Evidence for God from Science

puritan lad wrote:

jlay wrote:

In a pure naturalistic sense knowledge is just a result of atoms and matter moving around.

Is it? You are saying that knowledge is then material?

If that were true (which would be one of the logical conclusions of naturalism), then...

1.) Knowledge would be worthless, since there would be no right or wrong opinions, only matter. Thus we are stuck in a world of pure materialist determinism.
2.) We could neither learn nor forget, since matter cannot be created or destroyed in naturalism.

sorry, just saw this. Yes, those would be the logical conclusions of naturalism.

1.) Just because there are no right or wrong opinions does not mean one should dismiss it because it sounds boring.
2.) Matter cannot be creatred or destroyed, but it can be changed into a different form. The concepts of learning and forgetting is simply a manipulation of the matter we are made of, not the addition or subtraction of that matter.

How would one justify universal laws in a godless universe? Laws are, by definition, invariable and universal, are they not? Otherwise, they would not be laws, but conventions. One would have to employ inductive reasoning to justify such laws, but the only rational basis for induction is the Providence of God. That is one of many major hurdles for Science in a godless world.

Echoside wrote:1.) Just because there are no right or wrong opinions does not mean one should dismiss it because it sounds boring.

Why not? Is the above opinion right? Should I consider it to be valid?

Echoside wrote:2.) Matter cannot be creatred or destroyed, but it can be changed into a different form. The concepts of learning and forgetting is simply a manipulation of the matter we are made of, not the addition or subtraction of that matter.

How is this matter manipulated?

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I think his point was that if Jesus wasn't who He said He was, his entire life was a sham. It wouldn't be comparable with saying "no" when someone asks "do I look fat". It would be more like living in an adulterous relationship for the duration of your marriage while lying and saying you are being faithful. If Jesus was a liar (in this sense), He wasn't good. But if He was good... then maybe He wasn't lying.

How are they not comparable?
a lie is a lie both examples in the end is to tell a lie to make the person feel better.

Yeah the not being faithful lie in the end is going to hurt more than saying "no" when someone ask if they are fat but at the end of the day you still told a lie.

So lying is negotiable?

We have all told lies one way or another at least once in our life's.

What about the people who are really good parents but they tell their kids about Santa..do you think that makes them bad people?

What if your wife says "Do I look fat"? and you say "no honey you look great just how you are" Does that make the husband a bad guy?


So even if jesus lied he deserved to be nailed to wood?
Sounds pretty over the top to me.

So does the fact that we've all told lies make lying more acceptable? What about murder. If everybody murdered would it become less heinous? The fact is when you lie (intentional deception) you know it is wrong. God doesn't grade on a curve.

Parents who propagate the Santa myth do so out of silly traditions, and not with the intention of deceiving their children. Personally I despise the whole Santa thing. It is important to understand lying as it relates to the heart. Is your intent to protect another, or to deceive. Most of what we call lying is people trying to selfishly protect their own interest or deceive someone else.

As far as your wife. There is a difference between discretion and lying. Does it make the husband a bad guy? No, it makes him a smart guy.

The bible is clear that God HATES lying lips. Sure, it may not seem like a big deal to you, but that isn't the standard now is it. Think of it this way. How big a deal is it if you don't make your bed in morning? Let's even say, I refuse to make my bed. Mine is unmade as we speak. NO big deal. I'm in charge of my home. I do not hold bed making to a very high standard. Now let's say I am a private in the Marine corp. Whose standard matters, mine, or the Drill Sargeant? Did you know I can be thrown in the brig for refusing to make my bed. Is it really that important? Yes. Order is not just a desire in the Marine corp, it is imperative. Perspective is everything. So, although you have a very flippant attitude about lying, God does not. We are not talking about someone infinately more holy than a drill Sargeant.

I liked jesus I thought he was a good guy who spoke his mind... he should of never been killed at all.

In Matthew 5, Jesus said that to look at a woman with lust is the same as committing adultery. Have you ever looked with lust?
He also said that being angry is comparable to having murder in your heart? Have you ever done that? If so, then Jesus sees you as a adulterer and murderer at heart. In addition to being a liar.

