Evidence for God from Science

Yes, evil is bad.
Yes suffering is bad.
YET, I dare you to find an event that brings people together and brings forth love more than an "evil event" or the suffering of others.
It is am amazing thing to see when people, even enemies, join together and work together and even suffer together (compassion) when something bad happens.
You can have neighbors that hate each other, working together and caring for each other when they are hit by some tragedy ( like a school shooting).
You can have countries that are at war with each other or have no diplomatic relations, seting aside their issues when a natural disaster effects one of them ( like the Earthquake in Iran).
The fact is that humans are at their best when "evil and suffering" rear their ugly heads.
That means something IMO.

bippy123 wrote:

Proinsias wrote:I have meet someone who says if they are mistaken and it turns out God does exist then God deserves to be punched and they will gladly deliver the punch if they ever happen to meet God. And it really did seem to come from the heart.

I think it's one you've really got to make your own mind up on, what does God deserve and if it's not worship what is it? Love, respect, mocking, fear, devotion, honesty, good behaviour, a punch......you take your pick and place your bet.

Proinsias, so what your basically telling us is that these finite beings who arrogantly believe that they could do things in a better way than an eternal God would like to punch him when they meet him .
Doesn't that remind you of a 5 year old kid saying he will kill his parents one day because the kid bullied and beat up another kid and was punished by his parents for it ?
What would u think of a kid like this?
Logical?
Rational?
Intellectual?
Loving?

My guess is that the people that you know would call this kid a stubborn, arrogant brat that thinks he knows everything when in fact he has so much left to learn.
I wonder how those people that you know would respond if they met the other guy downstairs?
Let me guess, "we want eternal pain, give it to us now?"

I wonder what anyone I know would say if they came face to face with the guy downstairs. I suspect those who believe in the guy downstairs would be the most surprised to meet him.

I'm not familiar with the story of the five year old, but I imagine people I know, like myself, would like to know more about the story before passing judgement. Saying that they punished him to the extent he expressed a want to kill them seems to me a mixture of nature & nurture that could become rather complex whilst shedding little light on the topic of the thread.

I think that, if we are honest with ourselves as humans, we have to admit that what we know is NOTHING compared to what we have YET to know.
Our reality is highly subjective to our ability to understand said reality.
What we take for granted as "for sure" today or "we know" today may not be the case next year or 10 years from now and can you imagine how much we will know 1000 years from now?
How many people here think that the science of today will be the same 1000 years from now?
In 1503 no one believed man could fly. In 1803 no one believed man could fly outside of stories and fairy tales.
In 1903 man "flew" and in 1969 man landed on the Moon ( imagine telling that to people in the 17th century, LOL !)
In 1930 the thought of a human being running 100 meters under 10 seconds was unthinkable and in the current record NOW is : 9.58

We have to be open to the possibilities and probabilities of the universe we live in, a universe that we know almost nothing about.
Arrogance is very ill suited for an infant race as ours.

Proinsias wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Proinsias wrote:I have meet someone who says if they are mistaken and it turns out God does exist then God deserves to be punched and they will gladly deliver the punch if they ever happen to meet God. And it really did seem to come from the heart.

I think it's one you've really got to make your own mind up on, what does God deserve and if it's not worship what is it? Love, respect, mocking, fear, devotion, honesty, good behaviour, a punch......you take your pick and place your bet.

Proinsias, so what your basically telling us is that these finite beings who arrogantly believe that they could do things in a better way than an eternal God would like to punch him when they meet him .
Doesn't that remind you of a 5 year old kid saying he will kill his parents one day because the kid bullied and beat up another kid and was punished by his parents for it ?
What would u think of a kid like this?
Logical?
Rational?
Intellectual?
Loving?

My guess is that the people that you know would call this kid a stubborn, arrogant brat that thinks he knows everything when in fact he has so much left to learn.
I wonder how those people that you know would respond if they met the other guy downstairs?
Let me guess, "we want eternal pain, give it to us now?"

I wonder what anyone I know would say if they came face to face with the guy downstairs. I suspect those who believe in the guy downstairs would be the most surprised to meet him.

