Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I'm curious who Audie has in mind, as while Wise has made the claim she's talking about, I've not seen it repeated here. Even as frustratingly intractable as ACB is with his gappery nonsense, he at least pays lip service to the notion he could be wrong. I really don't know anybody here who has claimed they can't be wrong, either explicitly or implicitly.

But regardless, this:

Byblos wrote:I would help you, that's not the issue at all (in fact, that's precisely why I mentioned the subject to begin with). It's just that I am not sure how to, considering I've outlined where I think your thinking is faulty and you rejected such outline. I figured you didn't need help after all. I cannot answer your charge as it pertains to others, not to me. So I suggested to not give it so much attention and concentrate on the arguments you see as most worthy to be considered for debate. How else could I have helped, what did I miss?

is, I think, excellent advice.

Jac is right I will never get to a point where I refuse to admit I could be wrong,especially when it comes to the bible and God's word ?............. No other creation theory could or can.

Do you admit you could be wrong about God? Like, the bible isnt really God's word?
That "God" gives you no help at all interpreting it?

"No other can or could". Reckon you figure evolution cannot be right, gap cannot be wrong. That is what you just said.

Is it possible that you are mistaken, and there is no God at all?

Is it possible that the bible is not in any way the word of any God?

Is it not possible that atheists are wrong, and that there IS a God. Is it not possible that the Bible DOES contain God's communications to man?

People make claim to guidance from God in bible interpretation.

Do you take this as an implicit claim that God steered them right?

If the INTERPRETATION is incorrect, the problem is not with God, but with the one interpreting it. Much disagreement amongst Christians comes from topics that do not concern the essentials - as opposed to issues like the necessity to have faith in Christ or practices of basic morality - typically things which the Bible explicitly and clearly teaches, and that classical Christians agree upon, around the world. Look where Christians who take the Bible seriously AGREE. But Christians are failable men and women, and wherever there are passages far less clear, there will be differences of opinion.

Just because a person has a Bible doesn't mean they will ALWAYS accurately understand it. Certain aspects of Scripture God WANTS us to wrestle with, pray more over, seek out the wisdom of those with higher training and study. To the degree one has done these things, particularly in seeking God in prayer, the more likely they will be to correctly grasp the correct meanings, as God leads them. But while led by God's Spirit, we still can't have COMPLETE understandings, as then we would have the mind of God Himself. Clearly there is a hierarchy of what God cares we most understand - as opposed to issues like the age of the earth, the time and scale of Noah's flood, etc. And just because we can't perfectly know many things, there are also many key things that God has made completely clear to us: The ESSENTIALS of what He considers most important!

And just because we can't know certain things with certainty, or can't PROVE them by one of our methodologies, in no way invalidates their truth. The truth of things does not rest upon always being able to prove them. And if one is seeking to prove their way to faith - it doesn't work like that. Ultimately, with some key things, it becomes a matter of sincerely seeking and being entirely open to the truth - however and wherever it might show up, as well as a matter of logical probabilities. Somewhere in that chain of seeking should be at least an experimental seeking of God - even though one might have no current reason to do so. This is a personal quest only the seeker needs to be aware of. This is a thing Scripture reveals, that God honors those who sincerely seek Him. At the end of all of these things is necessarily a gap that can only be connected to God, through the mind and heart through faith. And once faith is placed, certain powerful certainties of understandings DO set in. But the leap of faith required is not a completely blind one, as the probabilities offered, the power in seeking God beforehand, all add up to a huge collective for which it is entirely reasonable to bridge that last gap with faith in God/Christ.

Just to add a challenge: Let's say, one is at the precipice of deciding whether to take a leap of faith and commit themselves to Christ in heart, mind and word. What is the worst that could happen if you did that and the result was NOTHING - EVER. Well, you would be right back to where you are now, right? Nothing lost, eh? Yet you would have been open-minded enough to pursue truth wherever it might be obscured to you. But what if you would instead be placing your faith in a REAL, PERSONAL, and all-powerful God who loves you beyond understandings - THAT would change everything in wonderful ways! And FOREVER! And that is why the Christians here have a certainty in their hearts and minds - it's beyond words to explain - it is our EXPERIENCE with our personal, loving Creator.

Do any unbelievers here really believe that the Christians here are merely self-deceived, unintelligent people who want to believe just any drivel they encounter? Do you think Christians are any less cynical of people, their assertions, their RELIGIONS, etc? Did they not struggle to faith themselves? All Christians were once unbelievers - they identify with that prior experience. And yet they, to a one, testify to something marvelous that their prior life was devoid of: A relationship with God!

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I'm curious who Audie has in mind, as while Wise has made the claim she's talking about, I've not seen it repeated here. Even as frustratingly intractable as ACB is with his gappery nonsense, he at least pays lip service to the notion he could be wrong. I really don't know anybody here who has claimed they can't be wrong, either explicitly or implicitly.

.

Well, yes, lip service; as in, in name only.

I asked the obdurate one mentioned above similar questions:

Is it possible that you are mistaken, and there is no God at all?