He also said in John 3 that people who reject Him as Savior, are eternally condemned.

talkingwalnut wrote: How are they not comparable?
a lie is a lie both examples in the end is to tell a lie to make the person feel better.

Yeah the not being faithful lie in the end is going to hurt more than saying "no" when someone ask if they are fat but at the end of the day you still told a lie.

So lying is negotiable?

No, it isn't, and I didn't suggest that. What I tried to suggest is that there is a difference between saying "I'm sure he lied" and pointing out that his entire life would have been an obvious lie had He not been who He said He was. You have suggested that a person can be good if he tells lies on ocassion, and you gave some examples. I responded by pointing out that if the lie had a certain gravity to it, you might reconsider that lying would be harmless in deeming a man good or not. Now, you are left with a choice:

Is the man who lives a sham a 'good' man, or is there a point at which the sham deprives him of that title?

puritan lad wrote:How would one justify universal laws in a godless universe? Laws are, by definition, invariable and universal, are they not? Otherwise, they would not be laws, but conventions. One would have to employ inductive reasoning to justify such laws, but the only rational basis for induction is the Providence of God. That is one of many major hurdles for Science in a godless world.

Hey PL , i've got a lot to think on, both from topics currently going on and some other issues that popped into my head while contemplating those topics. I'm also currently at M.E.P.S. for what feels like the millionth time to smooth out some issues regarding my leaving for basic training this monday so I won't be able to respond again until at least tomorrow afternoon.

Thank you for clarifying some of the aspects of your position though, lately i've been amazed by the sheer simplicity but also logical backing on some apologetics.

PS. oh one last thing though just saw your latest post in response, I suppose i would have to appeal to logic to answer the first as it is fallacious, the truth of a matter does not rest upon the opinions people have about it's implications. "I don't think god exists because i don't want to have to be responsible for my sins" is an example.

as for the second, I do not necessarily hold to the position so i can't give you a clear outline, but let's say it works the same as a computer. When you delete a program, the computer is essentially "forgetting", the same when you install it "learns". But I would not make the claim that the matter in the universe was changed with either of those operations.

Echoside wrote:oh one last thing though just saw your latest post in response, I suppose i would have to appeal to logic to answer the first as it is fallacious, the truth of a matter does not rest upon the opinions people have about it's implications. "I don't think god exists because i don't want to have to be responsible for my sins" is an example.

But if knowledge is simply a manipulation of matter, how do we discover the truth of a matter? After all, this was a response to your statement "Just because there are no right or wrong opinions does not mean one should dismiss it". How do we find truth?

Echoside wrote:When you delete a program, the computer is essentially "forgetting", the same when you install it "learns". But I would not make the claim that the matter in the universe was changed with either of those operations

But exactly how is this done? We need some foundation for knowledge, so how do we manipulate our gray matter? What exactly is the process of "learning", and how does it work?

jlay wrote:

We have all told lies one way or another at least once in our life's.

What about the people who are really good parents but they tell their kids about Santa..do you think that makes them bad people?

What if your wife says "Do I look fat"? and you say "no honey you look great just how you are" Does that make the husband a bad guy?


So even if jesus lied he deserved to be nailed to wood?
Sounds pretty over the top to me.

So does the fact that we've all told lies make lying more acceptable? What about murder. If everybody murdered would it become less heinous? The fact is when you lie (intentional deception) you know it is wrong. God doesn't grade on a curve.

Parents who propagate the Santa myth do so out of silly traditions, and not with the intention of deceiving their children. Personally I despise the whole Santa thing. It is important to understand lying as it relates to the heart. Is your intent to protect another, or to deceive. Most of what we call lying is people trying to selfishly protect their own interest or deceive someone else.

As far as your wife. There is a difference between discretion and lying. Does it make the husband a bad guy? No, it makes him a smart guy.

