Evidence for God from Science

I think it comes down to this: Atheism ultimately is a dark belief, where one pessimistically comes to decide that there is no God, no life after death, no real meaning to life and that life ultimately is an accident that must be endured. Does church offer your child the possibility of enrichment beyond atheism? Absolutely. Will it cause him to believe in God? Absolutely NOT. Only God can do that.

Now, do you want to put your child into a situation where enrichment is possible, or keep him where you are, and share with him your own pessimistic unsubstantiated world view? ---I am not meaning to be rude, just to the point, honestly. Don't forget, all true believers were once non-believers just like you and we KNOW exactly where an atheistic view of life comes from. The difference is, we have seen, while the atheist has not seen. We are on the other side of the equation, and not by our own merit, I guarantee you that. We are not better than you, we are thankful to God for revealing himself to us.

Correct Seveneyes, in fact in the bible Jesus said he will rejoice even more from the lost sheep then he would over the sheep that is allready in his flock. The Lord thirsts that much more for their love and for them to come to know him

Pierson,

You're not the first person to come up with some kind of food related defense for propositions not being a sweeping truth. Intact, I hear yours so often, I should go ahead and write and article on it and submit it somewhere. Were you hungry? I am actually eating pizza right now.

I thought maybe I'd like to call it, "The premium food fallacy"

Anyhow, no, these types of things are not descriptions (objective), but they are instead merely perspectives (subjective). The best pizza, hamburger, ice cream, etc are simply not propositional knowledge. They have absolutely no pull or purpose in achieving a DESCRIPTION of something.

A pepperoni pizza objectively has just pepperoni topping on it. Asking for "best pizza" description doesn't even make sense. But if you're hungry for pizza and in northern California, then I suggest you try this place called Jupiter near the UC Berkeley campus. Hand tossed, brick oven pizzas are great and be sure to try the spinach dip.

Anyhow, back to life.
Here's the reality of the DESCRIPTION of life and consequential purpose.
If God does not exist. Objectively, life's meaning is just a mistake, and there is no purpose. To give life a meaning and purpose is called the noble lie.
If God does exist (Monism model). Objectively, life is an illusion, and the purpose is to escape Maya.
If God does exist (Dualism model). Objective, life was created from an unembodied mind that transcends spacetime, and our purpose is to figure out why we weren't just an accident.

As you can see, all 3 are very different realities. Only 1 is objectively right.
I know many here can flesh out the dualism model more, but this is just a simple description. I am sorry no one has told you about it, but hey, now you know! Again, I welcome you to come look in the philosophy section of the discussion boards. Lots of other fun places to look around, too.

Pierson, also if you had taken the time to research Joe Nickells claims about Doctor Max Frei docting the stick tapes you would have known that it is very very highly unlikely because Professor Avinoam Danin the most reknown botonist in the world on the flowers of Isreal confirmed that these flowers were on the shroud just from studying the images of flower on the shroud alone. Nickell doesnt talk about this because Professor Avinoam Danins findings match perfectly Freis pollen finding, and you cant say that Danin is baised for the shroud since he is jewish himself.

RickD wrote:... The way I see it, there are 2 possibilities.

1). You have a true, saving faith in Jesus Christ. You have the indwelling Holy Spirit of God inside you, sealing your salvation in Christ for eternity. You drifted away from God, and He is calling you back to His loving arms.

Or

2). You never had a saving faith in Christ, but maybe just a intellectual belief in Him.

You need to find out for yourself, where you are. If you ever had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, He will never leave you. Maybe God led you here, and is waiting patiently for you to come back to Him.

The same thing could be said for any religion. Say for example, a Muslim lost their faith. You could just as easily replace "God" with "Allah" and say the same thing. If God wanted me to come back to him, it shouldn't be a very hard feat to accomplish. I still don't see how you could identify someone as #1 or #2.

seveneyes wrote: There is nothing beside blunt force trauma resulting in complete memory loss that could keep me from knowing God. You are correct about believing, but this is a sticky subject because many people claim to believe, or even consciously believe parts of the Gospel, but do not admit to themselves or others their ultimate unbelief in Christ.....

This goes back to what I mentioned above. If I truly believed in any of the other 1000s of Gods out there, couldn't I be saying the same thing to you? That I know Zeus is truth. Only trauma resulting in memory loss could keep me from knowing Zeus. The analogy stands, knowing that Zeus is real, just as you know your child lives on this Earth is truly concrete. Zeus is active, and communicative in my life, and is my family.

seveneyes wrote:I think it comes down to this: Atheism ultimately is a dark belief, where one pessimistically comes to decide that there is no God, no life after death, no real meaning to life and that life ultimately is an accident that must be endured. Does church offer your child the possibility of enrichment beyond atheism? Absolutely. Will it cause him to believe in God? Absolutely NOT. Only God can do that.

