Evidence for God from Science

David Turell wrote: I am new to this site and I hope you don't mind a visitor who is Jewish and who has proven to himself that the last 150 years of science prove God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, by the method of Mortimer J. Adler. Some of the confusion I have seen in the current discussion can be helped by reading Genesis and the Big Bang, by Gerald Schroeder, also his subsequest book, the Science of God, and a new translation of Genesis by Judah Landa entitled, In the Beginning Of. In the 13th Century, the Kabbalist Nahmanides derived a perfect description of the Big Bang from the first 6 verses of Genesis. Part of everyones' confusion is the little recognized fact that the original Hebrew vocabulary of the Five Books contained less than 3,000 base words, with prefixes and suffixes making up a total number of words less than 10,000. Words therefore had many meanings depending on the context. Yom does mean a day, but it actually can be used for any interval of time, and the proper view should recognize it measn the seven eons of God's time.
I hope I have not done anyting incorrect by offering my viewpoint.

Oh, welcome to the forum, your viewpoint is greatly accepted! I hope we all can elaborate more on it.

Hi David,

Welcome to the board, and don't worry—you're more than welcome to participate. Just as long as the discussions don't degenerate into a Jewish vs. Christian onslaught (which doesn't appear to be your purpose anyway) . Though we have different beliefs, we still have very much in common in appreciating the Tanakh.

I've seen Schroeder's model mentioned several times throughout discussions. I guess it is picking up a fair bit of popularity, and it certainly is interesting although I don't personally gravitate towards it. For anyone further interested, Schroder's model can be read about at http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html, and was also briefly discussed at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... c&start=30 (scroll down to Lurker's post, and the ones thereafter).

David wrote:Yom does mean a day, but it actually can be used for any interval of time, and the proper view should recognize it measn the seven eons of God's time.

Sadly many young-earth creationists are very influential when they wrongly portray that yom can and should only be understood as a 24-hour day. It refreshing to have someone Jewish pointing out that yom in the Genesis creation account can also mean eons.

Kurieuo.

Your guys need to read revelation 21:22-23


22I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

it is clear at creation there was god, and god was and is the light.

Why couldn't the dark in Gen 1 simply be matter itself. The way I understand it is that matter is only slowed down light{fallen light?] anyway, so when He seperated the light from the dark He simply pulled the dark out of the light. The basic concept is used more than once in religious thought.

Kurieuo: Thanks for accepting me on board. My interest in reconciling Genesis and science comes from my own studies in order to finally decide if I should remain agnostic or return to faith in God by studying the 'facts' presented by science. Those scientific findings logically demand a return to belief. Using accurate translations of the original Hebrew is a key issue. Schroeder is a biblical scholar as well as a theoretical physicist. I have heard him speak, and have talked with him personally. He is an Orthodox Jew and had his own needs to reconcile Genesis and Cosmology. One needs to read his two books I mentioned to fully understand his approach. Based on his work and the translation I have seen in the book 'In the Beginning Of' by Judah Landa, the KJV and other versions are not adequate or accurate enough to do the reconciliation I mentioned. If Nahmanides could find a description of the Big Bang in the 13th Century the proper tranlation is there, if somewhat hidden. I wish I could understand original Hebrew, but I can find experts. The other area I have examined is Darwinian evolution and Neo-Darwinism. I am thoroughly convinced that Intelligent Design advocates are on the right track. Darwin is full of holes. DNA is coded with a drive to complexity between the genes. The information in DNA is so complex, it had to be placed there 'in the beginning'. And the final area that convinced me to return to faith is the origin of life problem. The most simple living single cell is so complex there is no way it could have popped up naturally by chance from inorganic matter. I am a retired physician; I understand the biochemistry. I may not fully understand the mathematical calculations of probabilities, but again, I can find experts who have written on the subject, and their results are reasonably acceptable. Science may not want to accept the supernatural, but their results drive the conclusion that the universe has been created, and the development of humans (as well as other species) has been guided from the moment of creation, 13.7 billion years ago. I think this review of what I have been studying explains my approach.

