Evidence for God from Science

Hugh
I was just in the Exodus passage about the first-born's being struck down. It was about Pharoah's recognizing / lack there of / of God -- The Children of Israel had been in bondage for 400 some years / slavery / God was using Moses to 'get my people out of Egypt' Moses was their leader. All the plagues that were inflicted upon Pharoah before he'd actually had enough and Did let the Children of Israel out of the land. One of hardships that they were warned about was the potential death of all new borns. The Passover was instituted at that time. Because the people were told to slaughter lambs and put the blood over the door of their houses and to stay inside until morning. When the Lord passed through the land -- every door that had the blood of the lamb over it - that home would be 'passed over', spared the death -- thus, the Passover. Pharoah's household suffered as well as his people. The blood of the lamb was their protection. (just as it is Now)
Sorry I didn't include this earlier.

The passage is found in Exodus 12: 13 or so.

It wasn't just a battle against Pharaoh, but the gods of egypt.
Every plague "struck down" an egyptian god.

Philip wrote:Hugh, if that is how you view God, or if you reject that the Bible's descriptions of God are in error or made up, then you don't know the Bible.

On the contrary. It is by knowing the bible that I am able to judge how to make sense of it, artistically, historically, poetically and scientifically.

And if you fail to accept the Bible as true - why are you a Christian - how do you know that ANY of it is true???!!! You do realize that to accept Jesus - to even know that you need to be saved - means relying upon the truth of the Bible.

The truth of the bible is wholly accepted by Theistic Evolutionists. Finding out what that truth is has been the life's work of thousands of theologians for thousands of years.

And in that Bible, Jesus confirms the entirety of the New Testament as being true. Explain, please!

As above.

So you view certain attributes of God as crude, but believe that the blood-soaked carnage of evolution's history survival of the fittest, the brutality of carnivores ripping their prey to shreds shows "grandeur" - where is your consistency?

The gruesome details I enumerated have occurred, and must obviously make sense from either a Creationist or an Evolutionary viewpoint. If they are part of an anthropomorphised personal day-to-day management of history, then I find them distasteful, but as the inevitable unrolling of a progressive method of creation, I find them comprehensible. It is a theological point, and I appreciate that others disagree. But if you are looking for a Theistic Evolutionist's theological, rather than scientific, justification of his views, then that's mine.

crochet1949 wrote:I've been researching / Googling it. Many interesting articles talking about just what was being created 1st. Very basic -- Day and Night were created. Then vs 6-9 the Firmament was made. It was called Heaven. And the earth and seas were created next.
God is said to be the light of the world. In the book of Revelation - at the very end - heaven won't need any light because God will be there -- Natural light. So then God gave us Artificial light in the sun and moon.
It's really fascinating when you think about it.
Genesis Assumes the existence of God. God is the Original source of Light and the giver of Life.

So,

You believe for the first 3 creation days, the sun didn't exist. And God himself was the source of light not the sun. And is He the source of darkness too? You do realize that plants cannot survive even one day without the sun?

So, instead of taking the simplest, most logical interpretation, you jump through hoops in your interpretation, by assuming without evidence from the text or science, that the earth was able to support plant life without the sun. That God was the source of light, and darkness. That a day was 24 hours, despite your belief that the very thing used to measure a 24 hour day, and the very thing which gives us mornings and evenings, didn't even exist?

You really need to think for yourself about this. Does this really make sense to you?

Hugh: This is a theological question, but to my mind the whimsical, artistic, bored, angry, loving, emotional God portrayed by a literal interpretation of the bible lacks any real majesty, or much authority other than crude power. I am not surprised that Richard Dawkins or Stephen Fry don't have much time for such an anthropomorphic God, who appears to have been made in the image of man (and a rather unpredictable man at that), rather than man being made in the image of God.

Hugh, if you think the Bible shows a God made in the image of man, you are woefully ignorant of Scripture.

Hugh: Historians looking at Auschwitz all make thoroughly valid points about the callousness of a God who creates a perfect world and then, by giving man 'free will' is absolved from all responsibility for the ensuing suffering, like a thoughtless parent giving a toddler a chemistry set.

Hugh, all you are doing is echoing the same old tripe that atheists constantly spew with their accusations about the God of the Bible!

Hugh: On the contrary, the God revealed by Science really does have majesty, authority, and, as Darwin so elegantly worded it, 'grandeur'. Here is the huge, ponderous unfolding of a vast universal, coherent, rational organization.