Now, do you want to put your child into a situation where enrichment is possible, or keep him where you are, and share with him your own pessimistic unsubstantiated world view? ---I am not meaning to be rude, just to the point, honestly. Don't forget, all true believers were once non-believers just like you and we KNOW exactly where an atheistic view of life comes from. The difference is, we have seen, while the atheist has not seen. We are on the other side of the equation, and not by our own merit, I guarantee you that. We are not better than you, we are thankful to God for revealing himself to us.

I'll repeat myself once again...

Pierson5 wrote: I value education and would do my best to encourage critical thinking in my child, not to just be a clone of mommy and daddy's beliefs.

I am not trying to shelter my child from religion. Just certain parts of it when they are young (they can be exposed to the more gruesome and frightening aspects when they are slightly older). Christianity will probably get a little more attention than some of the other religions, seeing how I live in America, but it will be taught along with Greek mythology and the various other religions around the world. If my child grows up to be Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, atheist, whatever, it doesn't bother me.

I do have a question though. Why did God see the need to reveal himself to you and other non-believers and not me?

domokunrox wrote:Pierson,
...
Anyhow, back to life.
Here's the reality of the DESCRIPTION of life and consequential purpose.
If God does not exist. Objectively, life's meaning is just a mistake, and there is no purpose. To give life a meaning and purpose is called the noble lie.
If God does exist (Monism model). Objectively, life is an illusion, and the purpose is to escape Maya.
If God does exist (Dualism model). Objective, life was created from an unembodied mind that transcends spacetime, and our purpose is to figure out why we weren't just an accident.

As you can see, all 3 are very different realities. Only 1 is objectively right.
I know many here can flesh out the dualism model more, but this is just a simple description. I am sorry no one has told you about it, but hey, now you know! Again, I welcome you to come look in the philosophy section of the discussion boards. Lots of other fun places to look around, too.

So how did you determine which is correct? How do you determine which God? If god exists, our purpose is to figure out why we weren't just an accident. That doesn't sound like a very meaningful life to me.

Let's say #1 is correct for example (not saying it is)...

Pierson5 wrote: To sort of repeat what I said earlier, just because something is eventually going to become meaningless, worthless, valueless, doesn't mean it's worthless now. It still matters AT THE MOMENT. I'm sitting here typing this up on my laptop. It was worth something when I bought it 2 years ago. It's worth something now. Eventually it will sit in a junk heap/recycling yard and it will be worth something to some junk collector/artist/what have you. And eventually it will return to the elements from wince it came and be essentially worth nothing. But what it is worth now is what is important. It's just the way it is. It isn't necessarily a pleasant or happy thought, but it doesn't have to be anything that ruins your day.

Why should we not find satisfaction in alleviating suffering or injustice, just because we’re all going to die one day? The very fact that this life is all I have makes it even more important to do everything possible to reduce the suffering caused by poverty, disease, injustice and ignorance.

This is the position I start out with. The null hypothesis, the default position. Once we discover (if it's even possible) that a God does exist, then we could move onto number 2 or 3. Seems to me that moving directly to "figuring out why we weren't an accident" is making unjustified assumptions and skipping a step.

bippy123 wrote: 1. I wonder why you didn't bother to study any of them. Is this the vaunted reason of atheism?
2.Did you ever ask yourself f you really gave god a real chance with an open mind and open heart?
3. I keep saying the shroud of Turin is lethal to atheism...most reknown botonist in the world on the flowers of Isreal confirmed... Pierson, also if you had taken the time to research Joe Nickells claims about Doctor Max Frei docting...

1. I don't have a lot of time to spend hours studying this shroud. I figured a reasonable shortcut was to ask a supposed expert (you) to give me your favorite sources to cut down on time. As for "vaunted reason of atheism," (and others such as "Next thing is you will tell me that the man on the shroud is da vinci lol")I see no need to make comments like these. They are unnecessary and add no merit to your arguments. Keep it civilized my friend.

2. Considering I was a devout Christian up to 20 years old, I think so...

3. I couldn't care less about the flowers. Let's just do this. Let's suppose for a second that the shroud IS authentic. The same goes for "Our Lady of Guadalupe." What does this prove? All we have so far from reading your posts is "We don't know how the image got there, yet." You say it can only take us to the edge of the divine.

To the believer, it is not the scientific proof of the shroud's authenticity that gives the shroud its special significance. It is the faith in the miraculous origin of the image that defines their belief. The miracle is taken as a sign that the resurrection really happened and that Jesus was divine. Even if it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the shroud originated in Jerusalem and was used to wrap up the body of Jesus, so what? Would that prove Jesus rose from the dead? I don't think so. To believe anyone rose from the dead can't be based on physical evidence, because resurrection is a physical impossibility. Only religious faith can sustain such a belief. To believe that someone floated up to the sky and disappeared (i.e., rose into heaven) is also not going to be proved one way or the other by these shroud arguments. Finally, no amount of physical evidence could ever demonstrate that a man was a god, was also his own Father and conceived without his mother ever having had sex. Thus, no matter how many brilliant scientists marshal forth their brilliant papers with evidence for images of Biblical ropes, sponges, thorns, spears, flowers, tumbleweeds, blood, etc., none of it has the slightest relevance for proving these matters of faith.

