Evidence for God from Science

I reject Evolution too based on the evidence, however if evolution were true?You still need a cause and God is the most logical cause.To somehow believe life could evolve into being all on its own is just not logical at all.I also don't understand how so many people can believe what man says is true over God.Man cannot be trusted to always tell the truth and the majority has been wrong many times throughout history,so that it would be stupid to believe what man says is true over God.It really seems like those who reject God and people who believe in God will then turn around and trust what scientists say,especially if the scientist is an atheist or believes a God is not needed and yet the person seems blind to the fact that they have faith in what that anti-God scientist says but not God himself and what they are believing requires more faith than to believe in God and yet they have no proof. They'll give anti-God science the benefit of the doubt, yet not God.

You believe in a God described in a book written thousands of years ago, in a time in which people couldn't distinguish reality from an ordinary hallucination caused by alien substances...and I am the one who have to demonstrate you something you know I can't demonstrate???!!! Give me a break. This is one of the reasons christians and atheists argue instead of having a decent debate, you know?

I do know, which is why I made it a point in doesn't matter to the conversation. I only asked you do to do so in my hope I would be brought to some enlightening links.

If you have done scientific/biological studies on that, then I'll give you that; I have not done it and I'm used to leaving more qualified people getting the conclusions and accpeting their conclusions (when I believe in other people, that is; when I remember people may be a creation from my mind, I may think twice before believing in them, scientist or not...). However, if you are a sort of a scientist, keep in mind there are much more scientists, and most scientists I know don't believe in the God of the Bible, so...

I'm not so interested in appealing to authority. My authorities have failed me continuously growing up, even the ones I've thought to be 'authorities'. Again, I don't see it very important if we disagree here.


Who cares if humanity evolved step by step to what resembles humans today? It still didn't happen randomly.

I have my doubts on that. Besides, evolution by randomness only discards the most accepted evolution theory of today; it doesn't discard, for example, Lamarckian evolution (although I admit that one seems to not fit the data).

That's the problem. I don't see random. I see reaction from programming. I see epigenetics at work. I see biological mechanisms being altered by their environment (physical, social, spiritual..). I see direction from potentials and potentials being actualized.

And even if it was random (I'll assume randomness exists); again, so what? That just adds a random element to existence. I'm still calling existence itself God.

The thing is: leaving the planet "You" created for "Your" creatures be ruled by randomness is counterproductive if your creatures want to look for You through observational data. If you, human, see randomness ruling your planet, is it logical to believe God has a say on how things work in your planet? Not really, I think...

I see you worrying about the mechanics of reality. Random vs not random. Is that wrong? Either way, I still don't see why that matters to Who God Is? I'll give that you see random and I don't. I see we don't have to agree and it doesn't matter to the fundamental issues. Even if there is a random element to existence, what does that have do to with God being real?

According to the most consensual evolution theory, it's the things that cause DNA mutations, namely radiation.

I disagree. I don't see DNA mutations (as if it's a random phenomena. You think so much money would be thrown at anti-cancer treatments if they didn't think it could be understood? Or the field of genetics?) as the 'reason' for biological adaptation. I see programs being re-written within their potential.

I hope you are sort of quoting the Bible. Otherwise, you are no one to decide who deserves to live. Neither am I, but whatever...I'm still very confused about God's test. If (I repeat, if) we are here to be tested, I don't get I would God kill Sodomians which hadn't finished their test (aka died). Like, He sometimes decide to abruptly end someone's test? If so, His criteria seems sort of wobbling. There are extremelly "rotten" villains that live for years, while others not-so-bad-but-only-by-comparison die sooner...I don't know, it seems confusing. Then again, I am no one to judge who is a villain or who isn't, so...

Sorta quoting the Bilble/objective morality. And no, I am no judge. If you keep thinking of 'it' as a test, you keep failing to see the point/reality. I disagree with all of your presumptions.

abelcainsbrother wrote:.Man cannot be trusted to always tell the truth and the majority has been wrong many times throughout history,so that it would be stupid to believe what man says is true over God.

That goes both ways ya know; men wrote the Bible. Yeah some may claim they wrote God’s words, but if man cannot be trusted to always tell the truth, (as you said) how do you know these men who claim to be speaking for God are telling the truth?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:.Man cannot be trusted to always tell the truth and the majority has been wrong many times throughout history,so that it would be stupid to believe what man says is true over God.

That goes both ways ya know; men wrote the Bible. Yeah some may claim they wrote God’s words, but if man cannot be trusted to always tell the truth, (as you said) how do you know these men who claim to be speaking for God are telling the truth?

Ken

Because of the Otiot, numerics, symbols within the bible add a layer of coherent contextual meaning to bible text that connects to other parts of the bible in ways that no human mind could have produced by random chance or even thought of. Such things as this, Kenny, you are completely ignorant of. Add to this the historic as well as archaeological evidence as well too.Then the spread of Christianity during a time folks literally sought to exterminate it, survived and continues to flourish. Add in the unseen hand of the living God actually correcting the Church to stop its abuses and misrepresentation is another factor. No other religion has or had this happen.

