Evidence for God from Science

MBPrata wrote:

Saying God was disappointed, if meant literally, would undermine aseity.

First of all, if the Bible isn't to be taken literally, everything in the book can be interpreted in several ways, so we know nothing about God or His morality. Second...if God, as you said, doesn't have feelings, wouldn't that mean He's unsensitive? And if that's the case, how can He love us? Or anything, for that matter?

Some is literal. Some isn't. Depends on the context. This is just a couple of examples:
Psalm 18:31:
31 For who is God save the Lord? or who is a rock save our God?
God is not literally a rock.

John 10:9
9 I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
Jesus is not literally a door.

God is love. That's why He loves us.

Jesus is not literally a door.

Well, maybe you're right. But isn't it kind of dangerous talking to humans in metaphors? I mean, metaphors are cool in general, but hey can be misinterpreted, so...dangerous? I mean, Timon failed to understand Rafiki's metaphor because Rafiki didn't realize Timon couldn't understand metaphors. And Timon could have lost his health due to that...

By the way...isn't love a feeling?

MBPrata wrote:

Saying God was disappointed, if meant literally, would undermine aseity.

First of all, if the Bible isn't to be taken literally, everything in the book can be interpreted in several ways, so we know nothing about God or His morality. Second...if God, as you said, doesn't have feelings, wouldn't that mean He's unsensitive? And if that's the case, how can He love us? Or anything, for that matter?

God is pure act and never reacts.
That doesn't mean He is deviod of emotions as we understand them. He is not a stone-cold, impassive deity.
God doesn't experience emotion that comes and goes, like we do. He doesn't have bad days and good days.
God is constant in His love, goodness, wrath and mercy.
Unchangeable. Not dependant on any outside forces. He does love us, is angry at sin, is merciful to sinners but He is all these things in fullness and unchangeableness.

God doesn't experience emotion that comes and goes, like we do

Well, I hope so, since that's the only way eternal, absolute happiness is possible. But...doesn't that mean that God is always "feeling" the anger He has as a constant?

MBPrata wrote:

Jesus is not literally a door.

Well, maybe you're right. But isn't it kind of dangerous talking to humans in metaphors? I mean, metaphors are cool in general, but hey can be misinterpreted, so...dangerous? I mean, Timon failed to understand Rafiki's metaphor because Rafiki didn't realize Timon couldn't understand metaphors. And Timon could have lost his health due to that...

By the way...isn't love a feeling?

That's actually a perfect example of what I'm trying to say. Your Lion King example is an example of anthropomorphism. When humans attribute human characteristics to something not human. Such as animals or God.

And yes, love can be a feeling. But love in its perfectness is God. In other words, God is love.

MBPrata wrote:

God doesn't experience emotion that comes and goes, like we do

Well, I hope so, since that's the only way eternal, absolute happiness is possible. But...doesn't that mean that God is always "feeling" the anger He has as a constant?

No He is not 'feeling' it. Not in the way you interpret.
God is love. First and foremost. Not the feeling of love. The embodiment of it.
Everything that stems from such perfect love is not in contrast to it.
Gods righteous aversion to sin, lies in the sin itself.
It of the highest love to steer correction, to lead His children towards righteousness.
As a parent it is out of love that I punish my children, never to hurt them but to guide them. A child might see it as anger but it all boils down to love.
Any such anger as we percieve it, stems from perfect love.

That's actually a perfect example of what I'm trying to say. Your Lion King example is an example of anthropomorphism. When humans attribute human characteristics to something not human. Such as animals or God.

I don't think you got the point. I was asking whether or not it's dangerous to "talk" to humans in metaphors.

But love in its perfectness is God. In other words, God is love.

Love in its perfectness includes a huge amount of wrath? What gives? Also, doesn't this very website state that love is not angry? (http://www.godandscience.org/love/what_is_love.html)

MBPrata wrote:

That's actually a perfect example of what I'm trying to say. Your Lion King example is an example of anthropomorphism. When humans attribute human characteristics to something not human. Such as animals or God.

I don't think you got the point. I was asking whether or not it's dangerous to "talk" to humans in metaphors.

But love in its perfectness is God. In other words, God is love.

Love in its perfectness includes a huge amount of wrath? What gives? Also, doesn't this very website state that love is not angry? (http://www.godandscience.org/love/what_is_love.html)

We see contradictions in nature all the time, light being a wave/particle duality, quantum computers and superposition ( a bit being 1 and 0 at the same time), we currently don't understand how they all work together and we can same the same of God's character, there are contradictory idea's but we know they are true (trinity is a good example). A good analogy is that you are looking at a coin, it has two distinct sides but you can only fully see one side at a time, you can catch glimpses of both sides as you rotate it but you can never see fully both at once, for that we would require a mirror and the mirror would give us complete understanding, as yet we do not have that mirror, that completeness may not come until we meet our creator face to face. Hope that gives you some understanding, basically it is divine mystery, maybe someone else has a better answer but that's how I see it.

