Evidence for God from Science

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:@FlThis was humor, obviously bad humor. I'm sorry you misread it.

I love it! I cried laughing! I love putting my foot in my mouth!

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:@FlThis was humor, obviously bad humor. I'm sorry you misread it.

I love it! I cried laughing! I love putting my foot in my mouth!

FL

Brilliant!

Storyteller wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:@FlThis was humor, obviously bad humor. I'm sorry you misread it.

I love it! I cried laughing! I love putting my foot in my mouth!

FL

Brilliant!

Poor Canberra Hilton fell into HFD's trap as well...poor woman! I hope she's not upset...Shame on you, HFD, shame shame SHAME!

FL

B. W. wrote:Happy,

Here is what you said about Fred, for those who have not read the Deism Thread..

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:Questioning why the deist god did what it did is indeed a tricky one. I could steal from the Judeo-Christian theist position and state this "being" did it to marvel at it's creation. However the creation in question here is not one of life existing, rather it's of the expanse that is the universe (or multitude of) and it's laws existing.

Perhaps this deist being knew life would be created somewhere, this would seem to indicate this being wanted it to and thus lead to theism. Obviously I disagree.

I believe that this god of mine did allow for life through the laws it established, but is not interested in us (thus the deism). Under my view and understanding of this universal expanse we are one of many, we are not unique. Perhaps this "being" (who will now be referred to as Fred because "being" might confuse in a sentence, and god might indicate YHWH) wanted something to marvel at his creation (Fred is very egotistical) thus why he allowed through the laws he created for life to evolve somewhere. We are certainly capable of admiring creation, we all look up to the stars are marvel at the majestic expanse around us; we're also at a point now where we can even understand the laws that Fred created! I don't think that, if we really are what I just theorized above, this means we're significant or Fred cares at all about us.

As theist state, we cannot understand the mind of God or his reasons. Trying to understand Fred through our logic is impossible, he's above our way of reasoning; Otherwise our reason would lead us to "if he created something to admire him, why wouldn't he care about us." I've tried to come up with a analogy but I can't ( I was going to use "do you care about a scribble on paper you created", but a scribble cannot appreciate you or it's own creation). To understand my view of Fred you must ignore your concept and understanding of God. Fred is not YHWH, he's not a loving, forgiving God, he's not an evil God, he might not even be a egotistical god as I stated above. I don't know his reasons, I don't know his thoughts, but I know he must exist through the complexity of what exists (meaning Laws of Physics).

I know my view sounds childish to most as it's impossible to defeat. If you state something I'll just state "you can't understand Fred."(I'll try my best not to , please state things and pick apart what I believe. I can think rationally). Childish right? Not so to me, to understand what I believe and why I believe you must try to adapt my lens. It may still seem childish and ignorant, and it may be, please state why it is, I have thick skin. All I ask is you attempt to look through my view of Fred first absent ( as impossible as it may seem) your view of God.

I do ask, for the sake of rational conversation, we don't turn this into a furious debate. Let's not do the dissection (quoting small little portions and picking it apart) method of conversing with each other, it makes it difficult to have fluent reading, will normally just instigate somebody's defense mechanism, and it takes things out of context that, in some cases, are clarified later in the post. Please though state why I'm wrong, what's wrong with my view, why you're right, et cetera... ( I know I'm so difficult to understand - I don't want a debate but debate!-, please try to bear with me , I can try to clarify if need be.)

Note that we're still an accident, that is life on this planet. Assuming Fred did want life to appreciate him, he again only set the laws of physics in motion that allowed for the possibility of life evolving to do so.

Your view of God is this:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:Fred is not YHWH, he's not a loving, forgiving God, he's not an evil God, he might not even be a egotistical god as I stated above. I don't know his reasons, I don't know his thoughts, but I know he must exist through the complexity of what exists (meaning Laws of Physics)

Atheist have faith in their philosophy and world view.

Deist likewise have faith in their clockmaker FRED.

I am not sure if you caught this about Jac but he is answering you as your FRED would - not loving, indifferent, not evil, and existing through the complexity of what exists. In other words, he is answering you according to your faith. This is an extremely intelligent move on Jac's part. Therefore, since he has answered you even as your own FRED would, why do you find fault with FRED"S insults?

