Evidence for God from Science

SaintGeorge wrote:But faith is not blind. It is based on trusting a source that has proven reliable about a substantial amount of things. Faith is seeing the direction the evidence is pointing, and making a concrete decision to go there. The existence of God cannot be reduced to mere theory.

Jad wrote:Even my own bias of the existence of God needs to be constantly tested. If it is true as I believe it is then I should have no problem testing it. Paul in the New Testament says to 'test all things' and to me that includes the existence of God, His word, and everything under that.

SaintGeorge wrote:Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test'" (Matthew 4:7).

We need to take all of Scripture into account. Paul clearly is not talking about testing the existence of God. He is talking about discerning spirits/charismata, to see if they are true or false, from God or from Satan. While I agree that we can prove, definitively, objectively, God's existence, some people will reject Him on an emotional or irrational basis. If God really does exist, and He does, how is believing in him any more biased than acknowledging that the chair beneath me exists?

Matthew 4:7 is taken from the dialog between Jesus and Satan while He was in the wilderness for 40 days. Satan here is tempting Jesus to get God to do miracles to make things easier for Jesus while in the dessert. This would be like me asking God "Please pay off my mortgage and all my bills so that I that I can live life a little easier. In doing that God you will prove to me that you exist." This form of testing is has nothing to do with what Paul is saying in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 where he says "But test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good." If you read from verse 1 of 1 Thessalonians 5 you can see the context in which this verse is based on. In fact it's very much along the same lines as what you were talking about SaintGeorge when you said "Stop acting like existentialist pussy-willows, and be the soldiers of Christ I know you are!" Your version is a lot more colorful than Paul's though but I believe you mean well.

SaintGeorge wrote:Listen, modern philosophy is not philosophy. It's insanity. Be very careful when dialoging with it. Irrational, excessive, and relentless skepticism has increased to the point of being the most dangerous and contagious psychological disorder mankind has ever been afflicted by.

This is so true and I thank you for pointing it out SaintGeorge. It is because of this that I believe we as Christians must teach the true philosophy which cannot be argued against. I believe Jesus is the greatest philosopher of all so we can learn so much from just reading His words in the New Testament alone. He follows the law of non-contradiction and really the first principles of reason which cannot be argued against unless you choose to go against the reality of the world you live in. These principles are to be found in all philosophical thought regardless of ones belief system of atheism, theism or non-theism. The modern philosopher however ignores some or all of these principles and because of this we live in a postmodern world where tolerance is a higher virtue than truth, there are no absolute truths and there are no moral absolutes. All three of which are self-defeating.
We need to share with our fellow brothers in Christ and also to the lost these truths and do it with gentleness and kindness along the way. "Therefore encourage (admonish, exhort) one another and edify (strengthen and build up) one another, just as you are doing. Now also we beseech you, brethren, get to know those who labor among you [recognize them for what they are, acknowledge and appreciate and respect them all] your leaders who are over you in the Lord and those who warn and kindly reprove and exhort you. And hold them in very high and most affectionate esteem in [intelligent and sympathetic] appreciation of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we earnestly beseech you, brethren, admonish (warn and seriously advise) those who are out of line [the loafers, the disorderly, and the unruly]; encourage the timid and fainthearted, help and give your support to the weak souls, [and] be very patient with everybody [always keeping your temper]. See that none of you repays another with evil for evil, but always aim to show kindness and seek to do good to one another and to everybody." - 1 Thessalonians 5:11-15

We shouldn't be any different to the non-believer either, as it says in the verses above. 'show kindness and seek to do good to one another (Christians) and to everybody (the rest of the world)'. We should share with everyone truth. If that means getting your hands dirty and studying philosophy or any kind of order for that matter, to the standard where we can show the falsehood of things like modern philosophy and the like, we can most assuredly bare witness to Christ in these matters.


-

Jad wrote:

"I believe the things you mentioned like biological design and cosmological design is actual scientifically observable evidence that points to Gods existence."

Exactly, but that is only a high degree of evidence and not proof for Gods existence. Even so, then so what, a question August raised in a earlier thread "Chromosome Fusion" in terms of genetics: "If the genome is indeed meant to convey a message from the Creator, then we should expect to see high degrees of similarity and repetition. It poses an alternative answer, but still not something that would definitively distinguish it from a naturalist explanation." The question is then; does high degree of evidence for a creator really establish it self as just that, evidence for a creator?

