Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:Yes, absolutely (pun intended). None of us are omniscient. The question is whether or not we are warranted in believing that we have (or someone else has) missed a variable. In some cases, there are good arguments. I have strong warrant in believing that JWs misunderstand Greek grammar when they interpret John 1:1c "the Word was a God." There are passages in my own theology that I'm not sure what to do with, and there are other passages that I have considered and come to a conclusion on their meaning but hold those conclusions rather tentatively. But there are others that I hold with near absolute certainty about--the same kind of "near absolute certainty" that I have that gravity is not going to stop working tomorrow and the spin of the earth throw me off into deep space. I'm really not trying to be coy or difficult when I keep saying "it depends" (because that is what a lot of this amounts to!) but it really does depend on the specific passage in question!

Thank you again Jac, I know your not trying to be coy, you are probably the most direct and to the point person on this board.

Once again thank you for your thoughts, they have been enlightening.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think it comes down to evidence in what we believe is true when it comes from man,if it comes from God it is already true,but once man gets into deciding what is true and what is not,evidence is the only way to know.A person can believe anything is true but the question is where is your evidence?And how can we know what you believe is true?
Logic,reason and evidence is the only way to go to determine the truth.Man can be right but he can be wrong too.This is why I reject evolution and I'd reject evolution if I was an atheist,which I'm not and some atheists reject evolution and I've noticed some atheists who used to preach evolution kinda backing off about it.In my debates with atheists about evolution I've had agnostics side with me pointing out the lack of real evidence.

I understand your point and I don't think there is absolute certainty in (macro) Evolution theory as there is in Gravity being an absolute certainty, but I would say Gap theory, Y.E.C, O.E.C, Framework or whatever other theory is out there has any more warrant for believing, all theories have their problematic areas and I don't feel the Bible says one way or the other, it seems to me to be quite silent on the issue as it is on many other areas that are not ultimately important.

Peace brother.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think it comes down to evidence in what we believe is true when it comes from man,if it comes from God it is already true,but once man gets into deciding what is true and what is not,evidence is the only way to know.A person can believe anything is true but the question is where is your evidence?And how can we know what you believe is true?
Logic,reason and evidence is the only way to go to determine the truth.Man can be right but he can be wrong too.This is why I reject evolution and I'd reject evolution if I was an atheist,which I'm not and some atheists reject evolution and I've noticed some atheists who used to preach evolution kinda backing off about it.In my debates with atheists about evolution I've had agnostics side with me pointing out the lack of real evidence.

I understand your point and I don't think there is absolute certainty in (macro) Evolution theory as there is in Gravity being an absolute certainty, but I would say Gap theory, Y.E.C, O.E.C, Framework or whatever other theory is out there has any more warrant for believing, all theories have their problematic areas and I don't feel the Bible says one way or the other, it seems to me to be quite silent on the issue as it is on many other areas that are not ultimately important.

Peace brother.

Well my mind can be changed believe it or not,but evidence is what can do it.For me at this time it is the gap theory for me but I also know and understand the uphill slope I'm on not only with science but brothers in Christ too,who do not even know much about the gap theory because of false things by creation critics who defend their creation theory.I know it is not easy to change minds but the sooner we get started as believers in the bible I truly believe the evidence will bear it out.There is no real gap theory leader out there who knows how to defend it biblically and blend science into it and so it makes it seem less credible.I have looked for evidence in science and still am,but I have not got the full picture yet,I have not got all of the pieces of the puzzle yet,but I'm trying.

Peace to you too bro.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think it comes down to evidence in what we believe is true when it comes from man,if it comes from God it is already true,but once man gets into deciding what is true and what is not,evidence is the only way to know.A person can believe anything is true but the question is where is your evidence?And how can we know what you believe is true?
Logic,reason and evidence is the only way to go to determine the truth.Man can be right but he can be wrong too.This is why I reject evolution and I'd reject evolution if I was an atheist,which I'm not and some atheists reject evolution and I've noticed some atheists who used to preach evolution kinda backing off about it.In my debates with atheists about evolution I've had agnostics side with me pointing out the lack of real evidence.

