Evidence for God from Science

1over137 wrote:. Further, Moslims recognize Jesus as a prophet (or teacher?) (not God but prophet), right? But then they have to agree with what he said, and he said that he is God (where is it in Bible?). So, Muslims are inconsistent. Or, what is their attitude towards Jesus?

Perhaps not the main current of Islam making a noise at the moment but I always liked the sufi idea, presented by Karen Armstrong as:

the Sufis ...the mystical branch of Islam, the Sufi movement, insisted that when you had encountered God, you were neither a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim. You were at home equally in a synagogue, a mosque, a temple or a church, because all rightly guided religion comes from God, and a man of God, once he's glimpsed the divine, has left these man-made distinctions behind.

1over137 wrote:Yes, I agree that this is interesting. I do not understand why Jews reject Jesus being the God. Further, Moslims recognize Jesus as a prophet (or teacher?) (not God but prophet), right? But then they have to agree with what he said, and he said that he is God (where is it in Bible?). So, Muslims are inconsistent. Or, what is their attitude towards Jesus?

Yes, many Muslims agree that Jesus is a prophet. They do not recognize Jesus to be the Son of God because they don't believe that God (Allah) had a son. They also deny that Jesus was crucified and by so doing deny his resurrection from the dead. So yes, I would say Muslims are inconsistent in their historical understanding.

Muslims believe that Jews and Christians altered the Bible to fit their worldview, though they have never come up with any evidence to prove their claim.

Jesus claimed to be God in a number of places:

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (KJV)

John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

The Jews believed that anyone who would claim that God was their literal father, was making themselves equal with God and thus they were guilty of blasphemy, that is, of breaking the first commandment.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The Jews in the temple knew who Christ was claiming to be because they knew what God said to Moses and were outraged that Jesus in this statement is claiming to have existed before Abraham some 2000 years earlier:

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Jesus was claiming to be that same I Am that spoke to Moses over a thousand years earlier.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

In this verse Jesus is claiming to be the same as the invisible creator of the universe.

John 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

Jesus is claiming that what the disciples recognize Him as are true, both Master (Teacher) and Lord (God).

John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Jesus is telling Philip the disciple that he is the exact image of God the Father, the creator.

Matt 26:63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Matt 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

When Jesus is on trial He is asked point blank whether He is the messiah. This is the equivalent of putting God on trial and His answer in verse 64 really sums it up.

C.S. Lewis once said that Jesus was either a lunatic or who He claimed to be. John Lennox, (whose discussion I hope you watch), says, if that is a man on the cross then so what. But if it is God on a cross one has to ask the question: What is God doing on a cross?

Proinsias wrote: Perhaps not the main current of Islam making a noise at the moment but I always liked the sufi idea, presented by Karen Armstrong as:

the Sufis ...the mystical branch of Islam, the Sufi movement, insisted that when you had encountered God, you were neither a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim. You were at home equally in a synagogue, a mosque, a temple or a church, because all rightly guided religion comes from God, and a man of God, once he's glimpsed the divine, has left these man-made distinctions behind.

So, Sufis claims that Islam and Christianity can be both right? But isn't Koran incompatible with Bible?

1over137 wrote: So, Sufis claims that Islam and Christianity can be both right? But isn't Koran incompatible with Bible?

Most Christians would definitely argue that the two books are vastly different. TBH, the Sufi belief describes to me perfectly the growing subjective, feel good approach parallel to that of secular moralities that elevate most beliefs or lifestyles to equal status. Yes, it's nice to think that all religions lead to God, but in reality this seems less likely than simply one being true.

Katabole wrote: Yes, many Muslims agree that Jesus is a prophet. They do not recognize Jesus to be the Son of God because they don't believe that God (Allah) had a son. They also deny that Jesus was crucified and by so doing deny his resurrection from the dead. So yes, I would say Muslims are inconsistent in their historical understanding.

Muslims believe that Jews and Christians altered the Bible to fit their worldview, though they have never come up with any evidence to prove their claim.

I wish people did not alter things. Because dishonesty makes it harder for the truth to come to the surface.

Katabole wrote: Jesus claimed to be God in a number of places:

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (KJV)

John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

The Jews believed that anyone who would claim that God was their literal father, was making themselves equal with God and thus they were guilty of blasphemy, that is, of breaking the first commandment.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The Jews in the temple knew who Christ was claiming to be because they knew what God said to Moses and were outraged that Jesus in this statement is claiming to have existed before Abraham some 2000 years earlier:

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Jesus was claiming to be that same I Am that spoke to Moses over a thousand years earlier.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

In this verse Jesus is claiming to be the same as the invisible creator of the universe.

John 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

Jesus is claiming that what the disciples recognize Him as are true, both Master (Teacher) and Lord (God).