Matthew 4:7 is taken from the dialog between Jesus and Satan while He was in the wilderness for 40 days. Satan here is tempting Jesus to get God to do miracles to make things easier for Jesus while in the dessert. This would be like me asking God "Please pay off my mortgage and all my bills so that I that I can live life a little easier. In doing that God you will prove to me that you exist." This form of testing is has nothing to do with what Paul is saying in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 where he says "But test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good." If you read from verse 1 of 1 Thessalonians 5 you can see the context in which this verse is based on. In fact it's very much along the same lines as what you were talking about SaintGeorge when you said "Stop acting like existentialist pussy-willows, and be the soldiers of Christ I know you are!" Your version is a lot more colorful than Paul's though but I believe you mean well.

Excellent. I love the explanation you give. Oh yes, and I do mean well. I just prefer to put a little color into my discourses. There's too much grey out there today.

J.L. Jameson did you think this post would get to three pages?

godslanguage wrote:Jad wrote:

"I believe the things you mentioned like biological design and cosmological design is actual scientifically observable evidence that points to Gods existence."

Exactly, but that is only a high degree of evidence and not proof for Gods existence. Even so, then so what, a question August raised in a earlier thread "Chromosome Fusion" in terms of genetics: "If the genome is indeed meant to convey a message from the Creator, then we should expect to see high degrees of similarity and repetition. It poses an alternative answer, but still not something that would definitively distinguish it from a naturalist explanation." The question is then; does high degree of evidence for a creator really establish it self as just that, evidence for a creator?

godslanguage I think like madscientist you're going to have to explain what your definition of proof is because I think that is the only point where you and I differ. For me proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. I liken it somewhat to the definition of proof in a court of law. That is to say 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. I cannot know everything, nobody can so we take what information we know about something and from that basis determine or prove that something beyond a reasonable doubt. As I've already stated this can be done regarding the existence of God through logic and reason and what we already know. What is your definition of proof?


-

SaintGeorge wrote:

Matthew 4:7 is taken from the dialog between Jesus and Satan while He was in the wilderness for 40 days. Satan here is tempting Jesus to get God to do miracles to make things easier for Jesus while in the dessert. This would be like me asking God "Please pay off my mortgage and all my bills so that I that I can live life a little easier. In doing that God you will prove to me that you exist." This form of testing is has nothing to do with what Paul is saying in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 where he says "But test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good." If you read from verse 1 of 1 Thessalonians 5 you can see the context in which this verse is based on. In fact it's very much along the same lines as what you were talking about SaintGeorge when you said "Stop acting like existentialist pussy-willows, and be the soldiers of Christ I know you are!" Your version is a lot more colorful than Paul's though but I believe you mean well.

Excellent. I love the explanation you give. Oh yes, and I do mean well. I just prefer to put a little color into my discourses. There's too much grey out there today.

Haha very true! Thanks for your kind words too. I often still find myself joking around with God regarding the explanation I gave. If I'm at a motor show for instance or something like that and I start staring at an Austin Martin DB9 In my head I'll say "Hey God if you really love me you'll give me that car"


-

Interesting stuff goin on here on this thread!!
read the posts quite in a rush and theres a lot i could comment but ... anyway.
there was some mentioning of existentialism. i find that interesting. right now we're studying camus' L'ETRANGER and talks about absurdity of life. And heard many times that those existentialists had no belief for God. However i like their theory that life is absurd when looked from an angle and that it poses questions such as philosophy - why are we here? whats our aim? whats the point of all we do, go to school, do this, when we will all die?
Nice idea... just hate that those people apparently rejected God. cant we find a compromise?

And as for modern philosophy - dont know a lot about it myself but if you mention people like dawkins and nietzsche then yes it is kinda (:mrgreen: ) against religion and all that. and religion is a part of philosophy, isnt it? And theres secular, non-religious phil as well. Anyhing wrong if we focus on that?

madscientist wrote:And as for modern philosophy - dont know a lot about it myself but if you mention people like dawkins and nietzsche then yes it is kinda (:mrgreen: ) against religion and all that. and religion is a part of philosophy, isnt it? And theres secular, non-religious phil as well. Anyhing wrong if we focus on that?

If you mean add it to the conversation by all means madscientist share some secular philosophy. As long as it follows the topic at hand and it is in aid of the pursuit of truth I don't see why not. Warning though you may get bombarded by many theists if you do. I've not been here very long at all but I have the sneaking suspicion there are more Christians here than anyone else.


-

Um ok i may have sounded wrong then...
not that im not a theist. it's just that it would be nice if we could combine philosophy which does not talk about religion into 1 which does - but i didnt mean philo which is against it; i meant parts of it which have not much to do with relgion yet could be useful - as existentialism. not that i like the idea that they're antitheist; i actually despise that! because the questions they ask and the ideas about absurdity of life are interesting and somewhat relate to religious philo. so if we could take the parts of their ideology which we could use to argue for Christ and not against it... thats what i meant...
if a philo or ideology has some nice or interesting ideas - cant we use them to support or discuss christianity?