I'm not familiar with the story of the five year old, but I imagine people I know, like myself, would like to know more about the story before passing judgement. Saying that they punished him to the extent he expressed a want to kill them seems to me a mixture of nature & nurture that could become rather complex whilst shedding little light on the topic of the thread.

Pro, on the contrary, the people who don't know about him would be the most surprised to meet him,and by his personality that is the way he wants it. I gave the example of the 5 year old for a reason. It shows the arrogance of the kid in thinking that he would know what is good for him and what is bad for him compared to his parents who love him but have more wisdom and experience then him on these issues. Now imagine an all loving God who is infinitely more wise and loving then those parents, and hopefully you will get the picture as to why it's rediculous for us to judge him.
A finite being trying to judge an infinite God??????????
Is that very rational or even reasonable?

Didn't Jesus himself come down and suffer for us? Did he not come down as the poorest of poor?
Did he not allow himself to take on the weight of the sins of the world?
Satan is all for no 1
Selfish, uncaring, vain, arrogant, stubborn and a power monger.

PaulSacramento wrote:I think that, if we are honest with ourselves as humans, we have to admit that what we know is NOTHING compared to what we have YET to know.
Our reality is highly subjective to our ability to understand said reality.
What we take for granted as "for sure" today or "we know" today may not be the case next year or 10 years from now and can you imagine how much we will know 1000 years from now?
How many people here think that the science of today will be the same 1000 years from now?
In 1503 no one believed man could fly. In 1803 no one believed man could fly outside of stories and fairy tales.
In 1903 man "flew" and in 1969 man landed on the Moon ( imagine telling that to people in the 17th century, LOL !)
In 1930 the thought of a human being running 100 meters under 10 seconds was unthinkable and in the current record NOW is : 9.58

We have to be open to the possibilities and probabilities of the universe we live in, a universe that we know almost nothing about.
Arrogance is very ill suited for an infant race as ours.

Just as most scientists that believe only in methodological naturalism think that the material world is all there is. They are exactly the people I would compare to the people of the past who think we would be crazy to believe that one day we would be able to fly to the moon.

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think that, if we are honest with ourselves as humans, we have to admit that what we know is NOTHING compared to what we have YET to know.
Our reality is highly subjective to our ability to understand said reality.
What we take for granted as "for sure" today or "we know" today may not be the case next year or 10 years from now and can you imagine how much we will know 1000 years from now?
How many people here think that the science of today will be the same 1000 years from now?
In 1503 no one believed man could fly. In 1803 no one believed man could fly outside of stories and fairy tales.
In 1903 man "flew" and in 1969 man landed on the Moon ( imagine telling that to people in the 17th century, LOL !)
In 1930 the thought of a human being running 100 meters under 10 seconds was unthinkable and in the current record NOW is : 9.58

We have to be open to the possibilities and probabilities of the universe we live in, a universe that we know almost nothing about.
Arrogance is very ill suited for an infant race as ours.

Just as most scientists that believe only in methodological naturalism think that the material world is all there is. They are exactly the people I would compare to the people of the past who think we would be crazy to believe that one day we would be able to fly to the moon.

You'd think that scientists, who should know their own history better than anyone else, would be the first to avoid using words like "impossible" and "improbable".
You'd think they be the first to be open to the understanding that what we know is limited to what we know.

PaulSacramento wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think that, if we are honest with ourselves as humans, we have to admit that what we know is NOTHING compared to what we have YET to know.
Our reality is highly subjective to our ability to understand said reality.
What we take for granted as "for sure" today or "we know" today may not be the case next year or 10 years from now and can you imagine how much we will know 1000 years from now?
How many people here think that the science of today will be the same 1000 years from now?
In 1503 no one believed man could fly. In 1803 no one believed man could fly outside of stories and fairy tales.
In 1903 man "flew" and in 1969 man landed on the Moon ( imagine telling that to people in the 17th century, LOL !)
In 1930 the thought of a human being running 100 meters under 10 seconds was unthinkable and in the current record NOW is : 9.58

We have to be open to the possibilities and probabilities of the universe we live in, a universe that we know almost nothing about.
Arrogance is very ill suited for an infant race as ours.

Just as most scientists that believe only in methodological naturalism think that the material world is all there is. They are exactly the people I would compare to the people of the past who think we would be crazy to believe that one day we would be able to fly to the moon.