I understand your point and I don't think there is absolute certainty in (macro) Evolution theory as there is in Gravity being an absolute certainty, but I would say Gap theory, Y.E.C, O.E.C, Framework or whatever other theory is out there has any more warrant for believing, all theories have their problematic areas and I don't feel the Bible says one way or the other, it seems to me to be quite silent on the issue as it is on many other areas that are not ultimately important.

Peace brother.

Well my mind can be changed believe it or not,but evidence is what can do it.For me at this time it is the gap theory for me but I also know and understand the uphill slope I'm on not only with science but brothers in Christ too,who do not even know much about the gap theory because of false things by creation critics who defend their creation theory.I know it is not easy to change minds but the sooner we get started as believers in the bible I truly believe the evidence will bear it out.There is no real gap theory leader out there who knows how to defend it biblically and blend science into it and so it makes it seem less credible.I have looked for evidence in science and still am,but I have not got the full picture yet,I have not got all of the pieces of the puzzle yet,but I'm trying.

Peace to you too bro.

Can I ask you one question ACB, do you really think it is that important that it needs defending? I mean creation theory is at the bottom of my list when it comes to doctrine and theology.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think it comes down to evidence in what we believe is true when it comes from man,if it comes from God it is already true,but once man gets into deciding what is true and what is not,evidence is the only way to know.A person can believe anything is true but the question is where is your evidence?And how can we know what you believe is true?
Logic,reason and evidence is the only way to go to determine the truth.Man can be right but he can be wrong too.This is why I reject evolution and I'd reject evolution if I was an atheist,which I'm not and some atheists reject evolution and I've noticed some atheists who used to preach evolution kinda backing off about it.In my debates with atheists about evolution I've had agnostics side with me pointing out the lack of real evidence.

I understand your point and I don't think there is absolute certainty in (macro) Evolution theory as there is in Gravity being an absolute certainty, but I would say Gap theory, Y.E.C, O.E.C, Framework or whatever other theory is out there has any more warrant for believing, all theories have their problematic areas and I don't feel the Bible says one way or the other, it seems to me to be quite silent on the issue as it is on many other areas that are not ultimately important.

Peace brother.

Well my mind can be changed believe it or not,but evidence is what can do it.For me at this time it is the gap theory for me but I also know and understand the uphill slope I'm on not only with science but brothers in Christ too,who do not even know much about the gap theory because of false things by creation critics who defend their creation theory.I know it is not easy to change minds but the sooner we get started as believers in the bible I truly believe the evidence will bear it out.There is no real gap theory leader out there who knows how to defend it biblically and blend science into it and so it makes it seem less credible.I have looked for evidence in science and still am,but I have not got the full picture yet,I have not got all of the pieces of the puzzle yet,but I'm trying.

Peace to you too bro.

Can I ask you one question ACB, do you really think it is that important that it needs defending? I mean creation theory is at the bottom of my list when it comes to doctrine and theology.

I think it needs to be preached and taught if it is truly revealed in God's word and yet it is not really being done,although I can find certain bible teachers teaching it,they do not have the platform to really make an impact.Imagine this we get to heaven and Jesus says the gap theory was true,you should've listened and looked into it more the bible told you to test everything and to seek and ye shall find and yet you didn't.Now saying this yes I could be the one wrong but I've already considered this long ago when I learned about it,and the time it took for me to make sure it is biblical.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think it comes down to evidence in what we believe is true when it comes from man,if it comes from God it is already true,but once man gets into deciding what is true and what is not,evidence is the only way to know.A person can believe anything is true but the question is where is your evidence?And how can we know what you believe is true?
Logic,reason and evidence is the only way to go to determine the truth.Man can be right but he can be wrong too.This is why I reject evolution and I'd reject evolution if I was an atheist,which I'm not and some atheists reject evolution and I've noticed some atheists who used to preach evolution kinda backing off about it.In my debates with atheists about evolution I've had agnostics side with me pointing out the lack of real evidence.