I've not been here very long at all but I have the sneaking suspicion there are more Christians here than anyone else.

There goes the neighborhood.

Ah ok I see what you mean now madscientist. At first glance I thought that was what you meant.

Existentialism has only a couple of things that I would agree with concerning religion, or Christianity for that matter. Love over Law is one of them. As Christians the love of Jesus is high above and far greater than any laws we adhere too; these are actually laws that come from loving Jesus in the first place (no works). Keeping to practical thought rather than purely theoretical thought is another attribute of existentialism I think.

Other than that I think it opens the door far too wide for relativism, that all judgments are relative depending on the individual and what he/she experiences. Existential relativism doesn't work because if everyone held to that theory then they would be doing their own thing as they see fit and that would just lead to chaos. In the moral sense alone if man where the measure then what is wrong to me can be right for someone else. That's fine when deciding what the best flavored ice cream is but when it comes to the right or wrong of stabbing someone in the back or raping a small child we have a problem.
In reality if I walk in front of a fast moving train I am going to get hit. To suggest that someone else could do the same and not get hit is absurd. So overall I think existentialism does not do Christianity and reality any real favors. Extreme existentialism is I think self-contradicting as well. If someone were to state 'Everything is Relative' the statement itself is claiming an absolute truth, which is not a relative statement at all. The whole basis that 'everything is relative' in a relative world that could be true for one person and false for another, making it self-defeating. Clear as mud?

I'm still want to hear your ideas about absurdity of life though. And stuff that doesn't necessarily relate to religion. It sounds interesting. Please do share.

Or perhaps start another thread, to keep this one relative to the subject. (pun intended hehe)


-

puritan lad wrote:Can you prove that logic exists without God? Are the laws of logic universal and invariant, or are they merely the product of accidental human neurons firing off electrical impulses? If the former, how do we prove this, or account for it? If the latter, then the laws of logic are merely conventions among men, and thus differ from brain to brain. Therefore, they are useless in any debate or discussion.

"..Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:2-3)

Without God, we can't know anything. (acknowledgements to Greg Bahnsen)

I think you are equating imperfection with uselessness.
If a ruler is imperfect can it not be used to measure distance?

Thare are no perfect rulers, yet measurement is possible.

Interesting Jad about the existantialist things u mentioned. Well everything is relative i think is a statement not used only by them; its used quite often for many things!! True or not - that is the question! apparently God is absolute - so no...

Jad wrote: I'm still want to hear your ideas about absurdity of life though. And stuff that doesn't necessarily relate to religion. It sounds interesting. Please do share.

well i know really little about it but anyway. so what i heard is that it is against religion, kinda says that everyone has to find an aim in his own life. That is why they refuse God or any other base for giving them answers. Also it apparently says something about absurdity of life - that it is pointless to do what we do since we will die, and that is sure. So no real belief in afterlife i think... And their definition of absurd is a very complicated one - at least Camus' is, so not going into that. Existentialism also asks questions about existence and so on but dont think it finds the answers. Hence life if absurd if we dont know what is our aim... - pretty much a summary of what my french teacher told me

Yes I've been reading up on existentialism lately with a bunch of Norman Geisler books I purchased recently. He evaluates each world view quite well and shows the positives and negatives for each one. Existentialism didn't have much in the positive but he does mention some God fearing gentlemen of the past using certain parts of existentialism; probably just the positives ones I mentioned earlier.

Nowadays it does seems however that existentialism a system of belief among only atheistic or agnostic type circles. When I think about what you just wrote, the absurdity of life - that it is pointless to do what we do since we will die, it makes me think of existentialism as a kind of first step in a certain way of thinking. A way of thinking that is going to lead into something far better. It might be my own personal way of thinking but it would seem to me that most people would ask this in the form of a question eventually at some point in their life. Once you ask the question "why am I here?" or "if there is purpose to anything I do in life it is pointless because I am just going to die"; it's these thoughts I think that would in general stir a man into finding a reason for living, instead of just conceding that life is absurd and then continuing to walk through life as though it were. Existentialism then becomes some form of defeat.

I'd like to think that most people would get past this stage and continue life in search of meaning. Some find meaning in having children, some find it in their career and a plethora of other good and bad things as I am sure you can imagine. It's after that when it gets harder. You still think life is absurd to a certain extent; at the very least you are still going to die. But I hope that at some point a man will come to realize that yes having children or a great career is a wonderful reason for living this supposedly absurd life, but that it is still not enough to justify this life fully. What about after I've had kids and they've left home, or when I retire? I've then run out of reasons to live. Surely there has to be something far greater to live for than everything that comes and goes on this planet?

