Evidence for God from Science

Actually macroevolution contradicts with the bible a lot, Genesis say's God created man, not that we came from the great apes.

skoobieschnax wrote:

K wrote:Some things really are right and wrong, and we expect others to be accountable for their actions when they do something wrong.

I absolutely agree with you! You struck a chord with me when I read your scenerio. The whole what would you do thing is helping me to see your perspective a lot more.

Thanks, I find your words encouraging as it shows me that I'm learning to communicate across my ideas on this issue much better.

skoobie wrote:

K wrote:Many Christians believe that this moral standard of right and wrong exists within God, above whom there is noone higher. And then when God created humanity, He imparted these moral values to us as He formed us in His likeness

I like this philosophy very much. When I was a Christian, I believed this wholeheartedly. I still believe there is a moral standard that exists and that such a standard is a higher form of morality than we can achieve 100% (as no humans are free from sin), but I simply don't attribute it to a supernatural Being. I believe everything can be attributed to the way nature works, but I do not completely denounce the idea that nature is God or that God can be seen through all things (hence my agnostic beliefs as opposed to atheist.) Again, thank you for helping me to realize this viewpoint from a Christian perspective.

I'd be lying if I said it didn't make me feel a little happy to know my words are impacting on your thoughts . Some things I try to aim for myself, is bringing consistency to my beliefs, and thinking more deeply, and so this is something I'd also hope to impart. I've observed, as you also have come to realise, that some things really are wrong or right. For example, honesty is a much better value than lying, responsibility is better than dissolution, fairness is better than greed, and caring better than callousness. I couldn't deny the truth of these comparisons any more than I could myself. And so it seems only proper that I adopt a belief that allows for the objective reality of right and wrong (that is, right and wrong values really do exist independant of what anyone believes).

Now one can obviously believe our basic beliefs on morality were given by unguided natural processes (which, asy ou say, is something you gravitate towards). Although I can understand why someone who finds God hard to swallow would take such an approach, I personally find a natural explanation hard to swallow, as morality doesn't seem to be something that has physical attributes. For example, you won't find the moral standard existing at xyz position, you can't see it, can't weigh it, hear it... it is something very real, but also something very different from the physical. Perhaps it is seeing this difference, which prompted you to further say that you're open to the belief that nature is God, or that God may be in nature?? Whatever the reason, I think it is safe to conclude that if a moral standard exists, that it isn't in any way physical. Whether it exists within nature, as some form of guiding principle within a form of pantheism, well that could be an option.

There is an additional reason why I believe God provides a better basis for such a moral standard within us than that of nature, and that is God better explains the obligation we towards doing what is right. For example, if the moral standard that we believe exists was entirely derived from nature, then now we've found out about it, there appears to be no reason why we should continue acting as though morality matters. An example I remember reading was based on a game of Scrabble. Say you pick up some letters, and then you notice that they form the phrase "do not go." Is there anything about this command that obliges you, or makes you ought, to obey it? Although the meaning is significant to you, it's not really a command at all, but just a random collection of letters. In the same way, there is no obligation for us to abide by the moral standard we find significant, if indeed such was derived from nature. Yet, this is it. We both feel people are obligated to act in certain ways.

It is for the reasons I presented in the last two paragraphs, that I believe the moral standard we recognise is better grounded in a God who created us.

skoobie wrote:

K wrote:Your friend at work announces she is getting divorced. She has fallen in love with another man, and although she has two children, she has told her husband that she cannot continue to live a lie. Her husband and children are crushed, but she feels she must be true to herself. You charge her with selfishness, lack of loyalty, and willingness to hurt others' feelings.

I do not feel I have the right to judge. This comes, I think, from my education in Psychology and probably from my religious upbringing as well (he who is without sin shall cast the first stone.) I would listen to her and her views before making any judgment--perhaps her husband turned abusive toward her and her children. Perhaps her husband became a deadbeet and expected her to do all the work at home as well as to be the breadwinner while he sits at home watching football and drinking beer all day.

Don't worry, there is really no wrong or right answer (at least none that I'm aware of ). That said, I think you make some very valid points. If we don't know the full story, then I think it would be a bit out of place for us to make any judgement. It may not still make what she did right, but anyone with any sort of heart would still feel compassion and understand her actions if say her husband was abusive.

skoobs wrote:I don't know which scenerio you were trying to explain, though. If her husband is a good man, does his share of the work at home with the kids as well as working for financial support, and he is loving and caring, then I probably might feel his pain and his confusion as to what went wrong with their relationship. I would probably even be a tad upset by her decision to leave her husband, considering every marriage is bound to have hardships and there is no such thing as perfection...it's empathy coming from the husband's perspective.

Given this is more the case, that her husband is a good husband and father, and that she is simply being selfish, I think I'd really try to make her think about her actions really hard. I'd try to dig up articles written by professionals that reveal that once the intial appeal and excitement of being with someone else wears off, just about all regret leaving their original partner. I'd inquire about her kids. I also believe commitment is important—marriage isn't just about love, it's about commitment to your spouse and the family. These are some things and ideas I'd try reasoning with her, that is, if it already wasn't too late.

Something interesting to consider is how you think people would have answered these same scenarios, say about 30 years ago. Which scenario do you think people today would find more morally bad, and which scenario do you think people back in the day would have thought the worst? I don't want to influence your opinion, but I still remember the saying that I don't often hear said these days: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will ever hurt me."

Kurieuo.

That doesn't make the entire theory wrong. The fact is, ID does not have a better mechanism(or any mechanism for that matter). All I hear people say is "God did it". Evolution is the "how", not the who or the why. Hell, from what I've seen, Genesis could be interpreted as each large group of animals coming from their respective mediums(air, water, earth), and it only makes sense that God would gather the basic elements into unicellular organisms, then make the unicellular organisms gather together to slowly make up the animal life. Apart from humans, there is no detailed description of what the process was.