The bible is clear that God HATES lying lips. Sure, it may not seem like a big deal to you, but that isn't the standard now is it. Think of it this way. How big a deal is it if you don't make your bed in morning? Let's even say, I refuse to make my bed. Mine is unmade as we speak. NO big deal. I'm in charge of my home. I do not hold bed making to a very high standard. Now let's say I am a private in the Marine corp. Whose standard matters, mine, or the Drill Sargeant? Did you know I can be thrown in the brig for refusing to make my bed. Is it really that important? Yes. Order is not just a desire in the Marine corp, it is imperative. Perspective is everything. So, although you have a very flippant attitude about lying, God does not. We are not talking about someone infinately more holy than a drill Sargeant.

I liked jesus I thought he was a good guy who spoke his mind... he should of never been killed at all.

In Matthew 5, Jesus said that to look at a woman with lust is the same as committing adultery. Have you ever looked with lust?
He also said that being angry is comparable to having murder in your heart? Have you ever done that? If so, then Jesus sees you as a adulterer and murderer at heart. In addition to being a liar.

He also said in John 3 that people who reject Him as Savior, are eternally condemned.

First off I never said just because we've all told lies makes it more acceptable. If people used common sence you should know not to lie as it hurts people.
A Lie is a Lie right?
If you tell a lie then that lie is coming out of your lying lips no matter what kind of lie it is therefore no lie should be compared to another lie its all the same.

A certain type of lie tho makes a smart man? He is still telling some type of lie

What happens when your kid grows up and finds out santa isn't real and it makes him cry obviously that hurts his feelings.
So that still isn't deceiving the kid? another negotiable lie?


What happens if the women you look at in lust is the women you end up marrying?
Is my sinning voided?

Everybody has been angry how is that compared to a murderer?
Who would you rather have around you someone who's mad? or someone who murdered your parents?

You just talked about a drill Sargent when they train soldiers by yelling at them and acting angry.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I think his point was that if Jesus wasn't who He said He was, his entire life was a sham. It wouldn't be comparable with saying "no" when someone asks "do I look fat". It would be more like living in an adulterous relationship for the duration of your marriage while lying and saying you are being faithful. If Jesus was a liar (in this sense), He wasn't good. But if He was good... then maybe He wasn't lying.

You caught my drift. He was either more than "good" or He was a liar. Jesus could not be "good" and lie, so His claims to be God must be taken seriously. He sustained those claims when He bodily resurrected on the third day. His tomb is empty as witnessed by many. He claimed to pre-exist Abraham saying, "Before Abraham was, I am."(John 8:58). Jesus said that the only way to God is through Him. John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me." There are many more claims made by Jesus about His divinity.

talkingwalnut wrote: First off I never said just because we've all told lies makes it more acceptable. If people used common sence you should know not to lie as it hurts people.
A Lie is a Lie right?

We know it's common sense. Why is it common sense? Why shoulw we know not to lie? You make it sound like its an objective standard.

If you tell a lie then that lie is coming out of your lying lips no matter what kind of lie it is therefore no lie should be compared to another lie its all the same.

So telling your wife she looks OK when she doesn't, is the same as deceiving some one with intent to harm them? Got it. Do you honestly expect us to believe that you live by this approach? I'm betting you don't.

A certain type of lie tho makes a smart man? He is still telling some type of lie

You are defining it as a lie. I would call it discretion.

What happens when your kid grows up and finds out santa isn't real and it makes him cry obviously that hurts his feelings.
So that still isn't deceiving the kid? another negotiable lie?

In most of these cases I think it is harm done through ignorance. I think if most parents understood the harm (which I find more damaging than just hurt feelings) they would never perpetuate this myth.

What happens if the women you look at in lust is the women you end up marrying?
Is my sinning voided?

No. And your example implies that this is the only case of lust in one's life. Why don't we stick to plausible examples. This isn't one.

Everybody has been angry how is that compared to a murderer?
Who would you rather have around you someone who's mad? or someone who murdered your parents?

Obviously the former. This isn't my opinion. This is the opinion of that 'good guy' Jesus. God's standards are infinately higher than mine or yours. It doesn't matter who I would rather be around. The point Jesus was making is that God's standard is far beyond your own. God judges the thoughts and attitudes of the hearth. (Heb 4:12) Consider someone trying to get into a college. My grades were good enough to get in to the University of Tennessee. However, that standard didn't cut it for Vanderbilt.