Again, you find other carnage of the world objectionable and that God should have accountability - IF He is as Scripture describes. But you don't have a problem with the carnage that evolution necessitates? Weird. Again, Jesus confirmed what you don't believe. Why would it be worded falsely?

Hugh: but I could not defend the slaughter of thousands of 'first born' children, simply because a cruel Pharaoh wouldn't let his workforce walk off into the desert.

If that is all you believe of why God allowed the first borns to die, you are, again, very ignorant of Scripture. So, these children, alive one moment, and in the very next one, very likely in the arms of the Lord and a peaceful eternity - as opposed to what their almost certain fates would have been if they had lived - that is more cruel?

Hugh, I could be wrong, but it appears you are more enamored with a more deist type of god - like Einstein's "god that runs the universe's clocks." Upon what basis do you consider yourself to be a Christian, because you reject what Jesus confirms to be truthful.

Rick: hat God was the source of light, and darkness. That a day was 24 hours, despite your belief that the very thing used to measure a 24 hour day, and the very thing which gives us mornings and evenings, didn't even exist?

The reality is that darkness is not a "thing" - it is but an absence of light. So, as that is the case, did God bring light to the earth, only to keep removing and replacing it at intervals that mimic the effect of the sun? That makes no sense at all!

Philip wrote:

Rick: hat God was the source of light, and darkness. That a day was 24 hours, despite your belief that the very thing used to measure a 24 hour day, and the very thing which gives us mornings and evenings, didn't even exist?

The reality is that darkness is not a "thing" - it is but an absence of light. So, as that is the case, did God bring light to the earth, only to keep removing and replacing it at intervals that mimic the effect of the sun? That makes no sense at all!

It does make sense if you don't take the simple reading of the text, make assumptions about what God "could have" done, don't take the most logical belief that the sun did exist on or before the first day, etc.

Philip wrote: If you think the Bible shows a God made in the image of man, you are woefully ignorant of Scripture.

On the contrary, I don't think the Bible shows any such thing - as long as it is interpreted appropriately. It is my knowledge of scripture that enables me to understand God better than that.

Hugh: "Historians looking at Auschwitz all make thoroughly valid points about the callousness of a God who creates a perfect world and then, by giving man 'free will' is absolved from all responsibility for the ensuing suffering, like a thoughtless parent giving a toddler a chemistry set."
Hugh, all you are doing is echoing the same old tripe that atheists constantly spew with their accusations about the God of the Bible!

Not quite. The view above is derived from a literal understanding of the words of the bible, which I do not accept. From an evolutionist point of view, all these things become more comprehensible.

Hugh: "On the contrary, the God revealed by Science really does have majesty, authority, and, as Darwin so elegantly worded it, 'grandeur'. Here is the huge, ponderous unfolding of a vast universal, coherent, rational organization."
Again, you find other carnage of the world objectionable and that God should have accountability - IF He is as Scripture describes. But you don't have a problem with the carnage that evolution necessitates?

Not at all. I have as much difficulty with theodicy as anybody else. What I said was that suffering was more comprehensible from an evolutionist point of view than from one who believes that God can and does intervene personally and continuously.

Jesus confirmed what you don't believe. Why would it be worded falsely?

Did he? When was that?

... these children, alive one moment, and in the very next one, very likely in the arms of the Lord and a peaceful eternity - as opposed to what their almost certain fates would have been if they had lived - that is more cruel?

I must say I think you deviate more and more from the conventional with every post. To justify genocide on the grounds that murdered people get to heaven quicker seems very dangerous religion to me.

Upon what basis do you consider yourself to be a Christian, because you reject what Jesus confirms to be truthful.

I told you you didn't think I could be a Christian and an Evolutionist, and you denied it. Have you changed your mind?

Perhaps I need to explain more why evolution is bad science and not true so that peope don't believe God created through evolution.Evolution seems to blind people when it comes to what the bible says and it is a problem when we prop up man-made science over God's word and what it says especially when man cannot be trusted to tell the truth and has been wrong so many times in history whether they believed in Christianity or not. Man cannot be trusted to tell the truth.There is absolutely no reason to put your faith in something man said is true over what God said is true. Science changes and it has changed many of times in history and what is true scientifically today can be wrong tomarrow.

hugh wrote:
Not at all. I have as much difficulty with theodicy as anybody else. What I said was that suffering was more comprehensible from an evolutionist point of view than from one who believes that God can and does intervene personally and continuously.