No matter what date is correct for either the cloth or the image, the date cannot prove to any degree of reasonable probability that the cloth is the shroud Jesus was wrapped in and that the image is somehow miraculous. To believe that will always be a matter of faith, not scientific proof. Hardly "lethal for atheism"...

In response to your question: "I do have a question though. Why did God see the need to reveal himself to you and other non-believers and not me? "

Simply, it wasn't ME that was the deciding factor. All that I know for certain is that God's response to prayer played a role as well as his blessing through our family line. Also that God makes witnesses of him and his power through all generations in order to help keep his message alive and from being distorted by non-spiritual men. -Ultimately I have no answer because I did not by any means merit his gift.

I see what you are saying when you write;
"This goes back to what I mentioned above. If I truly believed in any of the other 1000s of Gods out there, couldn't I be saying the same thing to you? That I know Zeus is truth. Only trauma resulting in memory loss could keep me from knowing Zeus. The analogy stands, knowing that Zeus is real, just as you know your child lives on this Earth is truly concrete. Zeus is active, and communicative in my life, and is my family."

The problem with your analogy is that it implies belief, not experience. One cannot honestly say that they know God is real when they only believe God is real. It is like my analogy of the gun pointing. The man who shot his own brother had the experience and knows the reality of the doctrine. If someone believes the doctrine, they do well if it is a true doctrine, but a new doctrine can come along that seems right to the indoctrinated and he will follow that doctrine. where the man who shot his brother, will never erroneously point a gun at another human being loaded or not because of his knowledge. Knowing God, is not subjective. It would only be subjective if God was not in fact real and only an idea. This is not the case. The experience of God is just like seeing something (a car accident, or helicopter fly by) happen. You cannot unsee it. You can only deny it if you have been told about it by another and not had the experience for yourself. It is like a lightning flash, undeniable, but to the person who hasn't seen the flash, there could be an argument over if in fact what someone saw was actually lightning. You are adding subjectivity to something that is not subjective. It only seems subjective to those outside of the experience. -Keep in mind that the lack of scientific proof of something does NOT by any stretch mean that it is not true, or that it is not worthy of trust. Science cannot and does not have the ABILITY to prove spiritual things. If you use science as the only thing that defines your belief system, you are cutting yourself off from the truth and from spiritual growth. Much of the way you speak overtly comes from the perspective of a child as if you stopped spiritually growing at some point in your childhood and halted all maturity when it came to certain subjects. I am sure that you cannot see this, but in gentleness I want to let you know that it is not covertly weaved in there and hidden. It is overtly childlike. Once you stopped looking into the spiritual, you have remained at the same level of emotional maturity as when you stopped. My opinion is that you need to deal with the deep seated spiritual questions that you have and the fears that you have if you ever want to find peace.

I am glad that you want your child to have a rich experience, but as far as your fears. I think it is better for your child to hear about heaven and hell, than to relate to your belief that there is nothing after we die. If you tell him that, he will seek to try and assimilate that in his own life. He looks up to you and relies upon you for learning about life and the world. He will seek the reasons for your belief in order to apply them to himself, he will look for practical applications of your belief to practice. You should be far more worried about that, than a doctrine that ultimately re-enforces personal responsibility in ones life. Believing in nothing when you die, especially for children and for teens will have a disastrous effect on their behavior. It will disillusion them, sadden them, terrify them, anger them and they will seek to vent those frustrations within their life. I promise you that.

Remember too, that your belief in nothing when you die is a belief that you chose. You chose it without any evidence, scientific proof, experience, or eyewitness testimony. You chose that doctrine.

The thing about believing in God that is good, is that through his doctrine and deep reflection on good doctrine, one can have incredible realizations of the truth, and within these types of epiphanies God's presence can be and often is experienced resulting in the acquisition of an undeniable and unshakeable faith. If someone ever actually believes the doctrine of Christ and then is indoctrinated away from it, this is only for a time, and is because although they believed, they did not actually experience the presence of God. They are still susceptible to indoctrination. But God makes a promise to all those who believe that they will be saved. So the person who actually did believe will be drawn back to God, and this sometimes takes many, many years, but they will come to know God in the future to the acquisition of the faith that I speak.

You may be one of these, and this issue with your child may end to be the catalyst that God uses for you.

Pierson as I said, if you want to see how fast an atheist abandons their belief in science and reason for their worldview which is totally emotional just present the shroud. You thought a few shortcuts would be good enough to debunk the shroud that many of the top scientists in the world cant debunk? What the shroud does is it gives very compelling evidence for not only Christs existence but for his resurrection because the totality of the evidence leads to this. Now if your comfortable with a worldview that offers no ultimate truth , meaning or purpose beyond us blinking into non existence thats cool, everyone has their preference, just dont say there is no evidence.


