Evidence for God from Science

Seraph wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:29 pm

Stu wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:12 am I think a lot of backslidden Christians, or even those who have since rejected the faith, will get a huge wake up call when the cataclysmic events of the tribulation and end days like the mark and so forth start unfolding.
There will be those who are fooled by the deceptions (fake Aliens, etc.) that are to come, as the Bible says as much, but for many with just a little knowledge of Daniel, prophecy and the New Testament, it will be clear that the Bible is true and that there will be a choice to be made between the Anti-Christ and Jesus.

I think this link speaks for itself:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predict ... ond_Coming

Do you think it would be just for God to torment and kill people for not believing in an unsupported claim?

Unsupported claim? What are you talking about?

Seraph wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:25 pm

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:17 pm Seraph, now I remember interacting with you a long while back.

So, what caused you to drop your Christian beliefs?

A combination of many things, the main ones being
1. Genesis is scientifically absurd and could not have happened literally, given the evidence available. Biological evolution and abiogenesis have a mountain of evidence in their favor while the Genesis story not only lacks evidence in its favor but also has evidence against it being true.

2. Christian theology not making philosophical sense if God is all knowing and all powerful. Free will or not, God would have known before ever making the universe how things would play out, dependent on how he did things. Yet Christianity says we live in a fallen world and are in need of Gods forgiveness, despite God being in total control over everything that happens and having perfect foresight. The idea of penal substitution also does not make sense and essentially presumes that God acts according to adherence to a form of blood magic and scapegoating. It is not just not sensible to punish an innocent person and consider the guilty person to be absolved. On top of this, the common Christian interpretation of the Bible is that this punishment is eternal torment, which I do not think a single living thing deserves.

3. At some point I realized that the reason Christianity was the religious system I was exposed to, and thus raised in, is because it just so happened to be the dominant religion in the time and place I was born. However countless other belief systems have existed throughout history and exist today which I could have just as easily been born into.

A mountain of evidence???

Is there ANY evidence for abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis evidences? You mean evidences that would still require miracles, just not ones of an Intelligent Creator!

Read this assessment of abiogenesis here, in Reasons.org's "Evolution as Myth" Series (Part Three): https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... biogenesis

You can also start at the beginning and read parts 1, 2, 4 and 5 here:

Part One: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... is-a-myth-

Part Two: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... ic-theory-

Part Four: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... oevolution

Part Five: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... conclusion

Philip wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 11:05 am Abiogenesis evidences? You mean evidences that would still require miracles, just not ones of an Intelligent Creator!

Read this assessment of abiogenesis here, in Reasons.org's "Evolution as Myth" Series (Part Three): https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... biogenesis

You can also start at the beginning and read parts 1, 2, 4 and 5 here:

Part One: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... is-a-myth-

Part Two: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... ic-theory-

Part Four: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... oevolution

Part Five: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... conclusion

Right off the bat the site is not exactly non-biased, it explicitly has the mission of converting people to Christianity so right there it’s integrity as a scientific source is completely compromised. But a question I have from reading that article (and I remember reading many virtually identical ones written by Rich Deem of this very website over a decade ago): How is it possible to calculate the “chances” of abiogenesis happening when we don’t know the size of the universe or just how many stars and planets there are in it? Even if the chances of life forming naturally in any given planet are 100 trillion to 1, there are over a septillion stars in the visible universe alone, which would mean it would be virtually guaranteed that life would pop up somewhere. And for all cosmologists know our universe outside of the cosmological horizon is infinitely large, many cosmologists do in fact believe this to be the case. If that’s the case then abiogenesis is gaurenteed to occur as long as it is not absolutely impossible for it to happen, and it’s definitely not impossible given that biologists have many theories on how it *could* have happened.

But abiogenesis is a side detail, I’m still a theist anyway so abiogenesis being impossible would not in any way lend credibility to the truth of genesis. Genesis has the order of events completely wrong from the scientific consensus of things. The sun is older than the earth since planets form shortly after their parent stars do, yet Genesis says that the sun and stars were created on day 4. I could also go into detail about the firmament and how the Jewish word for sky in Genesis (raqiya) implies a solid object, hence why Genesis has been historically predominantly understood as teaching the existence of a solid dome shaped firmament being in the sky. In the end, Genesis reads the exact same way as you’d expect from any other religion’s mythological creation story that would’ve emerged from the time period.