John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Jesus is telling Philip the disciple that he is the exact image of God the Father, the creator.

Matt 26:63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Matt 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

When Jesus is on trial He is asked point blank whether He is the messiah. This is the equivalent of putting God on trial and His answer in verse 64 really sums it up.

Thanks for providing me with the verses.

Katabole wrote: C.S. Lewis once said that Jesus was either a lunatic or who He claimed to be. John Lennox, (whose discussion I hope you watch), says, if that is a man on the cross then so what. But if it is God on a cross one has to ask the question: What is God doing on a cross?

Lunatic or God, that is the question. If Lunatic, then probably nothing, except for the fact that then we will never know the truth. If God, then what is doing He on a cross is to show us that He is with us.

I watched the discussion with John Lennox and want to adress several things.

As to the discussion about science, I am active in a thread "The is no science" in "God and science" on this forum. You can read my posts there. (The guys are making me busy there - I am now 2 days behind with my postreplys).

Now to the resurrection. Some people say that Jesus didn't die on the cross, that he fainted and so on.

The questions of the type "Who created God?" are not the questions bothering me the most at the moment. You can ask this God in Heaven (If there is a heaven). Right now, I am bothered most with the Bible inconsistencies.

Finally, something about the free will. Well, if we have a freedom of choice, if we are free to choose or reject God, well, I want to live in the truth, then why am I not a Chhristian?

1over137 wrote:Lunatic or God, that is the question. If Lunatic, then probably nothing, except for the fact that then we will never know the truth. If God, then what is doing He on a cross is to show us that He is with us.

Jesus is probably the only religious figure that wasn't overglorified as it was often done at that time. Furthermore, the fact that the Gospels described the events very realistically and without hyperboles is, for me, an argument in favour of it being true.

1over137 wrote:Now to the resurrection. Some people say that Jesus didn't die on the cross, that he fainted and so on.

The so-called "swoon theory" is so ridiculously improbable that we may just as well consider it impossible.

1) Jesus had to be dead because the Roman soldiers checked that by piercing a convict's side after taking him off the cross. If a convict survived the crucifixion, the soldiers responsible for him would be sentenced to death. So, there's no chance that they did a lousy job.
2) Even if Jesus did survive, He was tortured, dehydrated and bled litres of blood. How could a person in such condition survive three days in the tomb, then push away a two-ton rock off it, and escape past the guards?

1over137 wrote:The questions of the type "Who created God?" are not the questions bothering me the most at the moment. You can ask this God in Heaven (If there is a heaven).

That's one of the easiest questions. God exists outside of this universe, so He's not bound by time and may be eternal, as well as uncaused, because the law of cause and effect applies only to this universe.

1over137 wrote:Right now, I am bothered most with the Bible inconsistencies.

Such as?

1over137 wrote:Finally, something about the free will. Well, if we have a freedom of choice, if we are free to choose or reject God, well, I want to live in the truth, then why am I not a Chhristian?

Again, what specifically is stopping you from being a Christian? It's good that you're seeking the truth, but some people are more easily convinced, while some tend to be more skeptical and it takes more research to convince them. There are resources I can recommend to you, such as tektonics.org - regarding the resurrection and similar issues related to Jesus, or creation.com - which covers many scientific issues (from a YEC point of view).

People have different reasons for becoming atheists, I do think it's striking how rarely it's really about "reason" or "rational thought". Often it comes down to selfishness and wanting to do things your own way. The comments of even prominent and well-respected atheists lead me to believe that many simply don't like the idea of God. For some young people, I don't think you can overestimate the influence of prominent thinkers believing there is no God. No reasoning even has to take place, if someone they respect thinks that belief in God is outdated or irrational, then they just "join the club". It's trendy to mock Christians in some circles.

narnia4 wrote:People have different reasons for becoming atheists, I do think it's striking how rarely it's really about "reason" or "rational thought".

It's hard to talk about reason or rational thought in a materialistic world anyway.

narnia4 wrote:No reasoning even has to take place, if someone they respect thinks that belief in God is outdated or irrational, then they just "join the club". It's trendy to mock Christians in some circles.

Not only that, they have many prejudices about Christians, because most of them only hang out with atheists and don't know enough Christians to form an opinion. Instead, they write us off as superstitious, deluded weirdoes a priori. For instance, I was once told that I "seem too insightful and intelligent to be a Christian". The person didn't know to answer why. This probably happens because, as you said, it's growing popular to mock Christianity and its followers, so a person who isn't informed enough may actually start to buy all this popular nonsense about Christians being backward and having blind faith. Really, people who believe that nothing created everything, and that we accidentally evolved from pond scum, talk about blind faith.

