Evidence for God from Science

Oh shoot. I just spent probably two hours on an answer to DR's last post, and because I hadn't been logged in, I lost it all! I'll try to recreate it.

Religious people use God to fill in the gaps of their understanding...how do we know that Science will not have an answer in the future?

Hmmm, sounds like we have a contradiction here! It seems as if you use evolution to fill in the gaps in your own understanding, right? All too many scientists do too, and based on bias against the concept of a Creator. If the research declares that life could not have arisen on Earth through naturalistic processes, then why not just admit it? If nature could not have created it, then something supernatural did. This is the answer the scientific process requires. The same goes for a zillion other biased assumptions that evolutionists make that even go squarely against the facts. Darwinian evolution has turned out to be the theory needing blind faith, not intelligent design! If you don't have proof, don't believe it! That's what you say, and that's what I say. Same goes for believing in a religion. Real and unquestionable proof is absolutely needed, not Ripley's Believe It or Not where statues cry blood. Otherwise, we might as well believe toilet paper was instigated by aleins for our destruction! And look at the mess that would get us in!

Ok Darwin, let me give you a simple answer to your question.
In the OT, the Jews heard God speaking to Moses. It's why they believed what Moses said and had such great fear for God. I can provide the verses as well. It's also why the Jews for the most part removed their Pagan Religion more than 1500 years before anyone else.

The belief in YHWH isn't based on blind faith, skeptics are just ignorant.

For what it's worth, since this is a God and Science (or bible and science) board, I am in the process of reading two very interesting books (interesting to me, anyway).

The first one is "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies. Davies is a professor of mathematical physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia. The second book is called "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder. He has undergraduate and doctoral degrees from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and is an applied theologian (he is Jewish).

After reading "The Hidden Face of God" by Schroeder (mostly a biology book), I was interested in other books of the same genre. I like reading books by people who are purely scientific and do not go against what evidence there is. Yet both of these men are "believers" ... Schroeder ties alot of his science with Old Testament texts which can be interesting sometimes and and at the very least, I think Davies believes in an "Intellegence" that created all things. I haven't got into his book yet. Maybe when I am finished I will post more on what these books have to say.

It seems as if you use evolution to fill in the gaps in your own understanding, right? All too many scientists do too, and based on bias against the concept of a Creator. If the research declares that life could not have arisen on Earth through naturalistic processes, then why not just admit it?

I dont use evolution to fill the gaps in understanding. I understand that there are some thinhgs that science can not yet explain. However this is not to say that one day we won't be able to explain them.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

There is no absolute proof for Evolution however that is not to say that one day we will not have this absolute proof. I subscribe to Occams razor, that is the simplest explanation (Evolution) is probably the right one.

Why is evolution the simplest answer? Can you see evolution? Actually you can only know evolution in the same way we know God, belief and study. The difference is that God responds.
Also in answer to your question about why doesn't God love everyone equally, when was the last time he refused to feed you, has he turned off the power lately? You wouldn't feed a bunch of ungrateful, arrogant relatives or friends for very long, why should He? The answer is because He loves you.

Darwin_Rocks wrote:There is no absolute proof for Evolution however that is not to say that one day we will not have this absolute proof. I subscribe to Occams razor, that is the simplest explanation (Evolution) is probably the right one.

That's strange. In my own experiences many Evolutionists tend to say the invoking God is the simplest explanation. Then again they usually don't really understand what Ockham meant by simplest explanations, which are accounts that refrain from introducing new kinds of entities or processes. So I would agree with you that Evolution may indeed be the simplest explanation. However, there appear to be problems that Evolution cannot explain or account for, and given no macroevolutionary mechanism is clearly known, Evolution doesn't seem to explain much at all. It additionally also hasn't got a very strong foundation to work from with the origin of life remaining a sticking problem. Therefore the real debate is not about the simplest explanation and Ockham's razor, but rather the explanatory power and relative merits of Evolutionary (macro) models versus Intelligent Design models.

Kurieuo.

Darwin_Rocks wrote:There is no absolute proof for Evolution however that is not to say that one day we will not have this absolute proof. I subscribe to Occams razor, that is the simplest explanation (Evolution) is probably the right one.

They were saying this 100 years ago, and it's sad to see that people are still saying this today. The problem isn't that there isn't any "absolute" proof for Evolution -- it's that there isn't any proof at all.

Evolutionists looked to paleontology, and they got the Cambrian explosion, which flies directly in the face of Evolution. They also got a number of potential "human" ancestors, all of which have been debunked.