Seraph: Right off the bat the site is not exactly non-biased, it explicitly has the mission of converting people to Christianity so right there it’s integrity as a scientific source is completely compromised.

That statement is a classic Genetic Fallacy, as it asserts a truth is validated or not, only based upon its source of origin, rather than that of its content.

[url]Seraph: ... abiogenesis is guaranteed to occur as long as it is not absolutely impossible for it to happen, and it’s definitely not impossible given that biologists have many theories on how it *could* have happened.[/url]

The truth of a thing is NOT based upon the number of unproven THEORIES and their related conjectures and speculations - that's not how scientific facts are established!

Seraph: Genesis has the order of events completely wrong from the scientific consensus of things. The sun is older than the earth since planets form shortly after their parent stars do, yet Genesis says that the sun and stars were created on day 4.

And that's because you think Genesis, written for pre-scientific age peoples, should have been written like a modern-day science textbook. It's purpose was to establish the WHY of many things, and the context and viewpoints matters tremendously. In Genesis 1:1, we're already told that, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." So, they already exist! In fact, Genesis 1:3 further states concerning the FIRST day, "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." So, what light might God have created that allowed day and night to exist? The sun! And the early (rotating( earth and moon existed as well.

Further, the viewpoint of the sequence, that includes the 4th day, is from the EARTH - and the sequence amazingly and correctly understood follows the science of it as well! Don't believe it - what does this astrophysicist say about it? https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/today ... tion-day-4

Also, per the 4th day, the team of scholars that wrote the footnotes for the ESV study Bible notes: "The term made (Hebrew / "asah") need only mean that God "fashioned" or "worked on" them; it does NOT of itself imply that they did not exist in any form before this. Rather, the focus here is on the way of which God has ordained the sun and moon to order and define the passing of time according to His purposes." And this assertion is from some of the most highly qualified Hebrew scholars on the planet!

Philip wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:42 pm I wouldn't think anyone who buys into Universalism also believes in Hell. Nor would they seem to take Jesus' warnings about it seriously. Course, when one feels free to pick and choose whatever theological beliefs they want, like picking their favorite flavor of ice cream - well, they'll not let inconvenient passages in Scripture about Hell stop them.

Having to do likes like this now?

*Like*

So, Nessa, do you ever run across people who believe in universalism? I don't.

Most I see go off track in wrongly believing that people are saved as long as they are "reasonably" good and not evil. But even these don't tend to believe EVERYONE is saved. What, do universalists think monsters like Hitler and Stalin will be saved? And WHY do they believe either of these? Certainly not because they have studied Scripture - it's only because they believe whatever it is they want to, about any given thing. Others have the equally false belief that all religions are basically teaching us about the same God and that in following such beliefs they will go to heaven.

Phillip you’ve completely ignored everything I’ve said in regards to arguments in the Bible for universalism haven’t you? All you’ve done is throw a link at me that you didn’t seem to even read yourself. Universalists have plenty of scriptural evidence for their views, some of which were provided in the link I responded with previously, which you evidently did not read. You simply assume that your face value interpretation of your particular modern day translation of the Bible equates to “scripture” and the will of God.

Search for universalist groups online, especially Reddit. They’re pretty plentiful in number. It’s not as much of a fringe minority as you seem to think. And they do in fact say that everyone is saved, including Stalin and Hitler (though in the case of those two, I imagine they’d say that their salvation will be delayed quite enormously, but even they are not worthy of literal eternal conscious suffering and I would agree. Universalists tend to believe that redemption for any dinner is a good thing. Sort of like Jesus supposedly taught in the gospels.

Seraph, I ignored them as you're saying nothing new and I have zero interest in chasing your rabbit trails of universalism. I know well their range of beliefs / schools of thought - and they are clearly refuted by many Scriptures. And the only way one can still believe them is to ignore the plain meanings by asserting they mean something different, or that the translations are bad, or that the Scriptures have been changed from the originals. Search the site - you'll find these things thoroughly discussed, over the years.

I don’t believe you, quite simply.