Happy, your faith is in an amoral God who made a clock like universe and took a long vacation. That is the basic tenant of deism.

Your faith is in a god that is not loving. Why do you find fault when someone is not loving toward your words as your Fred is not loving?

You state that you desire an actual honest conversation but do you?

Let's skip the small talk and get with it...

State three or Four objections to the Judaic/Christian concept of God and no more so we do not stray off on useless intellectual rabbit trials. There are some highly intelligent folks who can add his or her points to your objections. Are you willing to do this? Are you willing to find faith is not what you suppose it is?

If so, then list:

Objection One:

Objection Two:

Objection Three:
-
-
-

Jac simply stated things that were blatantly wrong. This is why I object, I don't always require "love" in my answers BW.

B.W, at this point in time I really don't anymore, I think I've stressed this quite a bit. I have no objections to evidence regarding christianity nor it's theology; The problem being I don't understand much of it's theology thus the primary purpose of this thread. I've done things, regarding christianity, that I haven't done in 2-3 years on a daily basis for the past week, so I hope you can see my intense animosity towards these uninformed, cockamamie insults.

A few have actually very well explained faith to me, which I appreciate, but if you want an objection for this thread to focus on I can provide one.

Objection 1:
I'll probably butcher this understanding as well but I'll give it a shot:
It seems that I must be a Christian to understand "evidence" for it. What is meant by this? If this is true how can I come to the christian faith with a rational foundation, or is that even possible?

Question 2:
What part in faith should/does physical/historical fact play? Is it even required for faith? My previous assumption was that it is, as such evidence makes it a rational trust.

Hap, maybe I'm wrong about your open-mindedness. Look, I hope I am. I'd love nothing more than for you to prove me wrong. I have a lot of faults, and you could probably enumerate quite a few. I'm under no illusion as to my own goodness, much less perfection. But one fault that I don't have is an inability to admit when I'm wrong. So, again, I hope I am.

As it stands, I'm concerned that I'm not wrong, at least, not at the present.

You seemed to suggest that my argument was little more than manipulation when you said, "you went sentence by sentence picking out every possible intentional and unintentional mis-wording and manipulating it to back me in a corner." When people use their philosophical skills for such low means, we call that sophistry. You can believe of me whatever you want, but I will tell you that I abhor sophistry. Is disreputable and disrespectful and those who practice it deserve our disdain and mockery at best. My argument against your Fred wasn't intended as something so absurd. What I was doing was demonstrating--and that's an important word--that your deism as you suggested it was self-contradictory and so cannot be held by a rational human being.

You asked what I expected? The same thing I expect now. For you to be rational. Of course I didn't expect a conversion. I did, and do, though, expect you to either give up the version of deism as you held it, defend it, or if you can't do either, give me some sort of rational reason that you hold to it in the face of solid argument against it. And that last view is fair and a rather broad one. I'm sure you think it's absurd that I hold to YEC in the face of the scientific consensus against my views here. Further, I admit that I a lack the technical skills to assess the arguments, and therefore, I lack the ability to respond to what amounts to an argument from authority. So I'm in the same boat here as you are with respect to your deism (as you stated it in that thread). What I do NOT do is just tap out as you did. I offer arguments in the third category (as well as an appeal to authority on my own to match the appeal to authority thrown at me--goose and gander).

BW, of course, picked up on a particular methodology I was using. I hope you reconsider his exposition of that approach a little more fully. If you really are going to persist in this version of deism in which Fred doesn't care about us, then on what basis should I or anyone care about anyone else? Because it's nice? So what? Because it's respectable? So what? To be blunt, I've no interest in bowing and pandering to the whims of someone else's preferences. I bow to truth. I mean, I really hope you can get be empathetic enough for just one second to see the unimaginable arrogance that necessarily is at the root of your position (if I'm reading you correctly). On one hand, you say that God doesn't care about us. And then you get offended, as if I've wronged you, when my language strikes you as harsh. The implication of your offense, that I've wronged you, is that I've done something I ought not. But who are you to tell me what I ought to do? Are you God?

