and not a bit ready to give it up. Sheesh, what a bore he is!

Audie wrote:I wont of course agree with the "sin nature' bit, but close enough. People who will, will find a way to act rotten.

You have your foot on the brake! I'm saying that ''acting rotten'' is human nature. We can't escape it. We all act rotten.

Audie wrote:As for "chosen people" each language has its own words and they dont translate all that well. My meaning was that each group has its own way of thinking that they are the special ones. The people.

Yes, I understood that. What I am saying is that there is only one Chosen People. Gentile Christians are not part of the Chosen People. Because of all the problems being the Chosen People has brought them, a common joke among Jews is ''God, why did you have to choose us?!''.

As for other peoples who consider themselves special, this is just another manifestation of the sin nature. From a secular perspective, you might call this jingoism/chauvinism or ethnic pride.

Audie wrote:The belief that people get messages from the supernatural is spread thro all peoples and cultures, so the exact word for it is irrelevant. Inspired is one word.

Yes. So? I was once poisoned by inhaling tetrachlorethelyne; I saw my future..but I got it wrong. I heard somewhere that ony 2% of astrologers predictions were accurate. That even seems high to me. True inspiration would have a 100% accuracy, and that is only found in the Bible.

Audie wrote:As for archaeology corroborating the Bible, that is fine; sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.

Actually, it always does. Archaeology is catching up to the history recorded in the Bible. Give it time.

Audie wrote: No Red Sea crossing, no Sodom and Gomorrah. More problematic, no Flood. So one may want to steer clear of the science unless its allowed to cut both ways.

Not so fast! Wait for more discoveries in archaeology and geology. Be patient because these are both very sloooooooow sciences. Look over the biblical archaeology site I linked to above. Don't be afraid! It is not a Christian site, so even you can trust it.

Audie wrote:Mao, there was someone with a quasi-religion against whom one might well fight.

I like that you wrote ''quasi-religion'' in reference to Maoism.

You need an avatar. How did you end up in the USA?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:I wont of course agree with the "sin nature' bit, but close enough. People who will, will find a way to act rotten.

You have your foot on the brake! I'm saying that ''acting rotten'' is human nature. We can't escape it. We all act rotten.

Audie wrote:As for "chosen people" each language has its own words and they dont translate all that well. My meaning was that each group has its own way of thinking that they are the special ones. The people.

Yes, I understood that. What I am saying is that there is only one Chosen People. Gentile Christians are not part of the Chosen People. Because of all the problems being the Chosen People has brought them, a common joke among Jews is ''God, why did you have to choose us?!''.

As for other peoples who consider themselves special, this is just another manifestation of the sin nature. From a secular perspective, you might call this jingoism/chauvinism or ethnic pride.

Audie wrote:The belief that people get messages from the supernatural is spread thro all peoples and cultures, so the exact word for it is irrelevant. Inspired is one word.

Yes. So? I was once poisoned by inhaling tetrachlorethelyne; I saw my future..but I got it wrong. I heard somewhere that ony 2% of astrologers predictions were accurate. That even seems high to me. True inspiration would have a 100% accuracy, and that is only found in the Bible.

Audie wrote:As for archaeology corroborating the Bible, that is fine; sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.

Actually, it always does. Archaeology is catching up to the history recorded in the Bible. Give it time.

Audie wrote: No Red Sea crossing, no Sodom and Gomorrah. More problematic, no Flood. So one may want to steer clear of the science unless its allowed to cut both ways.

Not so fast! Wait for more discoveries in archaeology and geology. Be patient because these are both very sloooooooow sciences. Look over the biblical archaeology site I linked to above. Don't be afraid! It is not a Christian site, so even you can trust it.

Audie wrote:Mao, there was someone with a quasi-religion against whom one might well fight.

I like that you wrote ''quasi-religion'' in reference to Maoism.

You need an avatar. How did you end up in the USA?

FL

I dont know that I have "ended up" in the USA, tho I do have per res alien
status.

I didnt want to come here but I was 13, you go where parents go.

From the tropics to frozen cornfields, I was pretty sulky for a while.
( yes even 13 yr old girls can be sulky)

At least we didnt actually live on some farm!!!!

Hey, FL, big problem with the link: There's this thing blocking the view of the page, offering a free e-book. I keep clicking the "close" button, but it just reloads the page instead of making the in-window popup go away. I just want to read the article! >_<

Edit: After a bit of time, it stopped, so now I can read the actual article.

FlawedIntellect wrote:Hey, FL, big problem with the link: There's this thing blocking the view of the page, offering a free e-book. I keep clicking the "close" button, but it just reloads the page instead of making the in-window popup go away. I just want to read the article! >_<

You may have been given a sign.

Audie wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:Hey, FL, big problem with the link: There's this thing blocking the view of the page, offering a free e-book. I keep clicking the "close" button, but it just reloads the page instead of making the in-window popup go away. I just want to read the article! >_<

You may have been given a sign.

A sine! A sine frum duh LAWD!

Anonymus

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:Hey, FL, big problem with the link: There's this thing blocking the view of the page, offering a free e-book. I keep clicking the "close" button, but it just reloads the page instead of making the in-window popup go away. I just want to read the article! >_<

You may have been given a sign.

A sine! A sine frum duh LAWD!

Anonymus

I think I am getting the hang of this.