I understand your point and I don't think there is absolute certainty in (macro) Evolution theory as there is in Gravity being an absolute certainty, but I would say Gap theory, Y.E.C, O.E.C, Framework or whatever other theory is out there has any more warrant for believing, all theories have their problematic areas and I don't feel the Bible says one way or the other, it seems to me to be quite silent on the issue as it is on many other areas that are not ultimately important.

Peace brother.

Well my mind can be changed believe it or not,but evidence is what can do it.For me at this time it is the gap theory for me but I also know and understand the uphill slope I'm on not only with science but brothers in Christ too,who do not even know much about the gap theory because of false things by creation critics who defend their creation theory.I know it is not easy to change minds but the sooner we get started as believers in the bible I truly believe the evidence will bear it out.There is no real gap theory leader out there who knows how to defend it biblically and blend science into it and so it makes it seem less credible.I have looked for evidence in science and still am,but I have not got the full picture yet,I have not got all of the pieces of the puzzle yet,but I'm trying.

Peace to you too bro.

Can I ask you one question ACB, do you really think it is that important that it needs defending? I mean creation theory is at the bottom of my list when it comes to doctrine and theology.

I think it needs to be preached and taught if it is truly revealed in God's word and yet it is not really being done,although I can find certain bible teachers teaching it,they do not have the platform to really make an impact.Imagine this we get to heaven and Jesus says the gap theory was true,you should've listened and looked into it more the bible told you to test everything and to seek and ye shall find and yet you didn't.Now saying this yes I could be the one wrong but I've already considered this long ago when I learned about it,and the time it took for me to make sure it is biblical.

I think the important issues are the ones that have to do with salvation, do you think Gap theory is a salvation issue? Do we need to get creation theory right? Seems like legalism to say yes, because it is then relying on our own strengths rather than Christ's work on the cross.

jlay wrote: Then we've made progress. This dictates that there is a reality which can be rightly known.
So, interpretation can correspond to reality or it can miss the mark.
Does that sound fair?

Yes! If we are talking about the type of truth which can be easily demonstrated; like math, measurements, or laws, (aka objective truth) but if we are talking about that which cannot always be agreed upon because it can’t be demonstrated; like right/wrong, good/bad, (aka subjective truth) then the use of logic and reason will still lead to a different interpretation of such truth.

Because of the way the OP was written, I had a feeling he was referring to more than just the Objective truth.

Ken

I think the important issues are the ones that have to do with salvation, do you think Gap theory is a salvation issue? Do we need to get creation theory right? Seems like legalism to say yes, because it is then relying on our own strengths rather than Christ's work on the cross.

No I don't think the gap theory is a salvation issue,I think it is a biblical issue that needs to be preached and taught in order for the truth to be told and I think of all of the people that are blinded and deceived that would be reached with the gospel,for the gap theory is even more evidence the bible is the true inspired word of God that can be added to all of the other evidence we know about.

Imagine a person who does not believe the bible because of science and how they know science does not line up with this teaching of a young earth,etc or yes genesis 1 is similar to what science teaches but your making the bible fit into science,etc.These kinds of people could be reached with the truth and with the gospel,also why give other creation theories that seem wrong a pass?IMO none of these other creation theories defeat evolution,they give it a pass,or if they don't they'll never convince the person the bible is true unless the person ignores science,or by just pointing out there is a designer in the universe,this is important but allows evolution.Think of evolution being a lie from Satan and the person is deceived when they see the gap theory prove evolution false and prove the bible true then they will be open to the gospel and will repent.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

I think the important issues are the ones that have to do with salvation, do you think Gap theory is a salvation issue? Do we need to get creation theory right? Seems like legalism to say yes, because it is then relying on our own strengths rather than Christ's work on the cross.