Of course there are so many distractions in life that help you ignore these kinds of thoughts. There is also 'self' that doesn't want to be accountable to the possibility of something greater than he is. "It's my life and I'll do what I want with it."


-

Jad wrote:Once you ask the question "why am I here?" or "if there is purpose to anything I do in life it is pointless because I am just going to die"; it's these thoughts I think that would in general stir a man into finding a reason for living, instead of just conceding that life is absurd and then continuing to walk through life as though it were. Existentialism then becomes some form of defeat.

yes. but isnt that why they tried - and the whole humanuty - to find a purpose in this life? it has been the question since the beginning of humanity.
by the way isnt that the main reason why religions exist? people made up the ideas of gods and all that. interesting that it differed from nation to nation. as if it were some instinct humans had. why were religions created? not mentioning christianity as we believe it is not man-made but rather when Adam was created he was with God and so it started like that.

Jad wrote:I'd like to think that most people would get past this stage and continue life in search of meaning. Some find meaning in having children, some find it in their career and a plethora of other good and bad things as I am sure you can imagine. It's after that when it gets harder. You still think life is absurd to a certain extent; at the very least you are still going to die. But I hope that at some point a man will come to realize that yes having children or a great career is a wonderful reason for living this supposedly absurd life, but that it is still not enough to justify this life fully. What about after I've had kids and they've left home, or when I retire? I've then run out of reasons to live. Surely there has to be something far greater to live for than everything that comes and goes on this planet?

well but what is really the purpose? go to heaven. ok. but once we are assured a place - why to live then? do good to others, teach about Jesus. fulfill God's will? is that our purpose? seems some are better at this than others (ignoring the fact that everything that happens is in one way God's will ), some bring good and some do not. and do we live for God or for ourselves or for both? that is the question.

madscientist wrote:

Jad wrote:Once you ask the question "why am I here?" or "if there is purpose to anything I do in life it is pointless because I am just going to die"; it's these thoughts I think that would in general stir a man into finding a reason for living, instead of just conceding that life is absurd and then continuing to walk through life as though it were. Existentialism then becomes some form of defeat.

yes. but isnt that why they tried - and the whole humanuty - to find a purpose in this life? it has been the question since the beginning of humanity.
by the way isnt that the main reason why religions exist? people made up the ideas of gods and all that. interesting that it differed from nation to nation. as if it were some instinct humans had. why were religions created? not mentioning christianity as we believe it is not man-made but rather when Adam was created he was with God and so it started like that.

I think that would be just one of the many reasons why 'works' based religions exist today. Another reason could be money, like Scientology.

madscientist wrote:

Jad wrote:I'd like to think that most people would get past this stage and continue life in search of meaning. Some find meaning in having children, some find it in their career and a plethora of other good and bad things as I am sure you can imagine. It's after that when it gets harder. You still think life is absurd to a certain extent; at the very least you are still going to die. But I hope that at some point a man will come to realize that yes having children or a great career is a wonderful reason for living this supposedly absurd life, but that it is still not enough to justify this life fully. What about after I've had kids and they've left home, or when I retire? I've then run out of reasons to live. Surely there has to be something far greater to live for than everything that comes and goes on this planet?

well but what is really the purpose? go to heaven. ok. but once we are assured a place - why to live then? do good to others, teach about Jesus. fulfill God's will? is that our purpose? seems some are better at this than others (ignoring the fact that everything that happens is in one way God's will ), some bring good and some do not. and do we live for God or for ourselves or for both? that is the question.

I don't think heaven is the only meaning to this life (to get to heaven). I believe in a two world system where there are good things in heaven that we can't have here on earth and there are good things here on earth that we can't have in heaven. For example things like virtues that we can only have in this world like courage and compassion which are not possible in a world without problems (heaven). Only in this world can we show courage because there would be risks to take here on earth but not in heaven. We can only show compassion here on earth because in the new heaven there is nothing to be compassionate for. Compassion being the feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune.

I believe heaven is a perfect place but I don't believe heaven is a place where 'All' goods are possible. I believe the 'goods' here on earth and the 'goods' in heaven combine to make 'All possible goods' and that is every reason to stay here on earth and become more intimate with Jesus. That is what I think the ultimate purpose of this life is; not to merely get to heaven but to love God with all your heart, soul and mind right here on earth; and to love your neighbour as yourself with good virtues and many other good things here on earth. (Matthew 22:37-40)


-