Nice line of thought. The problem is that not only do contradictions draw people away from God, but also the answer "divine mistery" is a pretty unsatisfying one. Now, I'm not saying every answer to questions on God should be 100% satisfying (although we might appreciate that...), but...if God is omniscient, most of us could use some answers to every question we might pose. Now, of course it's nearly impossible to answer every question a human might pose, but the lack of an answer to major issues (not lesser; major!) seems kind of "convenient". "Convenient" is a word people use a lot when explaining why they think religion is a lie, and it sort of seems convenient that some answers to major questions are missing in the Bible (e.g. at what age do we stop being "children" and are considered fully capable of discerning between good and evil?)

MBPrata wrote:Nice line of thought. The problem is that not only do contradictions draw people away from God, but also the answer "divine mistery" is a pretty unsatisfying one. Now, I'm not saying every answer to questions on God should be 100% satisfying (although we might appreciate that...), but...if God is omniscient, most of us could use some answers to every question we might pose. Now, of course it's nearly impossible to answer every question a human might pose, but the lack of an answer to major issues (not lesser; major!) seems kind of "convenient". "Convenient" is a word people use a lot when explaining why they think religion is a lie, and it sort of seems convenient that some answers to major questions are missing in the Bible (e.g. at what age do we stop being "children" and are considered fully capable of discerning between good and evil?)

This is why faith is a requisite.

How can the finite mind possibly understand the infinite, it is just plain arrogance to say such. You can call it "convenient" and reject religion on that basis but I would not say that is rational, it is more of an emotional response.

This is why faith is a requisite.

Faith as a way to believe despite the lack of answers...hm, I guess that could work. Unless, of course, people can't even reach faith because of the lack of answers. That's sort of how I feel.

You can call it "convenient" and reject religion on that basis but I would not say that is rational, it is more of an emotional response.

It might be in some cases, but...is it? Most people I know who believe the Bible is the biggest lie ever told and kept alive have a "list" of conveniences that actually makes them not believe in the Bible. Also, most of their arguments make a lot of sense, so I wouldn't say it's not rational. Most of them are pretty rational people (sometimes, even too much, if you ask me...).

MBPrata wrote:

This is why faith is a requisite.

Faith as a way to believe despite the lack of answers...hm, I guess that could work. Unless, of course, people can't even reach faith because of the lack of answers. That's sort of how I feel.

You can call it "convenient" and reject religion on that basis but I would not say that is rational, it is more of an emotional response.

It might be in some cases, but...is it? Most people I know who believe the Bible is the biggest lie ever told and kept alive have a "list" of conveniences that actually makes them not believe in the Bible. Also, most of their arguments make a lot of sense, so I wouldn't say it's not rational. Most of them are pretty rational people (sometimes, even too much, if you ask me...).

Faith is NOT believing despite the lack of answers.
Faith:
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Sure, for some, faith may be blind, BUT that is not the faith that God requires from us.
Our Faith is based ON and IN God because we trust Him.

MBPrata wrote:Faith as a way to believe despite the lack of answers...hm, I guess that could work. Unless, of course, people can't even reach faith because of the lack of answers. That's sort of how I feel.

What Paul said, he said it well enough.

It might be in some cases, but...is it? Most people I know who believe the Bible is the biggest lie ever told and kept alive have a "list" of conveniences that actually makes them not believe in the Bible. Also, most of their arguments make a lot of sense, so I wouldn't say it's not rational. Most of them are pretty rational people (sometimes, even too much, if you ask me...).

So tell me this, why don't these same people reject science on the same grounds, a photon is both a wave and a particle, just because we don't understand everything about something does not mean we should immediately reject all of it. The Bible has some really strong evidence for it's authenticity just like science has strong evidence for it's claims, both science and the Bible do have areas that we argue over as we don't quite understand it all yet, so instead of weighting every single claim on it's merits they reject the whole based on what is either their faulty assumptions and misunderstandings or simply reject it on the ground of not being able to understand parts of it, this is called throwing the baby out with the bath water, it is just not rational and is faulty reasoning. I will continue to believe that science is correct even though some parts seem contradictory, we may understand them in the future just in the same way that we may understand everything about God one day, so neither do I reject the Bible for the parts that I may not understand yet.

Sure, for some, faith may be blind, BUT that is not the faith that God requires from us.

I know; mr. Deem even said once something like "God expects us to base our faith on knowledge" or something. It still feels way unfair that God saves a limited person whose faith is based on nothing while condemning, say, a scientist who spent his whole life studying, found tons of scientific data and has a logical, fully-justified disbelief because of the data he had access to. But then again, we've said before that God is not fair, so...never mind.

why don't these same people reject science on the same grounds, a photon is both a wave and a particle

For the same reason some religious people believe in something contradictory; they simply believe it. The have faith, so to speak. Their mind/soul/whatever tells them "yeah, this makes sense for me, so I believe in this despite its contradictions!". Also, to a certain extent, eveything is contradictory. In so being, can we blame anyone for believing OR not believing in something contradictory?

The Bible has some really strong evidence for it's authenticity

And there are also some really strong evidence against its authenticity. It has always been thus. I think the world sort of works like the third Newton law: for every evidence for something, there is evidence against that something. I think, at least...

MB wrote:
And there are also some really strong evidence against its authenticity. It has always been thus. I think the world sort of works like the third Newton law: for every evidence for something, there is evidence against that something. I think, at least...

Care to back that up by showing the evidence?