You'd think that scientists, who should know their own history better than anyone else, would be the first to avoid using words like "impossible" and "improbable".
You'd think they be the first to be open to the understanding that what we know is limited to what we know.

That's the problem Paul. They are married to a materialistic worldview which is by definition puts a limit to their ability to
To seek truth, and they always try to smuggle it into their science apriori. To someone like that they start by having a foundation that nothing outside the naturalistic-materialistic world exists and they work their way up from that foundation.

One wonders if the likes of Newton and others would have discovered what they did if they had the same "naturalistic view"?
I think that it is important to be ground in the NOW, yes, but that science should always be looking towards the "beyond".
Some do of course and it is from those that we got flight, it is from those that we get advances in science and medicine and from those that we get discoveries and theories like "parallel dimensions" and "alternate universes".

PaulSacramento wrote:One wonders if the likes of Newton and others would have discovered what they did if they had the same "naturalistic view"?
I think that it is important to be ground in the NOW, yes, but that science should always be looking towards the "beyond".
Some do of course and it is from those that we got flight, it is from those that we get advances in science and medicine and from those that we get discoveries and theories like "parallel dimensions" and "alternate universes".

and big bang theories from Belgian priests.

Indeed.

PaulSacramento wrote:One wonders if the likes of Newton and others would have discovered what they did if they had the same "naturalistic view"?
I think that it is important to be ground in the NOW, yes, but that science should always be looking towards the "beyond".
Some do of course and it is from those that we got flight, it is from those that we get advances in science and medicine and from those that we get discoveries and theories like "parallel dimensions" and "alternate universes".

Paul this reminds me of an atheist Sinologist (study of all things related to china) named Joseph Needham who was frustrated as to why science exploded in the west during the 16th-17th century and stagnated in China. At the end of his research he reluctantly admitted that the reason for this was the scientists in the west believed that the Christian God is a rational and orderly God that endowed this universe with orderly and harmonious laws.

He followed the evididence where it lead him, even though he didn't like the conclusion.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:One wonders if the likes of Newton and others would have discovered what they did if they had the same "naturalistic view"?
I think that it is important to be ground in the NOW, yes, but that science should always be looking towards the "beyond".
Some do of course and it is from those that we got flight, it is from those that we get advances in science and medicine and from those that we get discoveries and theories like "parallel dimensions" and "alternate universes".

and big bang theories from Belgian priests.

Yep Byblos, that was a huge discovery which showed that the universe had a definite beginning. That must have ruffled a a few materialistic feathers

bippy123 wrote:Paul this reminds me of an atheist Sinologist (study of all things related to china) named Joseph Needham who was frustrated as to why science exploded in the west during the 16th-17th century and stagnated in China. At the end of his research he reluctantly admitted that the reason for this was the scientists in the west believed that the Christian God is a rational and orderly God that endowed this universe with orderly and harmonious laws.

He followed the evididence where it lead him, even though he didn't like the conclusion.

Its interesting that you brought this up because NOT ONLY did he admit it, but he also said that the rapid advancement of western philosophy propelled the scientific revolution.



It looks really obvious to me that eastern philosophy isn't concerned with enlightening people. It looks more interested in keeping people ignorant for various reasons. Mainly political. Its easier to get away with stomping on the rights of people when you have a philosophy telling they have no personhood.
Once in a while you might get a demonstration like the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

bippy123 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:One wonders if the likes of Newton and others would have discovered what they did if they had the same "naturalistic view"?
I think that it is important to be ground in the NOW, yes, but that science should always be looking towards the "beyond".
Some do of course and it is from those that we got flight, it is from those that we get advances in science and medicine and from those that we get discoveries and theories like "parallel dimensions" and "alternate universes".

and big bang theories from Belgian priests.

Yep Byblos, that was a huge discovery which showed that the universe had a definite beginning. That must have ruffled a a few materialistic feathers

I recall how will received it was in the scientific community and how so many STILL are doing everything to discredit it or come up with an alternative.
Funny thing is that one alternative, the multiple universe one, actually has biblical foundation, ie: heaven.

You know guys what Einstein said?

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."