You just talked about a drill Sargent when they train soldiers by yelling at them and acting angry.

Uh, no I didn't. I didn't say anything about them getting angry. An analogy doesn't mean that everything involving the two things being compared are analogous. That is simply fallacious. For example, God doesn't wear a combat boots. The point wasn't to portray the DS as God, but to demonstrate perspective of standards. Just like many, maybe even you, try to reduce God down to human level to impune His high standards of morality.

Interesting how these debates about God's existence often end with debates about morality.... That should tell you something right there.

Marcus,
I apologize I was a little to quick to say something about you. I was tired, and needed sleep. But my point remains. You accused me of being an arrogant atheist. I gave no reason for you to think that, or what I wrote made you think that. None of what I wrote should have been taken that way.

Since I felt you wrongly, and baselessly, accused me of something like that I felt as if you are, thus far, the rudest Christian I ever met. So as a result I lumped you in with the dumb Christians. Notice I didn't call you one, I just lumped you in the category based on my first impression of you.

Now to address what you said.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:You claimed that the Judeo-Christian God is (likely) entirely illogical, yet you imply in your posts that you are not predisposed against the view (by claiming to have a 'null' position). Such a thorough knowledge of theology would be superhuman vs subhuman - its simple terminology I use to describe, well... what you described in your second paragraph as the 'arrogant atheist'. Theologians have spent lifetimes contemplating the sorts of issues you mention as being 'problems' with God. I'm suggesting that if you think everything is illogical, you are doing so incorrectly. It should be of the utmost consideration in your mind that ignorance of the reality of things is a distinct possibility. But, at the very least, you need to admit a bias here. It isn't a neutral position that anyone starts from.

What I meant, remember it was late, was that everything I know about God makes him illogical. You want to show why omnipotence is possible? What about omniscience and omnipotence? Free will and omniscience? Problem of evil? There are MANY paradox's involved with the traditional Christian God, and NO ONE has ever given me a satisfactory explanation as to how any of the qualities are possible.

Superhuman and sub-human? I don't know what you mean by that. If you think that I meant that because you have a bunch of stupid Christians arguing a dead (it has been disproved, more or less) point, then those arguments are invalid. You have your idiots, and your not idiots, but by no means was I arguing super or sub-human qualities.

I'm not saying I say everything about God is illogical, but from every explanation I have received, it very well APPEARS that way.

I admit that I could be ignorant, no where did I say that I wasn't. And yes you could put me in a position of bias, I will continue striving for a natural explanation, before supernatural. But if you can show that there is a reason that the supernatural should be considered, then albeit, give it to the physicists. Give it to the biologists. They are the ones answering the unknowns. But natural is all anyone has a reason to look for, in the lack of evidence for the supernatural. When you get evidence for the supernatural, then you will be justified (scientifically, and logically) in believing in the super natural. So yes, in the lack of evidence, I am in the neutral,if you can show supernatural exists, I will agree with you.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I don't feel the need to apologize. I don't think I said anything insulting or untrue. However, if -you- would like to apologize for saying "When I say people like you, I mean... religitards...", or perhaps if you'd like to at least admit that you have an emotional reason to embrace atheism and attack Christianity, I would be interested in hearing it. And, I have gone back and reread my responses to you on a previous post to confirm that I haven't insulted you. So, if I'm missing something, please let me know.

Quote mining is a nice technique. It makes your opponents look like bigots, when what they said is different. I said people like you give Christianity a bad name. I lumped you with the religitards, I didn't call you one. I'm not attacking Christianity. I'm open to it. But I will respond according to my knowledge. I will not accept something like Christianity very readily. Nor Islam, nor any other religion. Please refer to my questions that I posted to clarify what I was asking. Reread what I said, you'll understand why I felt insulted.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:[EDIT] It occured to me that you might have taken the line '... it is a good way to lose friends' as an insult. I didn't mean it as one, and would like to clarify. I have had people in my life change belief systems in the past in different directions. Fair enough. And sometimes it was a 'peaceful' transition (they made it clear they were searching or pursuing the truth) and that was that. In a few instances, some people became really militant in their positions, making accusations, insulting people of other faiths, becoming extraordinarily bitter in a very brief time, and just in general annoying all of their friends (except those new ones that feed the new belief system). I was merely trying to point out that I've seen this destroy relationships... this idea of atheists thinking of themselves as the most neutral of all groups of people with the purest philosophical lens, the noblest goals, and the most honest pursuit of truth. It just ain't so. That's all I meant by it.