No I don't think the gap theory is a salvation issue,I think it is a biblical issue that needs to be preached and taught in order for the truth to be told and I think of all of the people that are blinded and deceived that would be reached with the gospel,for the gap theory is even more evidence the bible is the true inspired word of God that can be added to all of the other evidence we know about.

Imagine a person who does not believe the bible because of science and how they know science does not line up with this teaching of a young earth,etc or yes genesis 1 is similar to what science teaches but your making the bible fit into science,etc.These kinds of people could be reached with the truth and with the gospel,also why give other creation theories that seem wrong a pass?IMO none of these other creation theories defeat evolution,they give it a pass,or if they don't they'll never convince the person the bible is true unless the person ignores science,or by just pointing out there is a designer in the universe,this is important but allows evolution.Think of evolution being a lie from Satan and the person is deceived when they see the gap theory prove evolution false and prove the bible true then they will be open to the gospel and will repent.

I just think the Bible is silent on these issues, it doesn't really say one way or the other, it is left up to interpretation of the individual and I believe this to be the case because it is just not that important to having faith in Christ, the OT just gives us some background for the events in the NT, other than that you don't even require the OT, Jesus' words are more than enough to live according to God's will.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:
I know it doesn't say faith, but working out your salvation is working out your faith, I think they are synonymous. Salvation is being saved by faith..........

I am not sure why you bring up being negative and argumentative?

The problem is Starhunter is that if truth was so easy to find in the Bible, then why do pretty much every Christian will disagree on it's interpretation on a huge range of different issues.

I personalaly think the Bible speaks to us on a personal level and everyone's walk is different and we should not stand in judgement of another on issues that are of little consequence. Romans 14:5 is quite applicable to this

I wasn't pointing the finger about arguing, I was just saying that the text shows that the salvation in Christ does away with those things because the anxiety of salvation is replaced by confidence. Thanks for pointing that out anyway.

Your Q about the many variants in Christendom is a good one. It occurs whether there is a lot of Bible or none, so perhaps its just human nature?
Should we expect to have some kind of absolute truth to make a unifying field?
We suppose that such an absolute truth would also be very accommodating with differences, don't you think?

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote: Then we've made progress. This dictates that there is a reality which can be rightly known.
So, interpretation can correspond to reality or it can miss the mark.
Does that sound fair?

Yes! If we are talking about the type of truth which can be easily demonstrated; like math, measurements, or laws, (aka objective truth) but if we are talking about that which cannot always be agreed upon because it can’t be demonstrated; like right/wrong, good/bad, (aka subjective truth) then the use of logic and reason will still lead to a different interpretation of such truth.

Because of the way the OP was written, I had a feeling he was referring to more than just the Objective truth.

Ken

Kenny,
Obviously, we've had these discussions in the past, and went round and round to no avail. I heard a great comment from an lady who was an ardent atheist. She had her own blog and was very vocal about her atheism as well as problems with Christianity. She recently became a professing and practicing Christian. When someone asked her about her conversion, she candidly explained that her standards (as an atheist) for accepting Christian doctrine were higher than what she knew could realisticly be met. In other words, she wasn't being reasonable regarding the burden of proof.

In the issue of objective morality (OM) i have often found this to be the case. The common error is the same one we've been dealing with since we started thsi discussion with you a long time ago. You are confusing the epistemological question of morality with the ontological question. You are assuming that we must agree on morals for them to be objective. That argument doesn't follow.
In another thread we were discussing gravity. Is gravity an obejective fact of reality? Yes. But is there total agreement on the nature of gravity? No. Whether scientists or people in general agree on gravity doesn't change whether it is an objective reality.

The question is, do objective moral values exist? I'm not asking you how you know something is moral, or whether something is moral.
We could ask, is there a situation where rape, murder and lying could be virtuous while charity and kindness are evil? I'm not even asking if people agree whether these are virtuous. I asking, 'is it virtuous?' Without question, you could start a society in a prison full of psycopaths who view all these things as virtuous. But does that MAKE it virtuous? No.
If you knew of a society that practiced such, would you concede that there is no real way to know whether their practices are right or wrong? If not, and you were suddenly placed in this society you would have to willingly comply. You coudn't say you'd try to change them, because there is no basis to do so. Instead you would have to practice their ways, or admit that you are evil. Then and only then could you really practice what you preach.