But maybe you’re right. Maybe your modern day translation of the most recent form of the Bible canon does indeed form a picture of eternal torment prescribed by God for those who die in a state of not believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Now if you could just show that your modern translation (there have many throughout history with different conclusions which can be drawn from them) of that particular version of the Bible canon (there currently exist several) has been inspired by the Holy Spirit, and also that the many many other collections of texts like the Vedas and Tao Te Ching which also claim some form of divine inspiration are false, I will become an eternal torment believing Christian Right here and now. Otherwise I don’t see why anyone who doesn’t already believe based on other reasons should believe anything you say.

Seraph, I've been looking deeply into these issues longer than you've even been alive. I doubt anything I could show you would convince you otherwise, as you've clearly already made up your mind what it is you wish to believe. But you're free to ponder the many posts across the site about these issues. Ultimately, everyone has to decide for themselves. But if classical Christian teachings and understandings about Christ and His Apostle's statements about Hell are correct, then you're in a lot of trouble and what you believe is a HUGE deal. But if universalism is true, then ultimately, it doesn't really matter so much. But for all to eventually come to faith / salvation when so many hate God / avoid Him at all costs, that are following all manner of evils - God would have to force such people to change and love Him, after death. But forced love is not true love - it's the one thing God will not do, and it's also one reason why He has given all a choice - but His choices are but two (to embrace or reject Him), with each tied to specific eternal results. BTW, I don't like the idea of hell one bit. But I am not the One calling the shots - God is. And so no matter how I or anyone else FEELS or thinks about how He has chosen to deal with those who permanently reject Him, it won't change how He actually implements His desires for them.

The vast majority of Universalists do indeed believe in a hell, they are called “Purgatorial Universalists”. They do not ignore scriptures about hell but believe it is a temporary purging hell for the reasons I mentioned in the OP.

amsterdunkz wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 6:55 am The vast majority of Universalists do indeed believe in a hell, they are called “Purgatorial Universalists”. They do not ignore scriptures about hell but believe it is a temporary purging hell for the reasons I mentioned in the OP.

Hello, Amsterdunkz and welcome to the GodandScience.org forum!

Purgatory is unBiblical belief. And even if it were theologically correct, it would still be a place where people are denied Heaven, until whatever changes their situation. But if such supposed purgatory were ETERNAL - this would mean people stuck there will NEVER be in the presence of the Lord - which means they would FOREVER be UNsaved, in some supposed everlasting spiritual limbo. The term "universalism" has always referred to the belief that EVERYONE will eventually be saved, and thus with the Lord. So, the term "Purgatorial Universalism" would be a theological oxymoron, not to mention theologically skewed.

I do engage with Baha’i, Muslims, and atheists on other on other platforms in fact, some ideologies of which I find more grotesque than others. Much of my criticism of Islam in particular overlaps with fundamentalist Christianity since they’re perhaps the only religions which teach eternal damnation of some sort on the basis of belief or lack thereof. But I do have a genuine interest in some forms of Christianity, I’m not here just to antagonize and attack it out of some petty obsession.
indigo card
jjsploit.click

Amsterdunkz: Much of my criticism of Islam in particular overlaps with fundamentalist Christianity since they’re perhaps the only religions which teach eternal damnation

So, what do you call a "fundamentalist?" Because, technically, any Christian who takes the Bible to be God's inspired Scriptures could be so catergorized. Although, a modern, popular understanding of the term would be a person who is hypocritically judgemental and highly legalistic - which is are unBiblical teachings.

Whatever one believe the Bible means by eternal damnation - and there are a range of opinions over whether they are punished eternally, or whether they are punished for there sins and then they cease to exist - the one commonality is a Bible-based teaching that, while God has offered ALL salvation - if they repent / commit themselves to following Him as their Lord - those who die unsaved will never enter into the presence of God and Heaven, and will be punished for their sins. Those who opposed this belief are thus making up their own belief per what they want to believe as opposed to what the Bible actually teaches.

Amsterdunkz: But I do have a genuine interest in some forms of Christianity, I’m not here just to antagonize and attack it out of some petty obsession.

There is only ONE form of Christianity - which is Bible-based. The rest are people adding to the Bible's teachings with man-made stuff - like the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, whatever cults.