That wasn't your insult, although I did take offense to it, it wasn't a big deal. I won't justify their behavior, it is up to you to ask why they do it. There is a video series by Evid3nc3, on YouTube, that details his deconversion. There are also many video detailing the stance of Atheists. If you look, and are willing to accept what they say about their pursuits, then you will see why we say that we have the clearest lens. It would take too many words, and too much time for me to detail via text, only for you to say "nuh ahh (no)." Don't bring this up with me, I can't give you a satisfactory answer. And even if I could, I would expect you to just say "you are wrong, I have the clearest view."

puritan lad wrote:Prove A: God is the precondition of human knowledge.

Step 1 - Assume the opposite. ~A: God is not the precondition of human knowledge.
Step 2 - ~A --> B: If God is not the precondition of human knowledge, then knowledge can be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 3 - ~B: Knowledge cannot be justified and accounted for in a godless universe.
Step 4 - ~~A: It is not the case that God is not the precondition of human knowledge.
Step 5 - A: God is the precondition of human knowledge.
QED

Now you have another hole, step three. Why can't knowledge be justified in a godless universe?

puritan lad wrote: CopaceticMan wrote:
Only logically though.

Didn't you claim that Christianity was "illogical"? Would you like to retract that statement, or prove what you previously asserted? What other kind of proof would you require?

First I never claimed it. I clarified myself above. Second, I require evidence. You wont convince any scientist without evidence (as in, it won't ever become a scientific fact/theory).

Gman wrote: CopaceticMan wrote:
Gman wrote:
What's this? Well, everything is built on faith.. Even if you deny that God exists you still have to have faith in something else. We ALL have faith. Even you.. You cannot escape it. There is no 100 percent proof of anything.. It's all faith driven. Even in the sciences...


What do you mean by faith? As in a belief? Well yah, I'll give you that you can call atheism a belief. If you call it a religion, then you have to redefine the term, but go ahead and call it that. Under even the most loose definitions of religion (currently) atheism doesn't fit.

Faith in something else? I still don't understand what you mean. Also please see above for my apology if I mislead you.


Sure.. Atheism is a faith or religion just like any other religion. A religion does not require a deity either.... They have substituted time, chance, gravity and matter as their god. It's not like an atheist hasn't denied the concept of authority, they just transfer it to some other authority, like their science or their ego, etc... Which in turn becomes their religion.

And atheism is CHUCK FULL of faith which requires miracles as well. To this day no one can say exactly how the universe came to being, or how life originated on earth, or what is the chemical composition of love. No one has rock solid evidence.. Hypothesis and theories yes, concrete evidence no. Both faiths require miracles, there is no other way around it..

Everyone is religious... Everyone.

Atheism, A RELIGION? You've got to be kidding be.
Religion: (Merriam Webster) 1)the state of a religious. No.
2) the service and worship of God or the supernatural. No.
3)commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. No.
4)a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. No, atheism is one opinion on one topic. Atheism has no practices, or attitudes in relation to anything else. Yes, some atheists have their attitudes towards other, and their personal routines, but neither are based on their atheism. And it specifically says religious... soo...
5)a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Debatable. A cause (of beliefs).. ehhh, I don't know, I don't really know what it means. A principle belief... Yah I guess so, under this definition, yes atheism is a religion. But so is republicanism, liberalism, and anything else that has a core foundational belief.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

So, what is your definition of a religion?





You know what, give up, no one is obviously going to answer my question.






I am done with this forum... All I did was ask a question, and I have to deal with so much crap than I intended, and not that I can't handle it. It's just SO STUPID. I'm done here. Have a nice life living your lie. Oh and all you guys have done is just reinforce the idea that God is illogical.