As I said before if you were serious about seeking Christ you would start your journey, but to me it seems like you are comfortable with your atheism. that will be my last post to you on this subject.
I wish you many happy and joyfull days:)

Hi Pierson5,

For me, even looking back when I was an atheist, God spoke to me, as he does to all people, in so many ways. It is we who do not recognize it. For myself, one involved Israel becoming a Nation and surviving three major wars against all odds and how the bible specifically says that Israel would be gathered a second time and never be moved again.

Isaiah 11:11, 12, "It shall come to pass in that day That the Lord shall set His hand again the second time To recover the remnant of His people who are left, From Assyria and Egypt, From Pathros and Cush, From Elam and Shinar, From Hamath and the islands of the sea. 12 He will set up a banner for the nations, And will assemble the outcasts of Israel, And gather together the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth." NKJV

This happened and fulfilled in 1948. When I was young, I ignored this. Not now, too much is going on that supports Israel’s existence and survival in the bible to ignore anymore.

Then there were those times God spoke to me when I was not a Christian in those – DON”T DO IT – moments and I did not listen. So Pierson5 how many Don’t do it moments have you had during your life?

Then the was the argument of reduction that got to me most – where did the first seed come for the first tree? Can you answer that? Where did the stuff come from that made either the first tree or seed?

Yes, God indeed has proven himself real to all humanity but it is we who do not listen. How many - don’t do it - moments will it take? How many sunrises or sunsets must it take? You still don’t hear? Refuse to acknowledge He Is at all? Make excuses and demands that he proves himself real – yet he has and does. It is we, human beings who refuse to hear or even accept how he calls to all.
-
-
-

Pierson,

We can find out why we exist philosophically. Scientifically, we can only find proofs for premises on our existence. Science cannot be conclusive on why the universe exists.

The reason for this is because if the correct model is a dualistic theism model, how does science go about in looking for data OUTSIDE of nature? How would it look for the data OUTSIDE of physical reality? It simply cannot.

I suggest you check out the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem.

Also, on how we know which "God" is the right one. We have to look at the evidence. Our physical world reflects a dualistic reality. The perceiver, the perception, and the perceived. Logically, we have no reason to make any exceptions to a dualistic model for an efficient cause of existence. Making an exception to casualty would commit the taxicab fallacy or invoke an argument for an infinite physical absurdity.

Pierson,

You will be delighted to know that I used our dialogue as the basis of my Sunday school lesson yesterday. The lesson plan scheduled was on 'fear' and I thought, "wow, here is a guy with a 'fear' of taking his children to church." It was almost as if it were ordained. So, the gist of the class was on understanding fear, both good and bad, and the necessity of thinking for one's self.

I've heard about this principal before and have to side with the critics on this one. The universe is incomprehensibly large. It's almost impossible to imagine that there aren't other intelligent life forms on other planets.

Imagine? I thought you were a man of science? Seriously. I think one of the most convincing elements of the anthropic principle is the size of the universe. There are elements of the universe beyond our time and perception that if changed only by a fraction would make life on earth impossible. The size of the universe is key to life on earth. As it its expansion rate.

Personally I am not real big on Pascal's wager. In fact, in the end I'm not real big on evidentiary arguments. I'm not against them, but one will generally find what they want in them. Thus my comment on proponents and skeptics in regards to the anthropic principle. I do actually find the argument very strong, but I also understand that the skeptic will always see the other side of probability no matter how improbable it might be. That is after all what makes them a skeptic.

The majority of the species on our planet have died out and gone extinct (I think the number is somewhere along the lines of 98% of all living organisms). Hardly seems like a place designed for life (especially only human life).

Not sure your purpose in stating this. This really only amplifies the wonder of the existence of beings on that planet which can even appreciate these stats. In other words, you should be asking, "why am I even here to ask this question?"

This statement may also shock many here, but I'll make it anyway. I actually believe there is a possibility that you are a born again believer. One who is of course buried in doubt and far from God. But I still consider it a possibility. I assume that there is always a reason for someone stopping by sites like this. I assume you have better ways to spend your time than hanging out on a forum with people who have a completely different worldview. If you truly are a skeptic as you say, maybe you are being genuinely skeptical, and not swallowing the line that you are merely an accident of nature. And nor would your future children be.

You are making the assumption that the meaning of life is objective. How do you know? On what basis? Why have I not been given this information?

Come now, I covered this in my post to you. Why would you get mad at someone who says life has no meaning? (let me get a little absurd for a moment) On what grounds do you get mad? After all, if meaning is subjective then who are you to impose your thought that life can have meaning? Isn't it one's subjective right to deny meaning?
I know this sounds ridiculous. But how can anyone's 'opinion' be right or wrong when meaning is subjective? It can't, at least regarding meaning. Sure, you can say life has meaning. But if you follow naturalism and atheism to its logical conclusions you have to admit that 'meaning' is merely a perception of consciousness from a material, unguided and purposeless universe. An illusion. Thus my comment on the consequential fallacy. Objective meaning is not an assumption. One MUST, MUST presume objective meaning to engage in the scientific process. I don't mean they will admit to it, only that they must presume it. One must presume that there is order to the universe. That gravity (and a myriad of physics) today, is operating like gravity in the past. )uniformity of nature) That the human mind can rely on logic and reason. That logic and reason will operate tomorrow like they did yesterday. For one to deny objective meaning and then boast science is fundamentally contradictory. Do these objective qualities in themselves mean the Christian faith is true. No, but they are consistent. We would expect to see a cosmos with uniformity of nature since the Bible evidences a God who created an order and sustains an order. We would also expect a universe which can be studied and understood by laws of logic. Science cannot account for these. But it must rely on these truths.