How is suffering more comprehensible from an evolutionist pov? Don't theistic evolutionists believe God "set the whole thing in motion" from the beginning? In Theistic Evolution, is God not in control?

Philip to Hugh: Jesus confirmed what you don't believe. Why would it be worded falsely?

Hugh: Did he? When was that?

Hugh, I'm saying that, as originally given by the prophets, Moses, etc., Jesus confirmed the entirety of what is written in the Old Testament - which you appear to dismiss because of the God it describes. I don't know of the nuances that you believe, but you've asserted that God, as described in Scripture, is not the One you believe in. So, you don't believe what Jesus taught about that. So, do you instead believe Jesus endorsed countless passages or pure fiction? Did He lie about the Old Testament?

Philip: ... these children, alive one moment, and in the very next one, very likely in the arms of the Lord and a peaceful eternity - as opposed to what their almost certain fates would have been if they had lived - that is more cruel?

Hugh: To justify genocide on the grounds that murdered people get to heaven quicker seems very dangerous religion to me.

The Egyptians were mostly a pagan, unbelieving (in the Lord) people of hideous practices, brutal enslavement of God's people. Through Moses, there were relentlessly warned, even showing the powerlessness of the Egyptian false gods, humiliating them. These unrepentant pagans, if allowed to live until old age, still would have met a terrible judgement. That is what would have happened to those children if they had lived.

In the first place, genocide is the unwarranted/unjustified taking of lives by man - which Scripture teaches is murder and evil. God's purposes ARE justified as He is the very definition of justice. He knows full well what and why He would take a life. And as the GIVER of life, ONLY He has the right to take it, when and as He sees fit. T

Philip: Upon what basis do you consider yourself to be a Christian, because you reject what Jesus confirms to be truthful.

I told you you didn't think I could be a Christian and an Evolutionist, and you denied it. Have you changed your mind?

No, many evolution supporters are Christians. But whenever I see someone claiming to be a Christian who denies Scripture, I ask them, upon what basis. So, again, please tell me upon what basis you consider yourself a Christian? I sincerely want to understand.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Perhaps I need to explain more why evolution is bad science and not true so that peope don't believe God created through evolution.Evolution seems to blind people when it comes to what the bible says and it is a problem when we prop up man-made science over God's word and what it says especially when man cannot be trusted to tell the truth and has been wrong so many times in history whether they believed in Christianity or not. Man cannot be trusted to tell the truth.There is absolutely no reason to put your faith in something mn said is true over what God said is true. Science canges and it has changed many of times in history and wht is true scientifically today can be wrong tomarrow.

You're making the same mistake that certain YECs make. You're equating your interpretation of scripture, with what God says. We can just as equally make a mistake with interpreting scripture, as we can interpreting the evidence regarding the age of the earth.

Your Man-made Gap theory can be just as wrong as what you call man-made science. Both have fallible humans interpreting something.

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Perhaps I need to explain more why evolution is bad science and not true so that peope don't believe God created through evolution.Evolution seems to blind people when it comes to what the bible says and it is a problem when we prop up man-made science over God's word and what it says especially when man cannot be trusted to tell the truth and has been wrong so many times in history whether they believed in Christianity or not. Man cannot be trusted to tell the truth.There is absolutely no reason to put your faith in something mn said is true over what God said is true. Science canges and it has changed many of times in history and wht is true scientifically today can be wrong tomarrow.

You're making the same mistake that certain YECs make. You're equating your interpretation of scripture, with what God says. We can just as equally make a mistake with interpreting scripture, as we can interpreting the evidence regarding the age of the earth.

Your Man-made Gap theory can be just as wrong as what you call man-made science. Both have fallible humans interpreting something.

I was'nt even bringing the Gap Theory into this my point is to trust God over man.
http://www.history.co.uk/shows/big-hist ... -the-world

abelcainsbrother wrote:Perhaps I need to explain more why evolution is bad science and not true so that peope don't believe God created through evolution.Evolution seems to blind people when it comes to what the bible says and it is a problem when we prop up man-made science over God's word and what it says especially when man cannot be trusted to tell the truth and has been wrong so many times in history whether they believed in Christianity or not. Man cannot be trusted to tell the truth.There is absolutely no reason to put your faith in something man said is true over what God said is true. Science changes and it has changed many of times in history and what is true scientifically today can be wrong tomarrow.

IF it were bad science you could find at least one fact contrary to ToE, but, guess what.