Evolotionists looked to anthropology, and found out that their idea that man worshiped many spirits, then moved on to pantheism, then finally monotheism, was entirely backwards! It turns out that the earliest known civilizations were monotheistic.

Evolutionists looked to cosmology, and found the cosmological constant. They discovered that our sun, contrary to the "there could be many suns like ours" theory, is pretty darn unique after all. And they also discovered just how strange it was that the best location for the existence of human life was also the best place from which to study the universe. It's like something...or Someone...wants us to study His creation.

Evolutionists looked to biology, and they discovered that the cell is both more complex than the most complex computer ever built by an order of magnitudes, and that it is irreducibly complex at the same time. Take away one part of one system, and poof -- the whole thing falls apart. Back when Evolution first came into being, scientists were certain that the cell was a fairly simple thing.

Evolutionists used to believe that the earth's atmosphere had a much different composition than the atmosphere of today, and were actually able to produce organic molecules in simulated recreations -- formaldehyde, hardly a precursor to life. Also, it's been proven that the earth's atmosphere around the time that they presume life came from the "ooze," is actually very similar to the atmosphere of today, minus a good bit of pollution of course.

Basically, Evolution requires us to jump through hoops. It also requires us to have blind faith, to ignore modern science, and basically to just make stuff up. That hardly makes it "the simplest explanation."

Proof of God's existence...hmmm....what would that change on earth?

God actually walked with Adam and Eve and they still disobeyed Him. I believe we have the same "proof" today that they had, although He doesn't walk physically with us, He put it in the hearts of men (and women) that He is alive and well.

He showed the Israelites through miracle after miracle and plaque after plague and they still built the golden calf (among many, many other disobediences...and we still do today).

My belief is that there is no "Proof" that could possibly satisfy the hearts of unrepentant man. When Jesus comes in the clouds, the unsaved will believe they are halucinating, or He is really an alien, or the government has done it to fool us.

So as far as proof goes, God does not hold back good gifts. He's not up there hoping we'll miss out and not find Him. He's God, He's had eternity to figure out the very best proof (though He didn't need more than a nonosecond). As with everything else He has done, He gave us the best proof possible, the knowledge built-in to our hearts, and the convicting Holy Spirit.

CountryBoy wrote:God actually walked with Adam and Eve and they still disobeyed Him. I believe we have the same "proof" today that they had, although He doesn't walk physically with us, He put it in the hearts of men (and women) that He is alive and well.

He showed the Israelites through miracle after miracle and plaque after plague and they still built the golden calf (among many, many other disobediences...and we still do today).

My belief is that there is no "Proof" that could possibly satisfy the hearts of unrepentant man. When Jesus comes in the clouds, the unsaved will believe they are halucinating, or He is really an alien, or the government has done it to fool us.

So as far as proof goes, God does not hold back good gifts. He's not up there hoping we'll miss out and not find Him. He's God, He's had eternity to figure out the very best proof (though He didn't need more than a nonosecond). As with everything else He has done, He gave us the best proof possible, the knowledge built-in to our hearts, and the convicting Holy Spirit.

Absolutely. Very well said.

How do ya'll copy a previous post and display them like that? I've seen posts within posts within posts and don't know how it's done

CountryBoy wrote:How do ya'll copy a previous post and display them like that? I've seen posts within posts within posts and don't know how it's done

The quote button at the top-right of each post will do it. Once you click it, you can see how it works, using start delimiters [ q u o t e ] and end delimiters [ / q u o t e ]... The same works for [ b ] bold [ / b ] and [ i ] Italics [ / i ] too...

Also if you ever wonder about an emoticon, how someone links to the bible passages, how to make a url, etc. just use the quote buttton which will show the original text of the person's post and show you how it works.

God = Axiom.

As with everything else He has done, He gave us the best proof possible, the knowledge built-in to our hearts, and the convicting Holy Spirit.

Well obviously he hasn't provided enough proof because otherwise EVERYONE would be a believer.

No. Jesus could come descending from heaven with an army of armor plated angels wielding flaming swords and I guarantee we would still have unbelievers claiming he was a hologram or an alien.

Darwin_Rocks wrote:Well obviously he hasn't provided enough proof because otherwise EVERYONE would be a believer.

Well Satan was right there with God and he still turned... Along with many angels. Why do you assume that everyone would believe?

Perhaps the issue here is a general misunderstanding of what it means to believe. Just ackowledging God's existance is not what it means to believe; most Satan worshippers will acknowledge God and then do what they can to stand against Him. To believe means to accept God's love and grace.