To be fair, sociological pressures contribute to lots of people calling themselves Christian as well. The "angry atheists" or "new atheists" are the ones you often find on the internet, but there are others who don't believe (for various reasons) that keep it pretty quiet and don't really seem to think about it (despite the tremendous hole I think it leaves in a person's life). William Lane Craig just had a short audio blog about the disbelief of scientists, and he pointed out that assuming that a person is an atheist BECAUSE he is a scientist is a common fallacy. Confusing correlation and causation would be one way of putting it. Just a thing that reinforces that logic and reason doesn't always have everything to do with being an atheist, and while your faculties are a great tool that God has given you... that's not what makes a person a Christian either.

Another thing I've noticed over the years, there's always something in that place... there is always a God, god, or gods. How many times have you heard an entertainer or somebody say "I don't believe in God, but I believe in love" or someone say "I believe in me" or say "I believe in reason" (even though, as I said, many of those people aren't nearly as devoted to reason as they'd like us to believe). I don't think atheism is a religion, but I think that everybody puts SOMETHING first in their lives. Sometimes atheists and Christians are far more alike than Christians would like to admit, in fact sometimes those are just titles when two people and everything else they believe could be just about interchangeable.

So yeah, anyone who doesn't know Christ is lost like any atheist.

I don't see how logic and reason could play any part in someone coming to atheism. -

Reactionary wrote: Such as?

Such as on http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm. For example, disagreement in numbers, then the small size of Noah's ark, then the
mess in the four accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection as given in the four gospels, ...

Reactionary wrote: Again, what specifically is stopping you from being a Christian?

Another thing that is stopping me is notion of hell. There are lot of nice people who are not Christians, who as it seems
according to the Christian teaching are going to end up in the hell. Furthermore, there are people who did not have chance to
meet Christianity.

Hey guys, just wanted to jump in the discussion,

@1over137, you would have to make your own conclusions rather than study a lot of things that are just presented in the wrong light. For example, let us look at some of the objections raised in the link you provided.

While describing the same incident, 2 Samuel 8:4 states that King David captured 1700 horsemen, and 1 Chron. 18:4 claims he captured 7,000. [Good News Bible, King James Version]
The accounts disagree.

A copying error, you do realize that when you are reading a Bible, you are actually reading a translation of it. The real manuscripts are preserved, somewhere along the line a copyist simply made a mistake. you think we don't know about it. All scripture was inspired by God but the Bible was written down by the hands of men. Now I am not backfiring but just to illustrate, 40 years ago, science believed that without photosynthesis, vegetation couldn't exist and in the last 2 decades this has been proven wrong. But up till that point everyone agree to it. When they knew better they simply updated, but you have to understand that the Bible can not be altered just like that, it is one of the most printed book in the history of the world, tons and tons of reference material. Copying errors like this were identified a good half century ago. And in good spirit we have never changed it. We understand the problem but it doesn't hamper our walk with God, it is not an error that proves the Bible is errant, just that some earlier copyist made a mistake in the type.

The authors of Ezra 2:3 and Neh. 7:8 enumerate the tribes that came back from captivity in Babylon. They disagree as to the numbers involved in some clans and tribes:
Ezra:
Arah: 775
Pahath Moab: 2812
Zattu: 945
Bebai: 623
Azgad: 1222
Adonikam: 666
Bigvai: 2056
Adin: 454
etc., etc. Nehamiah:
Arah: 652
Pahath Moab: 2818
Zattu: 845
Bebai: 628
Azgad: 2322
Adonikam: 667
Bigvai: 2067
Adin: 655
etc., etc.
Of course, I could go on, but you get the point. The accounts differ, often by thousands, even orders of magnitude.

Do you know that there is a good 15-20 years gap between the accounts of Ezra and Nehemiah, one came first the other later, hence you get the difference. No conspiracy here buddy.

Leviticus 11:13-19 refers to bats as fowl, when in fact they are mammals. In the Good News bible, he then goes on in 11:20-21 to declare to be an abomination any fowl that "creep, going on all four..." when there is no such a bird. The 'revised' King James Version, distributed by the Gideons, on the other hand, distinguishes insects from birds, which the GNB does not. In 11:6, he declares "...and the hare, because he cheweth the cud." Hares don't chew a cud. Hares are lagomorphs, not ruminants (members of the cattle family). Only ruminants chew cud, lagomorphs do not.

Honestly, do you think God would say, hey write the Bat off, it is a mammal, you can all scratch your heads on it, but the answer will only come thousands of years later when science will become dominant. Come on, be real here. The bible is not scientific truth-book, it was written to common man, to people who were slaves, poor people, not even educated. it is not a science book its generalized.