Alright, I have to admit, I'm rather disappointed with some the things that went on in this thread. I feel some of us are being rather sensitive, and taking the discussion away from where it should be.

CopaceticMan wrote:What I meant, remember it was late, was that everything I know about God makes him illogical. You want to show why omnipotence is possible? What about omniscience and omnipotence? Free will and omniscience? Problem of evil? There are MANY paradox's involved with the traditional Christian God, and NO ONE has ever given me a satisfactory explanation as to how any of the qualities are possible.

The problem of evil is a terrible argument. It presupposes what it's trying to disprove. That is, it presupposes God. Without God, there is no objective morality. And hence, no objective evil. Therefore, the problem of evil actually proves God, by claiming there's objective evil.

I can't show why omnipotence is possible, because I am not omnipotent. The 'Rock Paradox' is silly and simply an unreasonable reason to not believe.

What about free will and omniscience? Knowing =/= forcing, controlling, or whatever else you want to call it. Here, there's a good topic about it here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=34809

I'm not saying I say everything about God is illogical, but from every explanation I have received, it very well APPEARS that way.

You really haven't come up with any good reasons as to why God is illogical, no offense intended there.

So yes, in the lack of evidence, I am in the neutral,if you can show supernatural exists, I will agree with you.

Based on your posts so far, you don't act very neutral at all.

There IS evidence. Take a look at the front page of this website, or at RTB's website. There are plenty of reasons to think the universe was created. Of course, you have to go a step further to prove why one should believe in the Bible. There's other reasons for that, such as how RTB's creation model (thus far accurate) and Genesis 1 mingle so well. Or, there's things like this. The fact of the matter is, no matter how much 'evidence' you get, it's still a matter of faith. You're not going to find ANYTHING that makes you say "This is absolutely and positively undeniable proof of the God of the Bible!"

First I never claimed it. I clarified myself above. Second, I require evidence. You wont convince any scientist without evidence (as in, it won't ever become a scientific fact/theory).

That's why RTB has spent so much time on their Creation Model. Perhaps you should look into them more.

Faith in something else? I still don't understand what you mean.

Everyone has faith in something. You can never prove that something will always remain constant. (outside of mathematics)

I am done with this forum... All I did was ask a question, and I have to deal with so much crap than I intended, and not that I can't handle it. It's just SO STUPID. I'm done here. Have a nice life living your lie. Oh and all you guys have done is just reinforce the idea that God is illogical.

You're basing how logical the existence of God is on how some of his followers act? Now THAT'S illogical.

But, if you insist on leaving, God bless.

CopaceticMan wrote:

Katabole wrote:the vast amounts of archaeological evidence that point to Christianity being true

joejmz wrote: CopaceticMan wrote:
I tried posting a similar question, but the way I phrased it got rejected. So here it is in the way I meant it.


Yes I am an atheist, and I don't believe (I don't claim as some would put it). I am open to believe, but see no reason to.

What would you see as a reason to recognize God's existence?

It is not the only thing that would persuade me. You have to show why it is accurate, but even if we ignore that, physical evidence would be enough. You have to show a few things that are ONLY explainable by God's existence. AND you have to show which GOD. There are many hundreds of thousands (maybe just tens, I have a book in my school library that lists every, or almost every, known god.), not including the ones I could make up right now that would be nearly, or just as, valid as your god. You also would have to take your evidence to the scientific community to be scrutinized, beaten and eaten. If it makes it through, it will (most likely slowly) be accepted as fact (or technically theory, if you want to stay within science). I am willing to accept God, but no good reason has ever been presented to me, ever.

What if the scientific process is incapable of examining the evidence for God's presence?

As you must know science, when properly used is not a process that can solve all problems or answer all questions, is not capable of proving anything, much less proving something is real. This unit plan from Indiana University is a good summary of what Science is Not http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/unt.not.html

So, it is quite possible that the reality of God's existence and any evidence of it may lie outside the scope of the process we call science. Are you able or willing to consider the idea that science may not help you in this endeavor?