I know you know that you aren't. Of all the faults you and I have, one I would never accuse you of is megalomania! I think the real issue here is an inconsistency in your thinking. I want you to see it, and I'm afraid that you either don't or else you are refusing to (and so my point about your open-mindedness).

Two more things in this unnecessarily long post.

1. Go back to your response to me and replace the word "philosophy" with "reason and logic." To try to dismiss a criticism from somebody because they are "good at reason and logic" is a bit . . . well . . . silly, don't you think? So I want to repeat my question to you. Why should you reject one line of evidence against your position (one that is just sound reason) and yet accept another? What's the arbiter here? If reason itself isn't good enough for you, then why would anything else be?

2. My entire post that you reacted to was in light of your comments to FL that he sounded like a Mormon missionary, as if he was asking you to have blind faith. So let me be a little clearer in my intentions here by answering your last two questions directly.

First, there is a difference in general and special revelation. You do not need to be a Christian to understand general revelation. On the contrary, you are under obligation to accept it, as it is available to you. General revelation is that which can be known about God by what He as revealed about Himself through nature itself. One such example, per the argument I gave to you previously, is that He loves us. You've already established through general revelation that He exists and that He created the universe. You can easily establish that God is not a human or an animal, so I suspect you would see idolatry as logically absurd. Those are things that you have evidence for, that you reason about, that you can see. Those are the things that prompt faith in special revelation. Special revelation can be subject to reason and evidence after the fact, but never before, and that gets us into your second question.

So second, general revelation, including historical evidence, plays a foundational role in that it motivates us to trust an authority on what cannot be known about reason alone. So general revelation establishes the trustworthiness of Scripture, for example. Or to give a more pertinent one, I can know by general revelation that a man named Jesus Christ died under the rule of Pontius Pilate. I can know that this Jesus was buried in a tomb and that three days later that tomb was empty. I can know that this man's disciples were convinced--they believed--that they had seen this man physically resurrected (in accordance with their theological, that is to say, Jewish, understanding of that term) several times and that they watched Him ascend to heaven. I can know that their theology shifted or mutated to include the belief in the present reality of the Resurrection, an openness to Gentiles to join their community without imposing the Law, justification by faith alone, and most importantly the Incarnation--the idea that God could and did take on human flesh. I can know that those are MASSIVE changes that require historical explanation, and from that, I can conclude strictly historically (through a type of general revelation) that this man named Jesus Christ was literally resurrected from the dead.

But what does that mean? Jesus and those who follow Him--and Scripture in particular--claims that means that God insists that we believe that He, Jesus, is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing that we have life in His name. Now, what evidence is there for THAT? The answer is none. You either believe that or you don't. No evidence can prove it. That is special revelation. It is highly motivated, I think, by general revelation. But it is special revelation all the same and cannot be proven by reason or deduction. It can only be supported.

And THAT is what FL and Scripture is getting at when they talk about faith being necessary to understand. It is only after you believe that special revelation has real meaning. Shy of that, it's nothing more than a game of putting the words in the right order, but you'll just never know it until you believe. To your OP, that's not a blind belief. It is highly motivated. But at some point you have to take the step of faith and be willing to believe so that you can understand. I have three theological degrees in this stuff. I am still learning, still understanding. If I insisted on waiting to understand all before I believed, or even waiting to understand anything, then I would never believe, not even now. True open-mindedness, then, is seeing that belief is warranted and then being submissive enough to the God of Truth to believe His testimony (John 3:33). Anything less is to call Him a liar and demand He meet your standards.

So in all this, I appreciate the work you are doing and even the headway you are making. But I hope you aren't under the illusion that someday it will make sense so that you can believe. It doesn't work that way. God gives, and has given, you enough for you to say to Him, "God, I don't understand it all, but what I do know shows me that You are trustworthy. I'm going to keep studying and learning, but I'm going to do so believing and trusting that You have told the truth, starting with the truth about my own sinfulness, need for a Savior, Your love for me, and that in Jesus Christ You Yourself have provided that salvation." Something like that. And I hope you do that.