Although the conditions for life similar to that on earth may still be improbable, realize that there are 400 billion stars in our milky way galaxy, and that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

Yet, each year the anthropic principle becomes more convincing. As time goes by science keeps discovering new factors in physics that showing the 'apparent' fine tuning required for life on earth. In other words, as science learns more, the evidence keeps strengthening the argument. That my friend, is a fact. And it is increasing exponentially.

Are you then saying that I should believe in a god, even if it does not exist, so that I can feel the self-esteem boost of my life having a higher meaning?

No. That would also be a consequential fallacy. You should believe in God (The God) because it is true. Truth matters. At least it does in an objective universe. If meaning is subjective, then what value is there is there in truth?
If the Bible is true, then you are a sinner, Christ is the savior, and you should trust in Him. If not true, then don't. You say on one hand that meaning is subjective. I don't disagree. People can find meaning in cheering for a sports team, or collecting comic books. That is not my point. You are welcome to your subjective meaning. However, it faces problems. For one, you say that because of skepticism and science you lost your faith. This indicates that you felt your beliefs were false. This indicates that you value truth. But on what grounds. Subjective ones? Hardly. You rely on objective reality to say such things. You don't think logic is subjective. You think there is truth, otherwise you wouldn't waste your time. After all, if it's subjective then what is the harm in believing in a pet dragon, god, or nothing? So, I would like for you to account for logic and reason. Explain their source and why we can depend on them, objectively.

You kind of lost me at your examples when you started comparing faith and love. You say it cannot be coerced. Is it possible that a person can have this same "knowing faith" and heart motive for something like an invisible pet dragon?

Sure, if the pet dragon was an actual real being, witnessed and testified to by history in real time and in real places. If the PD was also predicted in prophecy regarding the place and time of its birth, and also in the way it died. If the PD rose from the dead, and this was supported by eye witness testimony. If these documents stand up under literary scrutiny and the many other methods used to authenticate ancient literature. "knowing faith" encompasses the heart and mind. Faith, contrary to what many think is not blind. It is based on reason, and intellect.

The main reason is due to a developed skepticism and love for science over the years.

Prejudicial. What you imply here is that to have genuine Christian faith, one cannot be a skeptic or have a love for science. This is simply false.

I believe the teachings of hell is one of them.

Can you be specific. Regarding the Bible, what teaching of Hell is objectionable?

Part II

I don't really understand the argument that because I no longer have faith in God, that I wasn't a true Christian to begin with. There are a few pastors of 30 years out there that have also "lost their faith." How do you determine if someone is a "true Christian."? If they believe, they are. If they ever lose their faith, they are not? That's absurd. Are you saying there is nothing that could possibly happen that could change your mind on the subject? I may be atheist now, but I can assure if evidence presented itself, I would be first in line to admit I was wrong and change my mind.

I wanted to address this in a different post.
I mentioned the possibility that you were a genuine believer, and in fact could be saved, yet are now in denial. Rick mentioned also these two possibilities, One, that you are a genuine believer in denial. Or, that you were never a born again believer. Obviously, there are definite problems with claiming to have been a TRUE believer. Because, in one sense, you are saying that at one point in your life, the Bible was true, God was real, Christ was your savior, but now it isn't true. That is a contradiction. What I think you are really saying is that you had accepted, intellectually, that it was true. The Bible actually speaks of this in the parable of the four soils. A lot of people miss the fact that the parable only confirms that one soil is without salvation. The one on stony ground, which is snatched away immediately. The next two reveal an interesting situation. Those who receive with joy the goodnews, yet "lose it" so to speak. Why? troubles, struggle, and even wealth. Thus, the reason i mentioned the potential that you were and still are saved.

Regarding knowing. There are facets to knowing Christ. One is obviously the historical facts and evidence. That is knowledge, and the Bible even provides a specific word for this kind of knowing. (The are several Greek words translated 'know' into the English, but each has a distinct meaning.) Certainly there are things about Christ one needs to know to be a Christian. One doesn't have to be a theologian. And one doesn't have to have every doubt and question answered. In fact, to assume that beleivers don't have doubts is wrong. Scientists don't abandon the scientific method when they face difficulties or doubts in certain models. ANd being a scientists does NOT preculde one from being a believer. Science and Christ are not at odds as you seem to have been persuaded. Afterall, you can't back that up scientifically.