How we come to know what is moral (agreement) is not the same thing as whether moral values exist. For whatever reason, you don't apply this burden with math, measurements, etc., but you do it with morals. And basically, much like the lady mentioned above, I think you have set the deck where you know you will not get an answer. The problem is not the answer, but the question. I can illustrate this with a hypothetical. Let's say you are in a classroom and all the students are given the math problem 2+2= . Everyone in the class except yourself answers 5. The teacher grades the test and everyone gets and 'A' except you get an 'F.' You ask the teacher why you got an 'F' and he responds, "Because everyone else in the class agreed that the answer was 5. Since everyone didn't agree, then there is no objective answer and therefore the subjective opinion of the majority rules. Now, if you are faithful to your position, you wouldn't not object and come to accept that 2+2=5.
So, does that in anyway change what is objectively true? No.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

I think the important issues are the ones that have to do with salvation, do you think Gap theory is a salvation issue? Do we need to get creation theory right? Seems like legalism to say yes, because it is then relying on our own strengths rather than Christ's work on the cross.

No I don't think the gap theory is a salvation issue,I think it is a biblical issue that needs to be preached and taught in order for the truth to be told and I think of all of the people that are blinded and deceived that would be reached with the gospel,for the gap theory is even more evidence the bible is the true inspired word of God that can be added to all of the other evidence we know about.

Imagine a person who does not believe the bible because of science and how they know science does not line up with this teaching of a young earth,etc or yes genesis 1 is similar to what science teaches but your making the bible fit into science,etc.These kinds of people could be reached with the truth and with the gospel,also why give other creation theories that seem wrong a pass?IMO none of these other creation theories defeat evolution,they give it a pass,or if they don't they'll never convince the person the bible is true unless the person ignores science,or by just pointing out there is a designer in the universe,this is important but allows evolution.Think of evolution being a lie from Satan and the person is deceived when they see the gap theory prove evolution false and prove the bible true then they will be open to the gospel and will repent.

I just think the Bible is silent on these issues, it doesn't really say one way or the other, it is left up to interpretation of the individual and I believe this to be the case because it is just not that important to having faith in Christ, the OT just gives us some background for the events in the NT, other than that you don't even require the OT, Jesus' words are more than enough to live according to God's will.

I understand your point too but I don't agree,the bible has prophecies in it and there are many fulfilled prophecies in the bible and unfulfilled prophecies too,Isaiah tells us that God uses prophecy as evidence he is the true God over all other god's.And you say the bible is silent on these issues but it is because of evolution that we are taught in these last days that "since our fathers died,all things continue as they were from the beginning and that Christians would be mocked by people saying this in the last days and yet it is happening now and it is because of evolution that people mock us about Jesus,you see the moment we tell them about Jesus they think because of evolution that this world has went on for millions of years and you mean to tell me it took millions of years for God to send his son Jesus to reveal himself to us? 2nd Peter 3:3-7 is a fulfilled bible prophecy now and yet you seem to think the bible is silent on these issues,but it isn't and if this is a fulfilled bible prophecy it means what evolution has taught us is totally wrong.

I'm not nobody's judge but you seem to imply you don't really trust God's word now that you are saved but if this is the case I think it sets a person up to believe man's truth over God's truth which is his word. 2nd Timothy 3:16.;

jlay wrote: You are confusing the epistemological question of morality with the ontological question. You are assuming that we must agree on morals for them to be objective. That argument doesn't follow.

I’ve never made such a claim. I have always said morals must be DEMONSTRABLE to be objective.

jlay wrote:In another thread we were discussing gravity. Is gravity an obejective fact of reality?