Also, other religions are works based to earn heaven, or nothingness, or work really hard to just be sucked into the hum of the universe. Christianity is not based on such. It is based upon God's grace to save and change people from the inside out, making them better people with hope, faith, and finding a purpose for his or her life here on earth in the process of time here on earth.

Kenny because your personal reality cannot accept this or any other point of view does not mean your's is correct. So I suggest you surrender your pride to Jesus Christ and find out yourself how really real He is...
-
-
-

Let's not forget fufilled prophecies!

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:.Man cannot be trusted to always tell the truth and the majority has been wrong many times throughout history,so that it would be stupid to believe what man says is true over God.

That goes both ways ya know; men wrote the Bible. Yeah some may claim they wrote God’s words, but if man cannot be trusted to always tell the truth, (as you said) how do you know these men who claim to be speaking for God are telling the truth?

Ken

Because of the Otiot, numerics, symbols within the bible add a layer of coherent contextual meaning to bible text that connects to other parts of the bible in ways that no human mind could have produced by random chance or even thought of. Such things as this, Kenny, you are completely ignorant of. Add to this the historic as well as archaeological evidence as well too.Then the spread of Christianity during a time folks literally sought to exterminate it, survived and continues to flourish. Add in the unseen hand of the living God actually correcting the Church to stop its abuses and misrepresentation is another factor. No other religion has or had this happen.

Also, other religions are works based to earn heaven, or nothingness, or work really hard to just be sucked into the hum of the universe. Christianity is not based on such. It is based upon God's grace to save and change people from the inside out, making them better people with hope, faith, and finding a purpose for his or her life here on earth in the process of time here on earth.

Kenny because your personal reality cannot accept this or any other point of view does not mean your's is correct. So I suggest you surrender your pride to Jesus Christ and find out yourself how really real He is...
-
-
-

I’m sure you have your reasons for believing Christianity over other religions, and I’m sure "ACB" his reasons as well; but that’s not what this conversation is about. I’m talking about the claim that you cannot believe what is written by men. The bible was written by men, and just like you have your reasons for believing those scriptures that were written by men, some have reasons for believing other claims written by men. IOW the fact that it was written by men is not a reason to dismiss it.

Ken

RE: what is written by Man.
If we discount all that is written by man then ALL is discounted.
Logically speaking, we must take into account that what is written and copied and edited by man MAY contain errors or misinformation and that is why we must evaluate that info with investigations on our part.
Of course as human we TOO are also fallible so just because we may find evidence that statement "A" is false, it doesn't mean that it is.
The distinction between evidence and proof is crucial.
What IS evidence and proof is crucial.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

proof
pro͞of/Submit
noun
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

Kenny, how about treating each book in a historical critical manner. How does it mae sense for example that an issue in one of the OT books means you discard some other writing written 1000s of years later by say someone like Paul or that of the Gospels. To me, the nonChristian who says the Bible is wrong categorically is more extreme than one who says everything is absolutely correct.

It is easier to prove the former wrong... much harder if not impossible to disprove the latter since many "issues" are open up to interpretation and ALL interpretations must be proven false to find a piece of Scripture in error with all certainty.

Here's a great listing of reasons why one should realize the Bible is ultimately a supernatural work of GOD!

(from Dr. Norman Geisler, perhaps the world's most important living apologist)

http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/t ... ptures.pdf

Fulfilled Prophesy (by Norman Geisler): https://philosophical11.wordpress.com/2 ... fillments/

Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, how about treating each book in a historical critical manner. How does it mae sense for example that an issue in one of the OT books means you discard some other writing written 1000s of years later by say someone like Paul or that of the Gospels. To me, the nonChristian who says the Bible is wrong categorically is more extreme than one who says everything is absolutely correct.

It is easier to prove the former wrong... much harder if not impossible to disprove the latter since many "issues" are open up to interpretation and ALL interpretations must be proven false to find a piece of Scripture in error with all certainty.

I’m not familiar with those who claim everything in the Bible (or any other ancient holy text) is wrong; I think most would agree there may be events, and characters in the texts that are based on reality, or some of the things people actually did. Perhaps there are those who believe it is all false, but I cannot speak for those people; I am not one of them. I just don’t believe it is all true.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:.Man cannot be trusted to always tell the truth and the majority has been wrong many times throughout history,so that it would be stupid to believe what man says is true over God.

That goes both ways ya know; men wrote the Bible. Yeah some may claim they wrote God’s words, but if man cannot be trusted to always tell the truth, (as you said) how do you know these men who claim to be speaking for God are telling the truth?

Ken

We believe God over man and we should.
Second Timothy 3 16. For you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btynJoH8qcU

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, how about treating each book in a historical critical manner. How does it mae sense for example that an issue in one of the OT books means you discard some other writing written 1000s of years later by say someone like Paul or that of the Gospels. To me, the nonChristian who says the Bible is wrong categorically is more extreme than one who says everything is absolutely correct.

It is easier to prove the former wrong... much harder if not impossible to disprove the latter since many "issues" are open up to interpretation and ALL interpretations must be proven false to find a piece of Scripture in error with all certainty.