Deborah wrote:Your guys need to read revelation 21:22-23


22I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

it is clear at creation there was god, and god was and is the light.

God was present at creation. But the light came from the sun it always has and until the sun is gone it always will. Without the sun everything would have frozen, if you look at the account there were living things in "day" 3 and they would have had no way to keep warm. Plus the phrase in "day" 4 means "made visible" not create. I wish the YEC crowd could see the difference

YEC?? what does that have to do with my post ?
I AM NOT YEC!
tell me my statement is incorrect.
It's in scripture, how can it be incorrect.

Creation was for the glory of god just as New Jerusalem will be.

In new Jerusalem there will also be no sun to keep us warm.
But we will have the warmth of god.

What your saying is that god had inplace a huge operating blueprint, say to speak. I belive that could be possable, but that is not in scripture the way I understand them. But hat is not surprising since I am still just a baby Christian or disiple intraining

It was John Lightfoot, not Usher who came up with the 4004 bc date.

Its not fair to compare the new Jerusalem with the creation account. Remember there was sin in the world, but there won't be later. Also there was a beginning of creation but there will be no end when we reign with Christ. The sun was created on day 1 not on day 4, the Hebrew demands it. So does common sense.

waynes world wrote:Its not fair to compare the new Jerusalem with the creation account. Remember there was sin in the world, but there won't be later. Also there was a beginning of creation but there will be no end when we reign with Christ. The sun was created on day 1 not on day 4, the Hebrew demands it. So does common sense.

There was not sin in the world with creation, neither will there be later *sigh*
What is this fair rubbish?
your saying something simply that is not in day one scripture as I understand it.
the fact your talking about beginning and no end.
well that is god and since god is light what is the problem.
What is clear is creation is beyond our understanding.
I see no scriptural evidence that the sun or moon existed on the first day.


What your talking about is like a working blue print, and I have no problem with that, but there is no scriptural evidence for it as I can see.

waynes world wrote:The sun was created on day 1 not on day 4, the Hebrew demands it. So does common sense.

Wayne, your are entitled to your views as is Deborah, yet there is no need to be derogatory towards those with a differing perspective. It would be appreciated if you could please change your tone to one more respectful, or simply refrain from posting if this isn't possible.

David wrote:My interest in reconciling Genesis and science comes from my own studies in order to finally decide if I should remain agnostic or return to faith in God by studying the 'facts' presented by science. Those scientific findings logically demand a return to belief. Using accurate translations of the original Hebrew is a key issue. Schroeder is a biblical scholar as well as a theoretical physicist.

I'm wondering, have you looked into the 'Day-Age' (aka 'Progressive Creation') position at all? If not, you might be interested to read some of the following articles: The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account and Progressive Creation: An Overview. Some books I'd also recommend if further interested (they are by Christians, but nonetheless would still be applicable to those seeking to reconcile the Genesis creation with modern science), would be The Genesis Question or The Genesis Debate (the latter which examines three different positions regarding the Genesis creation). I found much to be drawn from Hugh Ross' (a physicist and astronomer) The Genesis Question, which is perhaps similar to that of Schroder, although it isn't as restrictive regarding the times for eras. You could probably also find some interesting things at the website http://www.reasons.org/ regarding much of cosmology and so forth.

David wrote:If Nahmanides could find a description of the Big Bang in the 13th Century the proper tranlation is there, if somewhat hidden. I wish I could understand original Hebrew, but I can find experts.

I'm actually learning Hebrew at the moment as I think it would also be good trying to understand the origianl Hebrew. There are many great resources though, such as e-Sword which one can download and view dictionaries for the original words and so forth—very helpful. With regards to the 'big bang' there are actually some passages in Scripture describing the heavens being stretched out (which is exactly what the 'big bang' theory describes). Although some may not be convinced of such passages, you might be interested in reading over the article, Big Bang - The Bible Taught It First!.

David wrote:The other area I have examined is Darwinian evolution and Neo-Darwinism. I am thoroughly convinced that Intelligent Design advocates are on the right track. Darwin is full of holes. DNA is coded with a drive to complexity between the genes. The information in DNA is so complex, it had to be placed there 'in the beginning'.