The Greek words for 'know' are Oida, gnosta, and ginosko (or epiginosko).
Example. I know about President Obama, but I do not KNOW President Obama. Those would be distinct words in the Greek. I believe he is a real person. I believe he lives in the white house. I believe he is married to Michelle. There are all kinds of things I believe about him, but they do not move me one step closer to knowing him. I can even say, "I trust him enough to vote for him." (although I don't) But do I know him?

In the Bible it says when Joseph had taken marry to be his wife He had not yet "known" her. The word here is ginosko. This is the same word that Jesus uses when he says, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them. It is also the root word He uses when He says, "I never KNEW you, depart...Paul would often use this such as, "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich." (2 Cor. 8:9)

Now, there are certainly debates on what kind of 'knowing' salvation requires. But I think it is fair to say that you did not have "ginosko" kowledge. For if you did, what you would be saying is the same as saying, "I once knew my wife, but now I do not."
To say you were saved, means you are saying you 'knew' Jesus as your savior. So, how did you unknow your savior? I hope this helps you see the difficulty, and maybe offer a different perspective on what you think it means to be a Christian. So, you can't say, "I was a TRUE Christian." Because to do so, would be a logical contradiction
It doesn't matter how many people go through what you did. It doesn't matter if they were a paid staff member at a church, a deacon, or sunday school teacher. That does not make one a Christian.

Lastly, evidence has been presented. Proving, and convincing are not the same. There are things you accept in science without proof. There are things you accept based on testimony. I know that you haven't handled and examined the evidence for yourself. We can't all be astro-physicist, and biologist. Somethings we take on faith. And we should.

seveneyes wrote:In response to your question: "I do have a question though. Why did God see the need to reveal himself to you and other non-believers and not me? "

Simply, it wasn't ME that was the deciding factor. All that I know for certain is that God's response to prayer played a role as well as his blessing through our family line. Also that God makes witnesses of him and his power through all generations in order to help keep his message alive and from being distorted by non-spiritual men. -Ultimately I have no answer because I did not by any means merit his gift.

I see what you are saying when you write;
"This goes back to what I mentioned above. If I truly believed in any of the other 1000s of Gods out there, couldn't I be saying the same thing to you? That I know Zeus is truth. Only trauma resulting in memory loss could keep me from knowing Zeus. The analogy stands, knowing that Zeus is real, just as you know your child lives on this Earth is truly concrete. Zeus is active, and communicative in my life, and is my family."

... Knowing God, is not subjective. It would only be subjective if God was not in fact real and only an idea. This is not the case. The experience of God is just like seeing something (a car accident, or helicopter fly by) happen. You cannot unsee it. You can only deny it if you have been told about it by another and not had the experience for yourself. It is like a lightning flash, undeniable, but to the person who hasn't seen the flash, there could be an argument over if in fact what someone saw was actually lightning. You are adding subjectivity to something that is not subjective. It only seems subjective to those outside of the experience.

Hmm, knowing God is not subjective? Saying something is objective, does not make it so. The only problem I have with this is, if it were objective, would it not matter where in the world someone lives? Shouldn't they have the similar "knowing" experiences? Why then, did populations not familiar with the Christian God develop the same belief? Religious beliefs in certain Gods is very much dependent on where someone was raised or currently lives. If knowing God was objective, this would not be an issue. Everyone would come to know the same God that you know.

seveneyes wrote:-Keep in mind that the lack of scientific proof of something does NOT by any stretch mean that it is not true, or that it is not worthy of trust. Science cannot and does not have the ABILITY to prove spiritual things. If you use science as the only thing that defines your belief system, you are cutting yourself off from the truth and from spiritual growth. ...

This is something we can agree on. You are absolutely correct, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But, to say science cannot and does not have the ability to prove spiritual things, I would have to disagree. Would you not consider "Mediums" or "Psychics" to be spiritual? What about "spiritual healers"? There are many ways to test these abilities. This comment seems counter productive to the site on which we are currently having this discussion. What about the gentleman who is into the Shroud of Turin? He may disagree.

seveneyes wrote:I am glad that you want your child to have a rich experience, but as far as your fears. I think it is better for your child to hear about heaven and hell, than to relate to your belief that there is nothing after we die. If you tell him that, he will seek to try and assimilate that in his own life. He looks up to you and relies upon you for learning about life and the world. He will seek the reasons for your belief in order to apply them to himself, he will look for practical applications of your belief to practice. You should be far more worried about that, than a doctrine that ultimately re-enforces personal responsibility in ones life. Believing in nothing when you die, especially for children and for teens will have a disastrous effect on their behavior. It will disillusion them, sadden them, terrify them, anger them and they will seek to vent those frustrations within their life. I promise you that.

Remember too, that your belief in nothing when you die is a belief that you chose. You chose it without any evidence, scientific proof, experience, or eyewitness testimony. You chose that doctrine.

I don't recall ever saying I would tell my child "There is nothing after we die." That would be an absurd claim to make on my part. The most I can say (or ANYONE can say) is "I don't know what happens after we die, nobody does." If I had to guess what happens after you die, (I never get tired of quoting Mr. Twain ) “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” Saying this would have adverse affects on a child's life and behavior seems a little extreme to me. There are plenty of atheist parents who raise their children atheist, and they grow up just fine.

