Evidence for God from Science

Here is a basic sketch of how I tend to view reality. I apologize that it is not complete and likely not completely accurate since I have never attempted to put down my perspective on paper. I hope that it does have a logical consistency.

Prologue: My philosophical perspective

I am what I would call an epistemological skeptic. I believe human knowledge including my own is very limited particularly when it involves ultimate reality. I refer to ultimate reality as God. Plato's analogy of the cave is somewhat reflective of my view of the human condition.

I believe that most religions have an element of the reflection of the ultimate reality, some more than others. I believe there is a metaphysical aspect to life and religion is one way to obtain knowledge of this sphere.

I feel one has to believe in something beyond themselves to have a basis for a meaningful existence. Some skeptics would say my cowardice to face the meaningless of life is the reason for my belief in religion. However, after observing the extreme skeptical viewpoint I find it very unattractive because much of it seems to place one's faith in empirical evidence, mainly the scientific approach. I conclude that while empirical evidence is all we have to interact with our physical environment, having only this as a tool makes it impossible to inquire into questions that exist beyond what scientific inquiry can address. I believe in the scientific quest, but also feel science must by its nature be limited. Therefore, I find religion a great vehicle for finding meaning in life even with the limitations of what man can know.


Human Nature and Its Relation to God

Human life is a conflict between our spirit and nature. The divine reality is the mediating influence and personalizing factor in our evolution. Humans are a merger between animals and beings of God. We are an image of God but also a product of the lower forms of organic life. Sin is the residue and expression of the bestial impulses of human nature. This animalistic aspect of our nature is the corrupting agent. Our progress is the increasing emergence of the spiritual aspect of our being and the growing victory over the bestial aspect of our being. Sin is a necessary stage of growth in Man's evolutionary progress as we move toward a higher state of consciousness. Whether or not it is possible on our own to reach a sinless state in some distant evolution progression, I can not say. I tend to believe this is where we require God.

Evil does not exist in itself. From a psychological perspective no person makes a decision unless he believes it to be a good decision. A masochist enjoys pain. A rapist believes the expression of his anger (rape is not sex but an expression of extreme anger) is worth the crime. A bank robber believes robbing a bank and obtaining wealth is worth the risk of punishment. Evil can be compared to a hole in a shirt. The hole is a determent to the shirt, a corruption of the shirt, but the hole is nothing in itself. It is simple the absence of the cloth of which the shirt is made.

Evil can also be compared to darkness. Darkness is not a thing in itself; it is the absence of light. You can not capture darkness because it does not exist. Therefore, if evil is only the absence of good, this make such a figure as Satan impossible, since he is described as the embodiment of evil. From my observation Man does not need any help to make what I would judge an evil choice such as rape. For in the deranged rapist's mind, he is obtaining some positive goals in completing such a reprehensible act. An act may be referred to as evil only when someone would judge it compared to a standard. The Good then is simply a decision based on the judge's moral ideals. However, there are many different levels of moral ideals.

I believe there is an ultimate “Good”, an ultimate moral ideal, and I chose to call this God. I believe this moral code exists beyond Man and is contained in God. One might compare this in a relative sort of manner to Plato's Forms. Man in his development is far below this ideal and has no real chance of achieving this ideal (reaching God) without help.

Thus, this is the point of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is one of the ways in which one may rise above one's animalistic nature (sin) and know God, both through the living Christ and through following his teachings.

This is a brief view of the basics of my belief system at the moment. Is it correct? I don't think any human knows the mind of God. I think there are reflections of the mind of God contained in many sacred texts, some closer and some further from the “Truth”. However, I believe they are all imperfect reflections including the ones I chose to believe, the Bible. They were all written by Man and thus, flawed. This seems to be to be supported by the diversity of beliefs by many very devout individuals with extremely different conclusions on the nature of God and how God should be worshiped.

I choose to worship in a Christian Methodist Church. This Sunday I participated in the Lord's Supper and felt I had indeed worshiped God. I repeated the Apostolic Creed and I choose to believe the words written many years ago. I likely interpret some of the words different than most conservative Methodists but I am sincere in my statements of my beliefs.

There are many who say they have had direct revelations from God, but I am not one of those people. I also note that many of these individuals seem to angrily disagree with each other, condemning each other as heretics. I have listened to conservative Christian radio and TV shows and am always amazed as how quickly they are to condemn others who preach a different flavor of Christianity or live a different lifestyle than their own.