Genesis 6:15 states that Noah's ark was 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits in size. We know that a cubit was approximately 18 inches, yielding a volume (if perfectly rectangular, the most voluminous possible shape of three unequal dimensions) of 1,518,750 cubic feet. Into this, you must fit two of each of the 30,000,000 species on earth, plus all the food needed to keep all of them alive for about a year (add up the timeline).
If this were true, it would not be physically possible to put two of each animal species on earth, plus a years' worth of food for all of them, in a volume of that size.

The flood was local not global, read about it on the internet, even on the main site. So yeah, it would fit.

About the dimensions and units, you would never know precisely what measurement they applied to a unit. It kept changing throughout history, so yeah you would always find one problem with it or another.

on a side note these are not the question that upset my faith because I keep a margin of interpretation to it.

Another thing that is stopping me is notion of hell. There are lot of nice people who are not Christians, who as it seems
according to the Christian teaching are going to end up in the hell. Furthermore, there are people who did not have chance to
meet Christianity.

Christian teaching says that those who purposefully reject Christ will stand in God's judgment. On the other hand what makes you think that if someone is good then he can't go to hell? Christian teaching is not that you do good works and you go to heaven, it is a common fallacy my friend.

On the drawbacks of atheism, peek at my blog or tons of other reference sites which can show you about it.

Just to comment on a few things:

The dietary laws came up quite a lot in your post 1over137. You mentioned the insects problem, it is discussed here, you might want to consider reading it: http://www.icr.org/article/does-bible-r ... -have-fou/

Furthermore, you mentioned about rabbits chewing the cud. Historically, the term "chew the cud" did not have such a restrictive meaning in referring solely to rumination. The Hebrew phrase "chewing the cud" referred to animals who chewed their food twice, which rabbits do (they eliminate partially digested, gluggy faeces which is eaten as it comes out, so that the extra nutrients can be ingested, upon which their actual faeces is more akin to pellets). Though I have my reservations regarding the Bible in Basic English (a Bible intended for those who have difficulty with English, using only 1000 words (850 basic words, 100 poetry words and 50 "Biblical" words) so it wouldn't get too complicated for those who have difficulties with English), having to avoid the original Hebrew term has allowed for the original meaning to be conveyed: Leviticus 11:3 (BBE) "You may have as food any beast which has a division in the horn of its foot, and whose food comes back into its mouth to be crushed again."

Here's an article by Rich about the local nature of the flood: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

neo-x wrote:
you would have to make your own conclusions rather than study a lot of things that are just presented in the wrong light.

The problem is how one knows which things are presented in the wrong light? I do not want to backfire. I wonder if there are some videos on the web where atheists and Christians discuss things as moderately as possible. That would help me in making some more conclusions.

neo-x wrote:
Christian teaching says that those who purposefully reject Christ will stand in God's judgment. On the other hand what makes you think that if someone is good then he can't go to hell? Christian teaching is not that you do good works and you go to heaven, it is a common fallacy my friend.

I do not think that if someone is good he can't go to hell. We are in this thread and so I say that what can make a person atheist is the pain he can feel when thinking about hell.

1over137 wrote:I do not think that if someone is good he can't go to hell. We are in this thread and so I say that what can make a person atheist is the pain he can feel when thinking about hell.

Well... if God and hell exist, then atheism wouldn't be a particularly good choice I wouldn't think. However, trying to look at it from your perspective, there's a bit more to say.

First is about the purpose of the world in the first place. God created human beings to worship Him. God loves us, and so gave us the freedom to choose between His way or our way. Worship, after all, is pretty meaningless if it is forced. We screwed up and sin entered the world. God, being -Perfect- can have nothing to do with sin; its against his very nature. However, He still loves -us-, so He gave us a way to be free from it. He gave us a Messiah to save us.

Chances are if you are like most people (this isn't a slam against you... this is just the way people think usually) that your ideas of hell compare most readily to Dante's vision than CS Lewis', but even just putting those two together, hell can be seen as a completely justified place that a loving God would create.

God is not in the business of sending people to hell. Our automatic destination is eternal death (death defined here as separation from God). God is in the business of giving life (life defined as being eternally with God). What is 'good' or 'moral' is not up for us to decide. Even if someone does good according to God, it is kind of like a thief paying back part of what he stole. It isn't even his money to begin with, just like it isn't our life or our work to begin with. "All our righteousness are as filthy rags..." That they are!

Hell is the eternal embodiment of separation from God. Going back to the fact that God doesn't force us to do anything, it is thus the natural consequence to life here chosen to be lived against or apart from God. Remember that when dealing with God, we deal with a level of justice far beyond what we can understand... but hopefully this gives a glimpse into it for you as it did to me when I learned it. If God exists: His Justice will be more Just than hours and hell is thus justified (I hope you can see that now in part at least). If He doesn't exist, there is no hell, and thus it can't be a point of contention.