B. W. wrote:Hi Pierson5,

For me, even looking back when I was an atheist, God spoke to me, as he does to all people, in so many ways. It is we who do not recognize it. For myself, one involved Israel becoming a Nation and surviving three major wars against all odds and how the bible specifically says that Israel would be gathered a second time and never be moved again.

Isaiah 11:11, 12, "It shall come to pass in that day That the Lord shall set His hand again the second time To recover the remnant of His people who are left, From Assyria and Egypt, From Pathros and Cush, From Elam and Shinar, From Hamath and the islands of the sea. 12 He will set up a banner for the nations, And will assemble the outcasts of Israel, And gather together the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth." NKJV

The bible says a lot of things, I prefer not to get into it (but will if you truly want to ... )

B. W. wrote:This happened and fulfilled in 1948. When I was young, I ignored this. Not now, too much is going on that supports Israel’s existence and survival in the bible to ignore anymore.

Then there were those times God spoke to me when I was not a Christian in those – DON”T DO IT – moments and I did not listen. So Pierson5 how many Don’t do it moments have you had during your life?

Then the was the argument of reduction that got to me most – where did the first seed come for the first tree? Can you answer that? Where did the stuff come from that made either the first tree or seed?

Yes, God indeed has proven himself real to all humanity but it is we who do not listen. How many - don’t do it - moments will it take? How many sunrises or sunsets must it take? You still don’t hear? Refuse to acknowledge He Is at all? Make excuses and demands that he proves himself real – yet he has and does. It is we, human beings who refuse to hear or even accept how he calls to all.

I've had plenty of "Don't do it moments." I didn't take part in a snowboarding stunt with some of my friends that resulted in one broken collar bone. I don't give these moments some grander meaning. I attribute them to life's lessons over the years and common sense. As for "Where did the first seed come from, etc..." This is an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know or understand something, doesn't mean "God did it." If you don't know, You. Don't. Know. There are plenty of very intelligent individuals working on several "origins" research topics at my university.

domokunrox wrote:Pierson,

We can find out why we exist philosophically. Scientifically, we can only find proofs for premises on our existence. Science cannot be conclusive on why the universe exists.

The reason for this is because if the correct model is a dualistic theism model, how does science go about in looking for data OUTSIDE of nature? How would it look for the data OUTSIDE of physical reality? It simply cannot.

I suggest you check out the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem.

Also, on how we know which "God" is the right one. We have to look at the evidence. Our physical world reflects a dualistic reality. The perceiver, the perception, and the perceived. Logically, we have no reason to make any exceptions to a dualistic model for an efficient cause of existence. Making an exception to casualty would commit the taxicab fallacy or invoke an argument for an infinite physical absurdity.

You say science cannot be conclusive on why the universe exists. How can you be so sure? Just because we haven't found the answer yet, doesn't mean it's impossible to achieve. We have no idea how far science will take us in hundreds or thousands of years. I haven't heard of the theorem, and will look into some of the things you mentioned in the latter part of your post at a later time.

jlay wrote:Pierson,

You will be delighted to know that I used our dialogue as the basis of my Sunday school lesson yesterday. The lesson plan scheduled was on 'fear' and I thought, "wow, here is a guy with a 'fear' of taking his children to church." It was almost as if it were ordained. So, the gist of the class was on understanding fear, both good and bad, and the necessity of thinking for one's self.

Glad to hear I could be of some insight. I would have loved to hear it.

jlay wrote:

I've heard about this principal before and have to side with the critics on this one. The universe is incomprehensibly large. It's almost impossible to imagine that there aren't other intelligent life forms on other planets.

Imagine? I thought you were a man of science? Seriously. I think one of the most convincing elements of the anthropic principle is the size of the universe. There are elements of the universe beyond our time and perception that if changed only by a fraction would make life on earth impossible. The size of the universe is key to life on earth. As it its expansion rate.

Personally I am not real big on Pascal's wager. In fact, in the end I'm not real big on evidentiary arguments. I'm not against them, but one will generally find what they want in them. Thus my comment on proponents and skeptics in regards to the anthropic principle. I do actually find the argument very strong, but I also understand that the skeptic will always see the other side of probability no matter how improbable it might be. That is after all what makes them a skeptic.

Hah, very funny. Figured I didn't need to get into the science and mathematics of it , I'll be more careful next time. You did address a pretty big issue with evidentiary arguments. People do tend to look for what they wish, and scientists are not infallible. But, if done correctly and with minimal bias, is the best current way to understand reality and the world around us. Improbability in this context isn't a good way to go about the argument. As I explained in my previous post about alternate theories and the such. You can take yourself as an example (it's also a pretty good point to make for those who deny evolution based on improbability):

http://visually.visually.netdna-cdn.com ... 343634.png

jlay wrote:

The majority of the species on our planet have died out and gone extinct (I think the number is somewhere along the lines of 98% of all living organisms). Hardly seems like a place designed for life (especially only human life).