The above statements are some of what I choose to believe at this time and hope that I am always open to new information which may or may not modify my belief system. I do chose to believe Jesus is my vehicle to God, my salvation, and his example is one that I follow but will admit I do a very poor job of it. If I were to meet him in the physical form, I am sad to say he very well might react to me as he did the rich man. If he asked me to sell all of my assets, give them to the poor, and follow him, I am afraid I would walk away just as the rich man did unwilling to part with my physical comforts and the emotional support of my family. However, even with saying this I have hope in John 3-16 that faith is enough.

I am sure there are some problems with the above statements but this is about the best I can do at this time to present my viewpoint. It has been an interesting exercise and I thank you for asking for my views.

otisblues wrote:Thus, this is the point of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is one of the ways in which one may rise above one's animalistic nature (sin) and know God, both through the living Christ and through following his teachings.

I could quibble about many things, sin was one of them. However, I will agree with you that there are many things we do not know. Certainly God did not inspire the entire word for word conversation from Genesis, nor include a blog of the day to day activities.

However I am most interested in the above. Could you elaborate on what Christ accomplished on the cross? If someone asked you what it takes to become a Christian, what would you say?

zoegirl wrote:

otisblues wrote:.

However I am most interested in the above. Could you elaborate on what Christ accomplished on the cross? If someone asked you what it takes to become a Christian, what would you say?

I would simply say John 3-16 even though John is my least favorite Gospel, Mark is my favorite since it is the oldest.

"God so loved the world he sent his only son and whosoever believeth in him shall be saved." I don't believe you really have to understand anything other than you admit your failings, bestial impulses, your word sin; you are asking God/Jesus to resolve you of this corruption of your nature, and you will follow the teachings of Christ to the best of your abilities.

Christ was only person to defeat death and give us the hope for resurrection after we die. I think he also absolved us of our inherited nature and this makes us presentable to God thus giving us access to God.

One other place that I will depart with you, is that I will not say Jesus is the only way. I know he is the way for me, but I think a person who sincerely searches for God will find him, and it very likely that many other religions of the world offer this access.

Otisblues wrote:

zoegirl wrote:

otisblues wrote:.

However I am most interested in the above. Could you elaborate on what Christ accomplished on the cross? If someone asked you what it takes to become a Christian, what would you say?

I would simply say John 3-16 even though John is my least favorite Gospel, Mark is my favorite since it is the oldest.

"God so loved the world he sent his only son and whosoever believeth in him shall be saved." I don't believe you really have to understand anything other than you admit your failings, bestial impulses, your word sin; you are asking God/Jesus to resolve you of this corruption of your nature, and you will follow the teachings of Christ to the best of your abilities.

Christ was only person to defeat death and give us the hope for resurrection after we die. I think he also absolved us of our inherited nature and this makes us presentable to God thus giving us access to God.

One other place that I will depart with you, is that I will not say Jesus is the only way. I know he is the way for me, but I think a person who sincerely searches for God will find him, and it very likely that many other religions of the world offer this access.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life...."

"NO one comes through the father but through me"

Sorry, yes, I do heartily disagree with you. And in this I think we strike at the differences. Christ was the payment for sin. How else is atonement for sin to be found? What other religion offers the defeat of death and hope of resurrection, as you yourself said? If He was the only one to defeat death, this is something unique!

And ultimatley, if other religions offer the same hope for salvation, then Christ's death accomplished nothing!! It was meaningless. For why make such a huge sacrifice if simply by praying towards Mecca a certain number of times willsave? If all I need to do is live by certain rituals, then no atoning sacrifice needs to be made.

HOw do you resolve this scripture passage with this idea that other religions allow for salvation, by the way? Scripture is clear that to be saved, you need to follow Christ. Show me the scripture that says that Christ is merely one of the myriad of ways to be reconciled to God.

I am a student of psychology, trained as a Counselor. I know that most people joined a religion as the result of various factors. These can include where they were born, their culture, and the religion of their parents. This may be less true now than it was in the past but I can not quote you study but I believe it to be true now also. Yes, there are many people who do not choose their parent's religions but I would contend more do than don't and in the past it was almost a sure bet. There are many socializations processes we go through and whether we like it or not, most people are heavly influenced by their parents. If their parents are Hindu, it most likely the children will be too.