I'd agree. Another way to look at the design argument, is that rather than looking at specific aspects found within our universe (i.e., such as biology, biochemistry, etc), it could also be asked why the universe displays such uniformity and stability within the laws that govern it. Presumably the laws that govern our universe (or multiple universes if one prefers) could have been otherwise. Paul Davies, a naturalist philosopher with definately no motivation towards Theism, especially thinks there something significant to the uniformity of laws which govern the physical universe (or unverses if you believe that). He goes into much more detail in chapter 8 of his book, The Mind of God.

David wrote:And the final area that convinced me to return to faith is the origin of life problem. The most simple living single cell is so complex there is no way it could have popped up naturally by chance from inorganic matter. I am a retired physician; I understand the biochemistry. I may not fully understand the mathematical calculations of probabilities, but again, I can find experts who have written on the subject, and their results are reasonably acceptable.

This problem I also think is often glimmed over, but I think it is one many are beginning to take more seriously. Paul Davies (again), examined the origin of life problem several years ago. He writes in his book, The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life:

• When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origins… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.

I think many think like Davies did when he set out to write his book. That is, they think scientists pretty much have a handle on the origin of life issue, or that it is largely solved. Yet, the fact remains that this issue remains a big problem for Naturalists, and if I may recommend another book (sorry about all these resources, but this one is also good! ), I'd recommend getting hold of Origins of Life which highlights just how the problems for naturalisitic origin of life solutions just keep going from worse to worse. Perhaps this widening problem is evidence of a "true" gap in a naturalistic explanation? If a natural explanation were possible, wouldn't it be reasonable to think the gap in our knowledge would be becoming smaller and smaller? At least that is what I think.

Anyway, when reading over your post, I just thought I'd reply to present some resources I thought you might be interested to take a look at if you haven't already. It wasn't my intention to recommend so many though...

Kurieuo.

I wasn't trying to be derogatory and I'm sorry if I came across that way. But I believe God gave us common sense and we should rely on that and not everything someone has written. I said that because some I have dealt with insist that my view that the sun was created in Genesis 1:1 was a sellout. Respect should work both ways, not just from me.

Davies is a wonderful example of a scientist who stopped to look at scientific findings and began to wonder. He is a theoretical quantum gravity researcher from Australia. As I have followed his books he has gone from atheistic or perhaps agnostic to a Deist in the purest sense. He feels the the universe and life were patterned into the creation from the beginning. I have a quote somewhere from him that he isn't ready to accept a God who could not set things up from the beginning and still has to step in now and then to make corrections. Can some one tell me how to pull out comments into those neat white boxes so I can respond better? Thanks for any help you can give. I'm not the greatest computer operator around. David

David Turell wrote:Davies is a wonderful example of a scientist who stopped to look at scientific findings and began to wonder. He is a theoretical quantum gravity researcher from Australia. As I have followed his books he has gone from atheistic or perhaps agnostic to a Deist in the purest sense. He feels the the universe and life were patterned into the creation from the beginning. I have a quote somewhere from him that he isn't ready to accept a God who could not set things up from the beginning and still has to step in now and then to make corrections. Can some one tell me how to pull out comments into those neat white boxes so I can respond better? Thanks for any help you can give. I'm not the greatest computer operator around. David

You can use {quote="David Turell"} then end the quote {/quote}. Of course you have to change the Brackets above to Square brackets.

waynes world wrote:I wasn't trying to be derogatory and I'm sorry if I came across that way. But I believe God gave us common sense and we should rely on that and not everything someone has written. I said that because some I have dealt with insist that my view that the sun was created in Genesis 1:1 was a sellout. Respect should work both ways, not just from me.

I have never been anything but respectful on this board.

and for the record I never said or inferred that what you believe happened in gen 1:1 was a sellout, I said to my understanding you would be talking something of a working blue print, I also said I have no problem with that, it very well might be, but can find no scriptural evidence for it.
What we are talking here is theology. All we can do is theorise until we can ask the LORD God face to face.