Bottom line, Hap, to quote One infinitely better than me, "You are not far from the kingdom." Your view of faith is correct. But it only goes so far. Eventually, you have to entrust yourself to God. I can tell you that it is a scary leap, but I can also tell you it is worth it. It is a leap that you don't make once. You make it and keep making it every day, because Jesus calls us to live daily in that faith, that leap. I'm forever looking back to general revelation to remind myself that my leap is justified, even demanded. But after that, the leap remains. I'm secure in it only because I am persuaded that God holds me securely.

And with that, I'll shut up. I'm sorry I wasn't eloquent enough in my earlier response so that I allowed room for misinterpretation of my words or approach. But having said all this (which was far too much, I know), I hope you consider seriously what you are hearing.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:@FlThis was humor, obviously bad humor. I'm sorry you misread it.

I love it! I cried laughing! I love putting my foot in my mouth!

FL

Brilliant!

Poor Canberra Hilton fell into HFD's trap as well...poor woman! I hope she's not upset...Shame on you, HFD, shame shame SHAME!

FL

I was quite aware of the ironic, sarcastic tone in happy's remark. My posting wasn't triggered by such.
I have stories too FL, of how people I know, some family members have dealt with JW and Mormons. Whilst it seems to be thier 'funny' go to story I actually find it pretty sad.
The reality is they do get treated like crap and that is an approach as I said I don't condone.
I have had when I was younger a couple of run ins with Mormons. Told them what I thought. But I have also had run ins with 'christians' also. As soon as you berate someone, start an argument, then no matter what is said is lost on them anyway. I learned that pretty quickly.
Now I tell them my thoughts kindly but with conviction, when there are in packs they usually see that it is pointless excercise with me, and usually leave pretty quickly, I have though engaged in conversation that was interesting and I think worth my time. But if it starts to get heated I back away.
As with dealing with anyone about anything, when you start talking over the top of each, no listening is involved, it becomes a tit for tat of each other trying to push their point. A waste of everyone's time.

1. Go back to your response to me and replace the word "philosophy" with "reason and logic." To try to dismiss a criticism from somebody because they are "good at reason and logic" is a bit . . . well . . . silly, don't you think?

Absolutely jac, I didn't dismiss it either. I did read through your response, I accept part of it, but I know you do realize that i'm not capable of debating philosophically. I've taken entry level philosophy class which was basically a history class with basic understanding of common fallacies, and i've done very little reading about said art. I convince a 13 year old that the earth was sucked into a black hole, we're all dead and nothing is actually real, it doesn't make it infallible. You took my flawed knowledge in a art and used it against me. That's viable as I unwisely instigated it, but to expect anymore than to "get me thinking" is a reach (you did state that granted). Obviously i'm not going to find major flaws in your philosophy jac, and ever further, i'm not going to rebut them using my "super duper advanced" philosophical skills. If you'd like I can revisit that thread, delete my post, and continue arguing as a blind child would. I was quite confident you understood my 'concession' to be one of limitations in knowledge pertaining to an art, I still do, but you seem to like to continue to exploit this for some unpronounced reason. My concession is not an excuse for "I can't argue, you're just tricking me, you're probably wrong but I can't argue so i'm still right," if I had to classify it, it'd be "my logic is flawed, you have pointed out numerous fallacies that I can't support, either I need to re-think my ways of believing or learn to defend them."

I'm sure you think it's absurd that I hold to YEC in the face of the scientific consensus against my views here. Further, I admit that I a lack the technical skills to assess the arguments, and therefore, I lack the ability to respond to what amounts to an argument from authority. So I'm in the same boat here as you are with respect to your deism (as you stated it in that thread). What I do NOT do is just tap out as you did.