If we can understand this fact, I am sure God can understand this fact. I can not believe that a just, loving God would not take this into consideration. How do I justify this in relationship to your scripture passages? From a literal point of view I can't; however, I would not be able to worship a God who did not take these things into consideration. I could in no way consider such a God as Just or Loving. If you scripture passages are true then I have no logical answer to your question.

BTW, this could lead us into a huge other area of problems concerning the various difficulties of translating the Bible from different languages and the many areas where it appears likely passages were added, substracted, and/or changed in various versions of the Bible. This is easily demonstrated in the earliest versions of various books that are different from later books that were accepted by the Nicence Council as the Bible we know today. This could be an explanation where I would agree with Thomas Jefferson that the Bible and particularly the Gospels do have some problems.

I also am always very suspicious of any group of people who have the only way to salvation. I simple can not believe a loving God would choose only one Western Cultural religion and then condemn all who for the reasons above are devout followers of other religion. I simply believe God would take that into consideration and while I don't know what his plan is, I believe he has one.

I am a Christians but I would not tell a Hindu, he is doomed to Hell.

Here are some answers from the book of Mark:

Mark 7:9-17, "9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 11 But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)-- 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."

“14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him." 16 [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.] 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." ESV

Evil comes from within the heart. Love needs to expel this evil and yet as love, love would also allow choice or it is not love. This evil, or corruptness, defiles and a person can continue in this or they can be free from this evil through the lessons God will teach through this mortal life. God offers this choice through the gospel message. We are called to carry it far and wide.

Mark 16:15, "And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." ESV

If all other religious faiths share this equality and their followers can make it to heaven too — there would be no need for Christ words he spoke. People would defile heaven if permitted in and all remains the same without end.

God's nature is to love. His love asks, warns, teaches, test, refines, etc or it is not love. In this love governs justice, recompense, wrath, mercy, forgiveness, righteousness, equity, etc, and these in turn guide love making Love — Agape. God proves his love and then takes the time to prove it within his people.

I am a Social Worker with 18+ years in the criminal justice field and recently returned to work with the disabled population. I too have been involved in counseling. My advise to you Otisblues: Never define God's standard of love by measuring it to the standards of human love.

I am heading off to BSF so more on this later. You have enough to chew on for awhile and please ask questions…
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Never define God's standard of love by measuring it to the standards of human love.
-

Well said BW

Otisblues....please simply answer the following...

I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer for these

zoegirl wrote:
"I am the way, the truth , and the light"
"No one comes through the father except through me"

HOw do you resolve this scripture passage with this idea that other religions allow for salvation, by the way? Scripture is clear that to be saved, you need to follow Christ. Show me the scripture that says that Christ is merely one of the myriad of ways to be reconciled to God.

Don't just tell me what you don't THINK God will do...please try to stick with the fact that you have two scripture passages that say that Christ is the only way through Christ....

Do you reject this scripture? What possible other meanings can you place on these passages?


also,
1. Again, what did Christ accomplish on the cross? For if any religion allows salvation and reconciliation to God, why Christ's death? If an atoning sacrifice is not needed for salvation, if all I need to to i spray to Allah a certain number o ftimes per day....then I don't need to be "made acceptable to God" through Christ's death....


2. If He came to "make us acceptable to God " (your words) then it begs the question why we are unnacceptable. If what we are guilty is not worthy of being condemned, then why did He have to die?

The answers are supremely important to undersatnding the person of Christ. You claim JOhn 3:16 and yet what did it mean?

"I am the way, the truth , and the light"
"No one comes through the father except through me"


I do not define God's standard of love with humans. However, that is the only concept of love I have so I assume God's love is more wondrous that I can imagine but of a similar nature. As a result I don't believe he would set up a system so that devout searchers of God wherever they may be would have no chance of finding him. This is one place that Christianity seems very worldly, I'm right your wrong, very judgmental sort of mentality.

The first scripture you quote is from John, the Gospel written more than a hundred years after Christ. I could easily see some Monk simply adding such a passage in his on interpretation of the verse. According to Bible scholars the last few verses of John was added by someone other than the original author of the text so there could have been other changes too. Afterall, the Bible was written and rewritten, interpreted from the original language by many men for hundreds of years. Also, Jesus nor the original 12 Apostles wrote anything even though some of the Books are named after them.

However, I would suggest maybe Jesus did become involved with other places in the world. The Mormans certainly believe this. Whether in a physical form or some other form it is not beyond my imagination that he was involved at some time in human history in other religions.