Not sure your purpose in stating this. This really only amplifies the wonder of the existence of beings on that planet which can even appreciate these stats. In other words, you should be asking, "why am I even here to ask this question?"

This statement may also shock many here, but I'll make it anyway. I actually believe there is a possibility that you are a born again believer. One who is of course buried in doubt and far from God. But I still consider it a possibility. I assume that there is always a reason for someone stopping by sites like this. I assume you have better ways to spend your time than hanging out on a forum with people who have a completely different worldview. If you truly are a skeptic as you say, maybe you are being genuinely skeptical, and not swallowing the line that you are merely an accident of nature. And nor would your future children be.

It's a possibility. Or is there a more probable possibility? I was actually googling information on indoctrination and teaching children about hell. One previous post on this site popped up (not exactly relevant to my situation, but I took a look). I figured this would be a good source of information, which it has been. I have gained some valuable insight. Granted, I do have better things to do with my time (I have a few exams next week, and should be studying). I was concerned with solving issues in my relationship which started the whole thing (it was during spring break as well). I'm having a lot of fun talking to you guys, which is why I'm still here.

jlay wrote:

You are making the assumption that the meaning of life is objective. How do you know? On what basis? Why have I not been given this information?

Come now, I covered this in my post to you. Why would you get mad at someone who says life has no meaning? (let me get a little absurd for a moment) On what grounds do you get mad? After all, if meaning is subjective then who are you to impose your thought that life can have meaning? Isn't it one's subjective right to deny meaning?
I know this sounds ridiculous. But how can anyone's 'opinion' be right or wrong when meaning is subjective? It can't, at least regarding meaning. Sure, you can say life has meaning. But if you follow naturalism and atheism to its logical conclusions you have to admit that 'meaning' is merely a perception of consciousness from a material, unguided and purposeless universe. An illusion. Thus my comment on the consequential fallacy. Objective meaning is not an assumption. One MUST, MUST presume objective meaning to engage in the scientific process. I don't mean they will admit to it, only that they must presume it. One must presume that there is order to the universe. That gravity (and a myriad of physics) today, is operating like gravity in the past. )uniformity of nature) That the human mind can rely on logic and reason. That logic and reason will operate tomorrow like they did yesterday. For one to deny objective meaning and then boast science is fundamentally contradictory. Do these objective qualities in themselves mean the Christian faith is true. No, but they are consistent. We would expect to see a cosmos with uniformity of nature since the Bible evidences a God who created an order and sustains an order. We would also expect a universe which can be studied and understood by laws of logic. Science cannot account for these. But it must rely on these truths.

My apologies if I missed the point. Seeing as it's just me carrying on conversations with a few, sometimes I skim over things. I'll try and address the rest of your post when I get a little more free time.

----------------"Mediums" or "Psychics" to be spiritual? What about "spiritual healers"? There are many ways to test these abilities.-------------------

-I was speaking about science proving the existence of spiritual realms or proving spirits exist. I could have been more specific.

------------------Shouldn't they have the similar "knowing" experiences? Why then, did populations not familiar with the Christian God develop the same belief?----------------------

I hear this question often and it actually comes from some misconceptions. There are actually zero cultures who have actually experienced God, who have experienced him differently than any other. I am not saying that the peoples do not have differences. What I am saying is that before other cultures learned about Christ and were separated from each other geographically and by language. Each culture had it's varied beliefs. Most of which were completely either carnal or brutal. In each of these cultures however (and there are writings of these things as evidence to what I am saying) had experiences with God himself who does not change and has revealed himself to mankind. You find the same spirit throughout the centuries within each and every culture out there. You clearly see his wisdom and truth as well as men having knowledge of him. To all of the men who did have knowledge of him, when they heard the Gospel, if they ever did hear the Gospel of Chirst, immediately recognized the same spirit as the author. -Here is an illustration from an ancient Souix Indian prayer:

"Oh, Great Spirit, whose voice I hear in the winds
Whose breath gives life to the world, hear me
I come to you as one of your many children
I am small and weak
I need your strength and wisdom

May I walk in beauty
Make my eyes ever behold the red and purple sunset.
Make my hands respect the things you have made
And my ears sharp to your voice.
Make me wise so that I may know the things you have taught your children.

The lessons you have written in every leaf and rock
Make me strong--------!
Not to be superior to my brothers, but to fight my greatest enemy....myself

Make me ever ready to come to you with straight eyes,
So that when life fades as the fading sunset,
May my spirit come to you without shame."

This is translated, but these Indians knew of spirit and of eternal life far before anyone came to their shores with any new doctrine. They knew of the great spirit which is a very accurate way to describe God.

You may not want to believe this, but I would encourage you to contemplate the fact, that if God does exist, he definitely revealed himself to all mankind throughout the centuries, and God is God, meaning he is the God of the Chinese, the Europeans, the South Americans...God is the same for all of us and what I am saying (if God is in fact real) is most certainly true.

Seveneyes, you come dangerously close to admitting that all world cultures are equal in spiritual value there, don't you?