Evidence for God from Science

madscientist wrote:So what i understood from SaintGeorge's post is that we should take Genesis as a poem and symbolically!! OK but how do we know we are not to take other parts like that as well? How are we to distinguish which parts were meant literally and which are symbolic? Does the Bible mention that some parts are to be interpreted in such ways? Cos we know if we were to take it literally there'd be disputes (there are already ) so let's say it's symbolic.
But why not take it symbolic as a whole? That is the question...

Well, one would imagine that God intended us to use our intellect to determine what is symbolic and what isn't. For certain passages this is obvious. For others it is less obvious. For instance, in John 10:9, Jesus states the he is the door. Now, no person in their right mind could deny that that this a figurative description, the intent of which was to convey a bigger meaning in the most simplistic and concisest manner possible. For those passages which divide opinion, one would imagine that our understanding of them will change as we better understand our universe. In other words, this is through gradual revelation. So, for a theistic evolutionist such as myself, discoveries by Darwin and those following after him are simply the process of that revelation. 500 years ago I probably would have considered Genesis to be take as a literal account. Now, however, I think otherwise. Neither view has much bearing on my faith.

Sure but then atheists could claim that Bible is false... if it isn't literal. True, with more science we discover it to be more true and reliable. But still, how to see for example God taking earth and making a man?
Anyway, another good point. Any ideas? Bible says hell is fire, brimstone, demons etc. Then people say "thats bs, no, it's metaphorical, symbolic, one who thinks so is stupid". Even priest in my church says that if a small child actually thinks there's fire in hell and so, that's ok but then any older it's sad, stupid. But... on YT there's some video of a guy going thru hell, and yes he describes it as fire, demons, thirst, fire. Hm. Anyway gonna post that elsewhere, but... is hell then really what it is or not? I believed it's symbolic but that video changed my view of hell... that's just 1 example.

The book of Revelation talks about fire and brimstone as being literal. So I beleive that it is literal. Remember what is said at the end of Revelation? Do not change or add words to the book. There is a serious consequence for doing so.
Video or not.

Good point obsolete... then why i was told by people (including priest!) that it is NOT literal and it's STUPID to think there is actual fire and demons? Well i guess no-one knows everything forreal, nor do priests and we do have to make assumptions and use our own mind and understanding of the world, make our opinions.
video just makes it more believable - book called "23 minutes in hell" that's what video talks about... the guy who wrote it.

then why i was told by people (including priest!) that it is NOT literal and it's STUPID to think there is actual fire and demons? Well i guess no-one knows everything forreal, nor do priests and we do have to make assumptions and use our own mind and understanding of the world, make our opinions.

People make things up like this because then there seems to be no consequence for our sinful actions. If you remove the fact that there is a place called Hell, that Satan does exist and so do his demons, that Hell does have fire and brimestone, then there is no real guilt factor in our disobedience to God.

We are God's children in Christ. He has every right to punish us for our disobedience. I discipline my children. If I were not to follow throw with what I say I'm going to do, then they would be able to get away with whatever they want. The same goes for us with God. There has to be follow through.

Yes that is right obsolete... however, i was not talking about there not being hell, just about the fact that there is no literal fire and that, however there's still suffering and that. I mean, whether we suffer with fire and thirst or psychological suffering only i dont know but apparently that type of sufferig is VERY bad. Whether we say there's fire or not hell is still a dreadful place to be.

I like what Richard Dawkins said in a debate once:
"I don't care what sort of evidence you can provide for the existence of God, I SIMPLY CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE IT" (emphasis added).
That sort of says it all.

Exactly! so the point is not "can you provide evidence" but rather "are you willing to believe". There are other things that cant be proven yet people are crazy in believing them... for example, people believe in astrology, ghosts, spirits, reincarnation yet these cannot be proven!! But one either chooses to believe in God or not.
For example i know a guy who said he believes only in things which are capable of destruction. So, he believes in matter, energy, universe, even love he said, as according to him love doesnt last... however, he doesnt believe in anything which can last from eternity to eternity...

And anyway... belief in God such as "I believe He exists" or "... and I live accordingly to my faith" are 2 different things. Simple belief He exists is not gonna save us; but the second thing is. But in order to have 2nd one one must believe in His existence first...

rodyshusband wrote:I like what Richard Dawkins said in a debate once:
"I don't care what sort of evidence you can provide for the existence of God, I SIMPLY CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE IT" (emphasis added).
That sort of says it all.

Can you tell us where he said this?

Top arguments? Umm... no broad-brushing. That seems to be the biggest mistake atheists use.