I hold logical people do this. Logical people do tap out when they've 1) been proven wrong 2) can no longer argue coherently
Angry stubborn children don't 'tap out.' Such demeaning terminology if you ask me jac. The greatest intellectuals in history have 'tapped out,' it's nothing short of immature to continue arguing when you've been proven wrong or lack the ability to argue further. I've had an anthropology professor acknowledge ( or in your terms 'tap out') that they were wrong ( regarding physical mutations in offspring as a result of nuclear fallout); I viewed this as a sign that they were open, intellectual, and willing to acknowledge. Instead of reverting to, as you mentioned authoritative arguments "well a greenpeace PHD says -------," they accepted logical evidence presented in a logical way that while they still might not agree 100% with what I said, they acknowledge that their view was flawed. They also didn't revert to "other forms of arguing" you seem fond of. Facts are facts, no way around it. Acknowledgment is not weakness, nor a indicator of intelligence jac, no amount of philosophy will ever convince me of that. I expect this 'you tapped out' form of mixed pride to dissipate, it's a subtle childish insult and I grow tired of hearing it.

Also ponder this. Why do you think so many kids come out of college thinking the bizzare things that they do? It's because somebody with a complex understanding of something and an advanced degree convinced them of such as was able to dismantle every argument they had to the opposite. It's a little different in this situation but not much. A psychology professor could convince every student that religion is all in the head and illogical, doesn't make it true. I can't argue with him, I'll just stop talking ( or in your terms 'tap out' ). I'm having a hard time trying to convey this concept, I hope you do have a basic grasp of what it is. Further, let's focus, we're past Fred.

On one hand, you say that God doesn't care about us. And then you get offended, as if I've wronged you, when my language strikes you as harsh. The implication of your offense, that I've wronged you, is that I've done something I ought not

All of this is entirely irrelevant. You stated, very blatantly, I'm close minded and haven't accepted new information. It's blatantly false. Your language doesn't strike me as harsh, it stroked me as ignorant. You keep gloating about "how I tapped out, humph," I'm glad you feel intellectually superior; I don't view acknowledging limitations as stupidity, again, irrelevant. I couldn't care less about "harsh language," I don't know how I cared for Fred being uncaring either ( he meant nothing me).

I appreciated and enjoyed reading everything further, I'm sure I'll add more questions to stem off said responses once I'm more sober. " "

In short, I presented you evidence and you willfully turned a blind eye. Now, that's your right, but don't play like you are going to be rational now. If you are allowed to ignore evidence in one area because you don't have an answer, why not any other? You don't get to say, "Yeah, that's great evidence. I can't argue against it, therefore, I choose to reject it. Now, anybody have any evidence they want to show me? Really, I'm very open minded!"

Go to a past post and read my list of newfound acknowledgments and also read the one about me forsaking most of my deist views. I know it makes you less of a man and may possibly result in a vasectomy, but nonetheless I expect this nonsocial representation of my views to go the way of the dodo.

I expect to see how this statement (the one below) is founded. Normally when I say that's good evidence, I tend to accept it.
"Yeah, that's great evidence. I can't argue against it, therefore, I choose to reject it. Now, anybody have any evidence they want to show me? Really, I'm very open minded!"

What I see here is happy saying he may be wrong, and you guys laying into him for it.

I see him as willing to discuss why he should think about accepting Christ, give him something to believe.

He isnt convinced with Fred, lets show him Christ.

If im wrong haps, please correct me

I think you are misreading my concern, hap. But I'm sure that's just me not knowing how to make my point more clearly. My apologies for that. Just ignore everything I said except maybe the general/special revelation distinction I made as that is more relevant to your OP.