The word created comes up many times, although the bible allows some naturalistic processes to take place in say prokaryotes or plants, its evident the Bible makes it clear God created man and the other animals. Basically the Bible is the only defense against Satan, if i budge and accept a theory that removes God from the "how" then I'd be giving Satan a small victory by decreasing God's role. ID has a mechanism and that's God.

How does it remove God? I still support that He decides what happens. God isn't the process, He is the cause and Master of the process.

Thats not evolution then, Evolution clearly states that the changes which come about are because of mutations or that in other words they are random. Now why would God choose to do it that way when he has the power to create the animals right there at the spot, like with the Cambrian explosion or what not. Again I'm going with what the bible says. Some things i feel aren't open to a whole lot of interpretation as God wouldn't make an important topic like the creation account that ambiguous. Also if evolution fails to explain the origin of man in the same manner it explains the origin of say a frog, then the theory fails.

No, that's the taint of Naturalism in evolution. Stating the mutations are random is not a proven fact. All i have done is ignored the atheist propaganda that corrupts almost every scientific discovery.

Some things i feel aren't open to a whole lot of interpretation as God wouldn't make an important topic like the creation account that ambiguous.

Creation is irrelevant to salvation, so I fail to see why we can't interpret it. It's not like one interpretation is more valid than another, as Genesis simply doesn't give us enough information.

Also if evolution fails to explain the origin of man in the same manner it explains the origin of say a frog, then the theory fails

Evolution has nothing to do with origins. It is a simple process of mutation. The atheist believes it is random, I believe it is divine intervention. Neither is scientifically proven, and in addition, I am in a position in which I could destroy an atheist argument about the origins of both life and the universe. Frankly, I like it.

Evolution states that given enough time and various conditions in environment a frog could become a human, now if you take the naturalistic process out what is it that you have?

Genesis has nothing to do with salvation, but it trys to reveal to us God's most important role as the creator so its still very much relevant. You can interpret it but I don't see what your picture of evolution is?, remember the key in genesis is that it reveals that God was very involved in shaping life on earth.

"Evolution states that given enough time and various conditions in environment a frog could become a human."

No. Evolution states we mutate. That's it. The "time" and "conditions" part is naturalism. If God chooses to mutate one animal into another, by all means He can.

"now if you take the naturalistic process out what is it that you have?"
Replace random mutations with divine interventions and natural selection with... well, I suppose that if God made animals to be good for earth, you could call it natural selection, but it doesn't really matter. The point i'm trying to make is that atheists have entrenched naturalism in it, and to the passive observer, it looks like they need each other. They do not.

"Genesis has nothing to do with salvation, but it trys to reveal to us God's most important role as the creator so its still very much relevant. You can interpret it but I don't see what your picture of evolution is?, remember the key in genesis is that it states God was involved in shaping life on earth."

As does my theory. Evolution is God's process of shaping life.

My problem with your theory is that basically if Bible says God created man from dust and didn't mutate anything, how can you say God did some sort of mutation to produce the other life forms?

I'm beginning to see although your view on evolution is possible, its not something that is really very much backed up by scripture and will always lack scientific evidence. Therefore i'll stick with ID.

vvart wrote:My problem with your theory is that basically if Bible says God created man from dust and didn't mutate anything, how can you say God did some sort of mutation to produce the other life forms?

I'm beginning to see although your view on evolution is possible, its not something that is really very much backed up by scripture and will always lack scientific evidence. Therefore i'll stick with ID.

ID has nothing to do with evolution. ID is the belief we were designed. ID's opposition is Naturalism, not evolution. And if God created man from dust, so what? Everything is basically dust, except particles are rearranged in such a way as to form organisms. God simply removed those chemicals from the earth and formed man. I fail to see the problems between this and scripture.

Yes but evidence can be gathered for ID and not your view of evolution.
By God creating a man from dust he's not mutating another living organism and again evolution states mutation of living organism's not something inanimate.

vvart wrote:Yes but evidence can be gathered for ID and not your view of evolution.
By God creating a man from dust he's not mutating another living organism and again evolution states mutation of living organism's not something inanimate.

What do you mean by evidence? If you are referring to physical evidence, unless you find a fossil of God's footprint, it's not going to happen, just like you won't find proof for naturalism. Evolution on the other hand, when combined with the idea of a creator(ID), has plenty of proof backing it up. It doesn't matter if humans were part of the evolutionary process, as we are clearly unique from all animals(EXTREMELY superior intellect, very strange metabolism, sentience). You are arguing as if I accept the Naturalist version of Evolution. I do not. Remove any naturalist implications and you will see that there really is no objection that you can make, as my theory does not go against scripture. Anyway, we can finish this tomorrow. I'm going to bed.

After thinking more about the idea of Evolution without naturalism combined with God, Ive realized that its essentially creationism, meaning God brought about the different life forms and that it just tries to explain how God did this. Although it won't apply to how humans came about and is only one possibility, its definitely a plausible one. This has also strengthened my belief that rather natural selection which is what Darwin came up with is in fact a product of Satan to try and leads us away from God.
Thanks for making the difference between the two clear, terrible atheist propaganda that has reached even schools!

Now if I can convince more people to fight the real enemy(naturalism), we'd strengthen our position considerably. So far, in my new stance, all debates have ended with the atheist getting pissed and whining that their position is more logical(we were debating naturalism vs ID, and he couldn't touch me on evolution as I now accept it), with absolutely nothing useful to say.