I think this post is really of no use, as Atheists are not Arguing for anything. Athiesm is a position of non-belief in something as they see no tangible evidence for it. Like the Giant Floating Teapot around the Sun. The burden is on the believer, the one making the Giant Claim, but what we find with most religious people, they can't even define what God is, or the attributes he possesses or invokes on reality. They just Dance around the Question, historical accuracy of an ancient document, does not make the claims within that document necessarily true, if that was the case, then by default all other religious texts are true. Like the bagivagita, the Book of Mormon and so on...

I just think it is sad in this day and age that this should be an issue, we know enough about reality to put a man on the moon and build a computer that functions pretty well and do all sorts of other things, none being the result of the contents of the Bible being true or false. I think what really would be a benefit is if people could at least start thinking in terms of values and the values Science is bringing our world that is a benefit your life. What is of great concern is that so many are believing in bible prophecy and Armageddon, this is dangerous and can bring about the very thing you are focusing on. We get what we expect, its just the way reality works, if enough people expect that destruction and end of the world, that is precisely what they will create by there belief.

It really is time for all to outgrow there childish need for religion, and to start taking personal responsibility for their actions and thinking. Prayer alone is the admission that you arrogantly expect the creator of the universe to act as your personal magical genii, and the psychological confession is that you want something for nothing, without taking any action and expecting the universe to solve your problems as if by magic.

Hey guys, guess what? We have a better method, its called the scientific method...

Just take a piece of paper and list all the values benefits and medicine and advanced surgery that science has brought us as a value on one side. Then on the other side, fill up the sheet with all the benefits and values Religion has brought humanity. Then know that it is rational to choose the one that will benefit humanity the most. What I see is religion creates war, it creates divisiveness, it hardens hearts and it enslaves minds. If your God of the bible is really true, he is neither worthy of worship or even consideration, and God that would let a small child die of cancer and do nothing about it is evil.

Jim

Jimfromsac wrote:I think this post is really of no use, as Atheists are not Arguing for anything. Athiesm is a position of non-belief in something as they see no tangible evidence for it.

I am well aware of this, but I think those who proclaim this are really trying to hoodwink Theists to try get out of doing any work to defend and provide reasons for their position.

Flew's The Presumption of Atheism only works if it can be demonstrated that "negative atheism" ("without any belief in God" rather than "there is no God") can be demonstrated as the foundational state we are in before we develop positions on such issues. However, I beg to differ. I believe we begin intrinsically aware that a Being above it all such as God does in fact exist. God is self-evident and this becomes clouded and hazy for many as they live their lives. Further, I vaguely recall Flew asserting that given there is evidence of God's existence, a position of non-belief no longer holds anyway. The Atheist must provide arguments to the contrary in order to keep their head buried in the sand.

Jim wrote:Hey guys, guess what? We have a better method, its called the scientific method...

Never heard of it. I guess the likes of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal who pushed science along were all oblivious to this. They were after all Christians.

Jim wrote:What I see is religion creates war, it creates divisiveness, it hardens hearts and it enslaves minds. If your God of the bible is really true, he is neither worthy of worship or even consideration, and God that would let a small child die of cancer and do nothing about it is evil.

These are quite naive positions to take. I am thankful that God's judgment is not as swift, clouded and one-sided as yours.

Thanks for passing through.

K

Jimfromsac wrote: What I see is religion creates war, it creates divisiveness, it hardens hearts and it enslaves minds. If your God of the bible is really true, he is neither worthy of worship or even consideration, and God that would let a small child die of cancer and do nothing about it is evil.

Kurieuo is very polite in his response to Jimfromsac,

Kurieuo wrote:These are quite naive positions to take. I am thankful that God's judgment is not as swift, clouded and one-sided as yours.Thanks for passing through.

I'm glad that Jimfromsac is an atheist. If he were on the side of Religion, he'd probably be the type to give all his money to Benny Hinn.

FL

Hi Jimmy

You stated, "Hey guys, guess what? We have a better method, its called the scientific method...
Just take a piece of paper and list all the values benefits and medicine and advanced surgery that science has brought us as a value on one side. Then on the other side, fill up the sheet with all the benefits and values Religion has brought humanity."

You then mentioned rationality. Well, does it make sense that someone who is religious or thiestic cannot be scientific also and rational? You are implying this with your above argument. Its like saying only athiests can be rational which is not a rational argument at all. History has scores of Christians, theists who have been scientists and invented things useful to humanity. Your argument is not a rational one.
You mention values. The westerm world is largely based on a Christian heritage and values.
Science and religion work together and this is shown in many instances and through many thiestic scientists.

How about "why can't you accept that life originated from a speck of something that originated from an explosion of everything that no one can explain without sounding like a genius idiot?"

I love that response! Hahahahahahahaha! That was awsome!