I think that some of the difficulty here happy is this isn't your first rodeo
What I mean by that is someone saying 'just take the leap' or you need to believe first then the rest will make sense is great advice for someone newly exploring the idea of christianity but you have considered yourself a christian, you have taken 'the leap' in the past but still find yourself seeking the 'truth'.
You used your logic to jump ship, your were lonely at the time, christianity happened to be the religion you were exposed to based on living where you do, psychology explains away the 'feeling', historical accuracy ect. You used intellectual reasoning to jump ship and you need to reconcile through reason and evidence why you would jump back onboard.
I get that.
But you find yourself here.
Reasoning allows you to acknowledge that there must be a grand designer. But sitting 'happy' in that position does not seem to really answer what you must be personally seeking. Your thread topics are testament to that, questioning deism, what is faith to you, why do you believe in God, what are your views. These are topics started by a bloke who is looking for answers, sincerely. You seem to want someone to give you the 'answer' to what it is your seeking, a reason that justifies you jumping back on board, that counters your reasoning and logic for jumping ship in the first place. Perhaps happy the answer lies not in an intellectual argument but within yourself.
You have acknowledged that Christianity has more historical accuracy than the 4100 or was it 4200? other religions out there, you have acknowledged that there is a very real possibility that Fred would be a personal God with a personal investment in His creation. It took YOU to jump ship, it's going to take YOU to jump back. Just maybe you are your own best 'evidence'.
Why did you bother after two years to start to question your position again? Many people, are very comfortable in the deist position but you're not.
Why did you come here, with thread topic after thread topic opening up a dialogue for someone to 'convince' you of Christianity. You have asked for personal reasons, scientific, historical. Something is driving you. Quite strongly. You are not convinced of the reasons you jumped ship, and I think you want an answer to come back. But happy what is the right answer? I honestly wish I had just the right thing to say to convince you but I dont, none of us do. Maybe it's not about convincing but accepting? I think you have some convincing arguments to counter your original objections but somewhere along the way you have to allow yourself to accept. Not only the logical arguments but something much deeper, you have to accept that somewhere inside you there is a strong driving force that is willing you, pushing you towards Christ. Maybe the 'leap' you need to take isn't an intellectual one but one that is even scarier, a spiritual leap.
Your dipping your toe in the water, asking everyone why you should jump, you want to jump but you I don't think have given yourself permission.
Just maybe your best evidence is you just can't get this Jesus guy out of your mind or out of your system.

Faith to me is trust.

Faith, IMO, is what you believe, and this is what I do believe ...

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

This is the faith of countless generations of Christians from the very beginning of Christianity to this very day. All denominations, all people from every corner of the earth, every language, every color, race and creed, without borders and without limitations ... IMO, all who believe this are Christians and a part of the Holy universal Church that Christ lived for, died for and will come back for.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:Objection 1:

I'll probably butcher this understanding as well but I'll give it a shot:

It seems that I must be a Christian to understand "evidence" for it. What is meant by this? If this is true how can I come to the christian faith with a rational foundation, or is that even possible?

Question 2:

What part in faith should/does physical/historical fact play? Is it even required for faith? My previous assumption was that it is, as such evidence makes it a rational trust.

If you look at Jac's post responding to you again, he answered these two objections. Do you see that?

The only other thing I see to add to Jac's long comment is found in Objection One and that is to ask this question:

What is it that makes you think that faith is not built upon a rational foundation?

On the second objection question I will answer also with another question:

Concerning you concept of Fred as unloving and unfeeling, how did you come to that same conclusion about the Judaic/Christian concept of God?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:Objection 1:

I'll probably butcher this understanding as well but I'll give it a shot:

It seems that I must be a Christian to understand "evidence" for it. What is meant by this? If this is true how can I come to the christian faith with a rational foundation, or is that even possible?

Question 2:

What part in faith should/does physical/historical fact play? Is it even required for faith? My previous assumption was that it is, as such evidence makes it a rational trust.

#1If you look at Jac's post responding to you again, he answered these two objections. Do you see that?

The only other thing I see to add to Jac's long comment is found in Objection One and that is to ask this question:

#2What is it that makes you think that faith is not built upon a rational foundation?

On the second objection question I will answer also with another question:

#3Concerning you concept of Fred as unloving and unfeeling, how did you come to that same conclusion about the Judaic/Christian concept of God?
-
-
-

#1- Yes

#2 My misinterpretation of FL has been clarified. Once again I hope to fred that i'm interpreting this correctly. ( is this clarification of FL's point?)

But what does that mean? Jesus and those who follow Him--and Scripture in particular--claims that means that God insists that we believe that He, Jesus, is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing that we have life in His name. Now, what evidence is there for THAT? The answer is none. You either believe that or you don't. No evidence can prove it. That is special revelation. It is highly motivated, I think, by general revelation. But it is special revelation all the same and cannot be proven by reason or deduction. It can only be supported.

#3- I don't think I did?