Can gravity be demonstrated? Of course!

jlay wrote:The question is, do objective moral values exist? I'm not asking you how you know something is moral, or whether something is moral.
We could ask, is there a situation where rape, murder and lying could be virtuous while charity and kindness are evil?

I will use the example I used with you last time:
If I were thirsty and were about to drink water from a puddle, and you told me the water was poisonous, that is a demonstrable truth because I can get a sample of the water, do a chemical analysis, and let’s say I find the water contains traces of “Ethylene glycol”. this chemical is poisonous to mammals and because humans are mammals, it is poisonous to me.
If I choose a different interpretation of this truth and decide it is safe, I will get sick and die anyway. And it doesn’t only apply to humans, it applies to any mammal; if a dog , cat, or any mammal drinks of the water, they will die as well. This is an example of “objective truth” because it can be demonstrated, it applies to everything; not just humans; and there is no debating involved.

Is Killing wrong? Yes! How about if I kill an intruder who entered my house armed with a knife and I shoot him because I felt my life was in danger? How about if he didn’t have a knife but he was bigger than me and I was afraid he would kill me with his bare hands? How about if he didn’t enter my house but he was on my property?
Okay so we say murder is wrong. Murder is malicious killing of an innocent human. So who decides guilty or not? The killer just before he pulls the trigger?

You mentioned “rape”. Rape is defined as “non consensual sex. Does this apply to animals? Animals cannot consent so how do they reproduce? Okay so we only apply it to humans. The age of consent in the state of California is 18; next door in Nevada is 16, so if a 17 yr old has sex in California it is rape, but if he goes next door to Nevada, it is okay!

These are all interpretations. How can you call something with that many interpretations objective?

jlay wrote:How we come to know what is moral (agreement) is not the same thing as whether moral values exist. For whatever reason, you don't apply this burden with math, measurements, etc., but you do it with morals. And basically, much like the lady mentioned above, I think you have set the deck where you know you will not get an answer.

Math is demonstrable. Why? Because everybody agrees math is to be based on the number 10. If some people interpret math to be based on 12, 15, or some other number, then you couldn't call it objective.

Can the same be said for morality? Truth? Good/Bad? What base are you going to use? Your God? Problem is the next guy is going to use HIS God as the moral base, then someone like me will use no God at all; which results in nobody agreeing on good/bad, right/wrong.
If you could get everybody to agree on a single moral base, and this moral base gave everybody the same information; you would have a case for morality to be objective. But as long as there is as much interpretation as we have concerning truth and morally; it has to be called subjective.
Note; I am not saying objective morality means everyone will agree, (there will always be some nut-job who will deny the obvious) I’m saying the fact that so many people disagree should be a hint that maybe it isn’t objective.

Getting back on subject; the OP implied an uncertainty concerning truth. I think this type of uncertainty is the result of trying to believe truth is objective; yet nobody seems to know what it is! I believe to acknowledging truth as subjective will clear up a lot of that confusion and uncertainty.

Ken

Kenny wrote: Getting back on subject; the OP implied an uncertainty concerning truth. I think this type of uncertainty is the result of trying to believe truth is objective; yet nobody seems to know what it is! I believe to acknowledging truth as subjective will clear up a lot of that confusion and uncertainty.

The contradictions are so glaring l wouldn't know what parts to highlight so I left it as is. The subjectivity of truth clears up uncertainty. Wow, this is truly sad.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote: Getting back on subject; the OP implied an uncertainty concerning truth. I think this type of uncertainty is the result of trying to believe truth is objective; yet nobody seems to know what it is! I believe to acknowledging truth as subjective will clear up a lot of that confusion and uncertainty.

The contradictions are so glaring l wouldn't know what parts to highlight so I left it as is. The subjectivity of truth clears up uncertainty. Wow, this is truly sad.

Byblos,

As jlay wrote:

jlay wrote:
You are confusing the epistemological question of morality with the ontological question. You are assuming that we must agree on morals for them to be objective. That argument doesn't follow.

As long as Ken doesn't understand this, he's going to repeat the same nonsense.