I’m not familiar with those who claim everything in the Bible (or any other ancient holy text) is wrong; I think most would agree there may be events, and characters in the texts that are based on reality, or some of the things people actually did. Perhaps there are those who believe it is all false, but I cannot speak for those people; I am not one of them. I just don’t believe it is all true.

Ken

I think Krink was playing strawman there, but regardless, the bible is not wrong about everything. There really is an Egypt! And more.

However, what is really the topic is people thinking that their reading of gospel is "gods word".

When simple or complex, for that matter, observation shows a reading is wrong, the reading is wrong, not the word of some god.

Audie wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, how about treating each book in a historical critical manner. How does it mae sense for example that an issue in one of the OT books means you discard some other writing written 1000s of years later by say someone like Paul or that of the Gospels. To me, the nonChristian who says the Bible is wrong categorically is more extreme than one who says everything is absolutely correct.

It is easier to prove the former wrong... much harder if not impossible to disprove the latter since many "issues" are open up to interpretation and ALL interpretations must be proven false to find a piece of Scripture in error with all certainty.

I’m not familiar with those who claim everything in the Bible (or any other ancient holy text) is wrong; I think most would agree there may be events, and characters in the texts that are based on reality, or some of the things people actually did. Perhaps there are those who believe it is all false, but I cannot speak for those people; I am not one of them. I just don’t believe it is all true.

Ken

I think Krink was playing strawman there, but regardless, the bible is not wrong about everything. There really is an Egypt! And more.

However, what is really the topic is people thinking that their reading of gospel is "gods word".

When simple or complex, for that matter, observation shows a reading is wrong, the reading is wrong, not the word of some god.

You reckon I'm playing strawman? Then why when someone told me at work, "The Bible is wrong you know?" And I responded, "yeah ok, which part??" They said, "It's been proven wrong." And then I clarified, "Every single thing written in the Bible is wrong?" And then, their brain went ticking over...

People don't know what they say or mean half the time.
They just spit out crap without thinking twice.

It's only made obvious here, like "duh, of course it's not ALL wrong," because I pointed it out.
BUT, no, sadly, it's not a strawman. People say the Bible is wrong, and they really do mean it can't be accepted, they won't accept anything written in it. At least, until challenged to think more about what they're saying.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, how about treating each book in a historical critical manner. How does it mae sense for example that an issue in one of the OT books means you discard some other writing written 1000s of years later by say someone like Paul or that of the Gospels. To me, the nonChristian who says the Bible is wrong categorically is more extreme than one who says everything is absolutely correct.

It is easier to prove the former wrong... much harder if not impossible to disprove the latter since many "issues" are open up to interpretation and ALL interpretations must be proven false to find a piece of Scripture in error with all certainty.

I’m not familiar with those who claim everything in the Bible (or any other ancient holy text) is wrong; I think most would agree there may be events, and characters in the texts that are based on reality, or some of the things people actually did. Perhaps there are those who believe it is all false, but I cannot speak for those people; I am not one of them. I just don’t believe it is all true.

Ken

I think Krink was playing strawman there, but regardless, the bible is not wrong about everything. There really is an Egypt! And more.

However, what is really the topic is people thinking that their reading of gospel is "gods word".

When simple or complex, for that matter, observation shows a reading is wrong, the reading is wrong, not the word of some god.

You reckon I'm playing strawman? Then why when someone told me at work, "The Bible is wrong you know?" And I responded, "yeah ok, which part??" They said, "It's been proven wrong." And then I clarified, "Every single thing written in the Bible is wrong?" And then, their brain went ticking over...

People don't know what they say or mean half the time.
They just spit out crap without thinking twice.

It's only made obvious here, like "duh, of course it's not ALL wrong," because I pointed it out.
BUT, no, sadly, it's not a strawman. People say the Bible is wrong, and they really do mean it can't be accepted, they won't accept anything written in it. At least, until challenged to think more about what they're saying.

Ok.... but you know, far far far more people say "the bible is true" and are far less accurate than if they said its false.

Audie wrote:However, what is really the topic is people thinking that their reading of gospel is "gods word".

Yep, that's a constant source of bemusement for me. Over the course of my lifetime people have gone from identifying themselves by their denomination and pretty much leaving it at that, to identifying themselves as Christians and then ranting about how "as a Christian" they're offended by this, or in support of that, as if they speak for the entire faith.

One of the few perks of being an atheist is that there are far, far fewer obnoxious blowhards claiming that they speak for me. I'll take Bill "Smug A-hole" Maher over Ray "Holy Banana" Comfort any day, but that's just scratching the surface. Rational, honest, compassionate Christians have to deal with the Westboro Baptist Church, Creflo Dollar and Prosperity Gospel, dozens upon dozens of blood-sucking televangelists, that ridiculous Creation museum, pedophile priests backed by whitewashing bishops, crazy guys predicting the end of the world every few months, scumbag politicians cynically using Christ to duck responsibility for scandalous behavior, closeted gay social conservative activists getting caught with male escorts... It just goes on and on. Those guys do more to turn people away from Christianity than the FFRF ever could.*



* Not to imply that the FFRF is actually trying to turn people away - they're not.