Evidence for God from Science

MBPrata wrote:Not at all; if you think that's the best thing to do, be my guest!

christianwarrior wrote:Here is some of the evidence for the existence of God:

1. The creation points to a creator.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)


The steady state theory of the universe, the idea that the universe has always existed has been disproven scientifically. We know that the universe is expanding and gradually losing its total amount of usable energy. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html This points to a beginning. If the universe has always been here it would have run out of usable energy by now and stopped expanding. (If you had a flashlight with batteries that has always existed then it would have run out of juice by now). Time and space both came into existence when the universe began to exist. Therefore the cause of the universe had to be beyond time, beyond space, and beyond the material realm. The cause of the universe had to be a personal entity because impersonal forces cannot choose to bring time and space into existence. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-c ... e-universe Since God is beyond time, he had no beginning. Since God is beyond space, he did not come from anywhere. http://www.everystudent.com/wires/universe.html An expanding universe is consist with the Scriptures saying that the Lord stretches the heavens. (Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22, and Psalm 104:2)

The chances of the universe coming into existence on its own is so small that atheist scientists have come with ideas like an osciliating universe, the multi-verse theory, etc. Each of which would still require a creator. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-ulti ... e-universe *Because the Hebrew word for day (yom) in Genesis 1 can be translated as both a time period and a 24-day, I will save the question of the age of the universe for another day.*


2. The existence of life itself.

In biology textbooks, it is theorized life emerged from random combinations of chemicals in a primordial soup. http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_Evo ... _life.html
The likelihood of that occuring is so low that many atheists/agnostics like Francis Crick (co-discover of DNA in 1953) believed that the best explanation of life on Earth was panspermia (life came from an alien planet). http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origins/o ... emembered/ http://www.panspermia-theory.com/directed-panspermia/
In fact Francis Crick theorized that it was directed panspermia, an alien civilization purposely sent biological life to other planets. So Francis Crick is an intelligent design theorist but a godless one. However directed panspermia only moves the goalpost back (how did life emerge on that alien planet). The Urey experiments that supposedly showed amino acids could naturally come together have been discredited. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... -life.html
The complexity of life points to a designer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v_SQJFPItg (Frank Turek video) http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm


3. The existence of objective morality.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (Romans 2:14)

Without God, morality is just subjective, it would just one person's opinion versus another. There is no true "evil" under subjective morality because your concept of evil would be different than Hitler's concept of evil. How could you compare the two concepts? Objective morality means that morality exists as a meta-physical concept ,that is to say that particular actions or ideas are right and wrong regardless of human opinion (if 90% of a population believe that it is moral to kill everyone over the age of 50 that does not make it moral). Objective morality means that there is a moral code of which we can measure morality that is beyond the human brain. People from all civilizations, with or without the Bible, know that the moral code exists. The Moral Law points to a Moral Law giver. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOJeseNJneg The great writer C.S. Lewis points out that the moral code is not always the standard which we follow but it is the standard that we want others to follow when treating us. http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.co ... CqMaPldWJk When we mistreat others, we want mercy. When someone mistreats us, we want justice. Here is a quick test to see if someone is a moral relativist, if they deny objective morality take their wallet and see their reaction. In their book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist ,Frank Turek and Norm Geisler lay out the following situation:

" A professor, who was teaching a class in ethics at a university, assigned a term paper to his students. He allowed the students to write on any topic of their choice, only requiring them to properly back up their thesis with documented sources. One student, a relativist, wrote convincingly on the merits of moral relativism. He argued, 'All morals are relative, it's all a matter of opinion; I like chocolate, you like vanilla," etc. His paper was well written, properly documented, the right length, on time, and stylishly presented in a handsome blue folder. The professor read the entire paper and then wrote on the front cover, 'F. I don't like blue folders!'
"When the student got the paper back he was enraged. He stormed into the professor's office and declared, ''F. I don't like blue folders!' That's not fair, that's not right, that's not just! You didn't grade the paper on its merits!'
"Raising his hand to quiet the bombastic student, the professor calmly retorted. 'Wait a minute. Hold on. What's this you say about being fair, right, and just? Didn't your paper argue that it's all a matter of taste? You like chocolate, I like vanilla?'
"The student replied, 'Yes, that's my view.'
"The professor responded, 'Fine, then. I don't like blue. You get an F!'
"Suddenly the light bulb went on in the student's head as he finally got the message. He really did believe in moral absolutes: at least he believed in fairness, rightness, and justice. He realized that he was charging his professor with injustice by appealing to an objective standard of justice. That simple fact defeated his entire case for relativism." (Chapter 7: Mother Theresa Versus Hitler)

4. God is a loving, personal God who will reach out to those who genuinely seek him.

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: (Acts 17:26-27)

I knew that God existed because I saw the evidence for God in his creation and knew that objective morality existed however my image of God was that of an impersonal deity who created the universe and sat back. However I became a Christian when I was 18 after I encountered the Holy Spirit when I was praying. "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44) I know that no amount of evidence can draw someone to God, only the Spirit can. If the Spirit is drawing you, feel free to contact me by private message.
http://www.cru.org/how-to-know-god/woul ... nally.html
http://christiananswers.net/godstory/jesus1.html

MBPrata wrote:

Let's see...an unintelligent being who created the universe and the laws of physics...that would be like saying an unintelligent person created the most complicated computer. Maybe an unintelligent person just randomly created the most complicated computer?

You seem to be able to think outside of the box (since you said "complicated", not "intelligent" computer). That's good.

So, keeping ourselves in thoughts outside of the box, I would say: is it really that complicated? Isn't everything that happens in the universe just a consequence of those "constant" laws (gravity, electromagnetics and nuclear forces)? 4 or 5 laws in effect doesn't seem that complicated, if you ask me...

By the way, I'm not being rethorical; I'm actually asking, because I never understood christian's views on this...is it really that complicated?