I can't not comprehend a situation where a Buddhist person who had never even heard of Jesus standing before God saying I worshiped and was devout all of my life, and God saying tough, you are condemned. You were born in the wrong place, sorry.

I am not saying I believe in other religions. I am just saying I believe that God in his mercy for all of us has a plan that will include people other than Christians.

Maybe this is an unacceptable answer but it is the only one I have and for me to reconcile this issue this has been my conclusion. If this is a sin against God then I accept it, although, I find it closer to the golden rule and they shall not judge type thought.



2. If He came to "make us acceptable to God " (your words) then it begs the question why we are unnacceptable. If what we are guilty is not worthy of being condemned, then why did He have to die?

The answers are supremely important to understanding the person of Christ. You claim JOhn 3:16 and yet what did it mean?[/quote]

I have given you my best answer to this question. We were unacceptable by our very nature as stated before and his life and death gave us a way. He also died so he could be resurrected giving us a chance for resurrection. I think that is a pretty good reason for his coming to earth.


Mark 16:15, "And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." ESV

I think there are plenty of people who have no religion who need this information. However, as a Christian I will be happy to talk about my beliefs to another person but I will not in anyway condemn them if their beliefs are different from mine. Simply because I attempt to follow Jesus' statement "Do not judge so that you will not be judged" Mathew 7-1 and "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned" Luke 6-37. In my limited capacity as a human full of questions, how could I dare say to another person that the God he worships is a false God. I feel an approach such as this would be unacceptable to the teachings of love by Jesus.

One really interesting thing about Jesus was he hung around with all the wrong people and did not get along very well with the Pharisees. We are the modern day Pharisees, the main religion of the day. Most Pharisees were what we would call at the time, the Middle Class. They were hard working, good people, the foundation of their society as are we. I would be very much afraid for Jesus if he returned in the same form today. I don't think he would get crucified but likely someone would shoot him.

I can't not comprehend a situation where a Buddhist person who had never even heard of Jesus standing before God saying I worshiped and was devout all of my life, and God saying tough, you are condemned. You were born in the wrong place, sorry.

I agree here, in part. The biggest part, though, is the line "person who had never even heard of Jesus." If they had NEVER heard of Jesus, and therefore had no chance, i agree with Otis. I don't believe God would condemn them only because they were "born in the wrong place."

I believe God judges the heart. If our heart is in the right place, regardless of our knowledge, i think we will be okay. But that does not excuse us who know of his existence. "To those who have been given much, much more will be expected" (or something like that).

Finally, I can say, I basically agree with someone and it is you Enigma.

BTW, Do any of the UU people or other liberal type Christians read this forum and can come out and help me?

I joke, thanks to you and Zoegirl, I have had to think and thus, have learned things. I would be the first to say I need all the help I can get.

Otisblues wrote:In my limited capacity as a human full of questions, how could I dare say to another person that the God he worships is a false God. I feel an approach such as this would be unacceptable to the teachings of love by Jesus.

If the other person worships a false God, they worship a false God. The loving thing to do would be to point out their mistake and give them the truth. Jesus was the most loving of all, but he did not hesitate to point out mistakes, even among his disciples.

Otisblues wrote:One really interesting thing about Jesus was he hung around with all the wrong people and did not get along very well with the Pharisees. We are the modern day Pharisees, the main religion of the day. Most Pharisees were what we would call at the time, the Middle Class. They were hard working, good people, the foundation of their society as are we. I would be very much afraid for Jesus if he returned in the same form today. I don't think he would get crucified but likely someone would shoot him.

Only when we put up our own traditions ahead of the teachings of the bible are we like the Pharisees. The Pharisees that were "hard working, good people" were probably not included in the Pharisees that Jesus criticized, as long as they did not set up their knowledge, their deeds, their traditions above the teachings of the bible. When we become self-righteous, then we will be like the Pharisees.

Although i do agree that if Jesus returned today (in the same form as he did then), then he would likely be shot. Thankfully, his next return will be his last.

Respectfully, a lot of your dismissal of verses comes from your own natural dislike of the message.

You dismiss the original sin story not necessary because you just don't like the idea of a harsh God.

YOu dismiss the verses in John expediently because you just feel that God could not look at ta person and judge them and then use the year wirtten to rationalize that judgement. Biblical scholars have examined and judged JOhn to be authenticate to his writings. And most scholars date John somewhere between 90-100 years, but certainly not mroe than 100 AD. You dismiss entirely the idea that scripture is inspired writing, glibly adding that some Monk could have added what he wanted. It seems as if you view scripture so lightly that its words are not trustworthy and so easilty manipulated by man. Where is the inspriration of God?

But dismissing a doctrine simply because you can't invision God doing this or God doing that is a very poor way of judging scripture.

May I suggest reading "The Passion of Christ" by John Piper? It is a very powerful and good read and relatively short. It makes for a good devotional book.

zoegirl wrote:Respectfully, a lot of your dismissal of verses comes from your own natural dislike of the message.

You dismiss the original sin story not necessary because you just don't like the idea of a harsh God.

YOu dismiss the verses in John expediently because you just feel that God could not look at ta person and judge them and then use the year wirtten to rationalize that judgement.
But dismissing a doctrine simply because you can't invision God doing this or God doing that is a very poor way of judging scripture.

I have no problems with a harsh God but have a great problem with an unjust God. Now I would agree my concept of justice is but a reflection of God's concept but it is all I have. I would not worship a God who did not give an individaul a fair chance as per my previous example.

I would love it if we had the exact words of Jesus. I would bet on those long trips with the Apostles, they sat with Jesus around the camp fire drinking wine and having great conversations. It was be great if Jesus had either written or dictated his words and we had them today, but we don't. We have stories that were repeated verbally for over 50 or 60 years before they were written in the earlies Gospel, Mark. This means there were at least two probably three generations before these teachings were written. And to make matters worse we only have copies of copies of copies of these original writtings. To make matters worse most of these were written in Greek, a language that does not translate well into English. And to finish this, yes, there are many examples of mistakes made by the monks who translated and copied these writings. This can easily be seen in various versions of the texts that can be compared.

I would suggest a book for you, Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. He does a much better job of explaining this than me.

I believe one has to have faith but also has to make intellectual decisions on the information that is available. My faith does not depend on these matters and I admit my ignorance but from my readings I have to take these factors into account when I read the Bible.

I will suggest that God must have wanted it this way or else we would have exact texts from Jesus. I'm sure Jesus was capable of writing his sermons and I'm sure God could have assured these texts survived the years. However, he did not do so.

A couple of obvious difficulties with the Gospels are:

1. Mark says Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover mean was eaten. John says he died the day before the meal was eaten.

2. Luke indicates that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazereth just over a month after they had come to Bethlehem. Matthew indicates they instead fled to Egypt.

These are just two but there are numerous such problems that stand out to me. Ehrman points out there are as many of these type examples among these early manuscripts as there are words in the New Testament. As far as the story goes these two examples do not change anything for me but it does show the Gospels are not consistent with each other and do have errors.

Otisblues wrote:I would suggest a book for you, Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. He does a much better job of explaining this than me.

I will read this book if you read "WHen Critics Ask", by Hugh Ross (and another person, his name escapes me at the moment)

However, i do have one question. I don't mean it the way it is going to come out, but i am curious.

How does one with such a pessimistic view of the Bible become a Christian?

I am not doubting your faith or anything like that. I admire it. I only find it curious.

I don't feel I have a pessemistic view of the Bible, I feel that I am a realist, attempting to explore a subject in a nonemotional manner. I feel there was no great teacher than Jesus and if there was nothing else but his philosophy on how to live, I would likely still be a Christian. I envy (probably a sin) those who have no doubts. I was raised in a very conservative Baptist Church and in my teenage years began to ask questions that no one could answer to my satisfaction. I then left the Church for a number of years studying both Taoism and Zen Buddhism. As did Scot Peck (Road Less Traveled) I then returned to my roots but with the knowledge that there were many other very religious people who were not Christians.

While I have never had a major metaphysical event, I do have a very deep sense that my prayers are heard and that while God may not directly intervene in my physical life, he does provide a spiritual sense that I would be lost without.

I simply can not accept a simplistic non-intellectual acceptance of the flaws I see in the Bible due to various reason I have noted. Maybe, I would be a better Christian if I could but I don't see that happening. I keep studying both the Bible and historical sources to attempt to know everything I can with my limited mind. However, I make it a point to keep quite much of the time in discussions at my Church because my kind of questions seemed to irritate and upset other more conservative members of my Church. Of course, I can not keep quiet all of the time. The great thing about the Methodist Church is they allow me to be a member.

Let me ask a question. Do you believe that all of the pre-European Americians (Atecs, Mayan, Native Amercians, etc) were doomed?