Is it possible that the bible is not in any way the word of any God?

People make claim to guidance from God in bible interpretation.
Do you take this as an implicit claim that God steered them right?

Wait, so all of this back and forth has just been about ACB? Then may I reiterated his (Byblos') advice and encourage you to take a look at the strongest ideas rather than the weakest ones? You can see that no one here takes him seriously. So why would you take him as a serious representative of our faith when we don't even do that?

As far as your questions, I don't know why anybody wouldn't acknowledge the possibility of being wrong. We can be wrong about literally anything. Even Descartes' "I think therefore I am" could have been wrong. The question is never, "Could you be wrong," but rather, "What reason do you have to think you're right?"

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I'm curious who Audie has in mind, as while Wise has made the claim she's talking about, I've not seen it repeated here. Even as frustratingly intractable as ACB is with his gappery nonsense, he at least pays lip service to the notion he could be wrong. I really don't know anybody here who has claimed they can't be wrong, either explicitly or implicitly.

But regardless, this:

Byblos wrote:I would help you, that's not the issue at all (in fact, that's precisely why I mentioned the subject to begin with). It's just that I am not sure how to, considering I've outlined where I think your thinking is faulty and you rejected such outline. I figured you didn't need help after all. I cannot answer your charge as it pertains to others, not to me. So I suggested to not give it so much attention and concentrate on the arguments you see as most worthy to be considered for debate. How else could I have helped, what did I miss?

is, I think, excellent advice.

Jac is right I will never get to a point where I refuse to admit I could be wrong,especially when it comes to the bible and God's word ?............. No other creation theory could or can.

Do you admit you could be wrong about God? Like, the bible isnt really God's word?
That "God" gives you no help at all interpreting it?

"No other can or could". Reckon you figure evolution cannot be right, gap cannot be wrong. That is what you just said.

I know I'm not wrong about God because I was born again but it is possible I could be wrong about certain interpretations. I don't reckon evolution can't be right. It is based on a lack of evidence that I reject it. I go by evidence to determine what is true or not.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I'm curious who Audie has in mind, as while Wise has made the claim she's talking about, I've not seen it repeated here. Even as frustratingly intractable as ACB is with his gappery nonsense, he at least pays lip service to the notion he could be wrong. I really don't know anybody here who has claimed they can't be wrong, either explicitly or implicitly.

.

Well, yes, lip service; as in, in name only.

I asked the obdurate one mentioned above similar questions:

Is it possible that you are mistaken, and there is no God at all?

Is it possible that the bible is not in any way the word of any God?

People make claim to guidance from God in bible interpretation.
Do you take this as an implicit claim that God steered them right?

Wait, so all of this back and forth has just been about ACB? Then may I reiterated his (Byblos') advice and encourage you to take a look at the strongest ideas rather than the weakest ones? You can see that no one here takes him seriously. So why would you take him as a serious representative of our faith when we don't even do that?

As far as your questions, I don't know why anybody wouldn't acknowledge the possibility of being wrong. We can be wrong about literally anything. Even Descartes' "I think therefore I am" could have been wrong. The question is never, "Could you be wrong," but rather, "What reason do you have to think you're right?"

No, not about ab, tho he provides an example among others of a way of thinking I was looking at.. Representative of Christians?
No way.


You did not address whether "guidance from god" is an implicit claim of being infallible
on some topic. An awful lotta Xtians say they get special help. Place their faith in
(how they interpret) Gods word, not the "word of man" tho for the life of me Ivsee no distinction,

The question is of course not "COULD I be wrong", to me. Or to you. But is that true of
those who say things like "the only thing I know for sure is, there is a god."

"In what ways might I be wrong" is the flip side of, "why might I be right".
I think a person needs both.

The easiest one to fool is yourself, dont you think so?

Did you have a strong argument in mind for something I should look at?

The "guidance from God" argument is rooted in a misunderstanding of verses like 1 Cor 2:14 and John 16:13. I have no doubt you can see them yourself and "get" the argument. I don't feel a lot of need to defend ideas I disagree with, although I do think it is worth saying that while I disagree with that view, I do think it is important and fair to understand the argument on its own terms--the same as we should for any argument.

RE: easiest to fool, actually I think it's your fans. Yeah, we do very easily fool ourselves. We have, psychologically speaking, the deepest possible investments in ideas about the basic structure of reality. And it's on those issues above all that we're most apt to fool ourselves. But as easy as I can fool me, I have to be doubly careful not to be fooled by people who I've already read or listened to and have decided they're right on so many other issues that they are almost certainly right about what I'm

RE: strong arguments, they're the boring ones we've been tossing about for over a year now, right? I think the cosmological argument, particularly as Aquinas defended it, is powerful. I think the general argument we don't talk about enough here related to the fundamental and necessary failure of physical reductionism to be able to in principle explain much of anything, much less everything, is worth strong consideration. Or much closer to "home" in the sense of this board, I think the arguments for the historical evidence for the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ would be worth your consideration. Biblical prophecy--especially around Daniel 9-11 and certain portions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and a few of the minor prophets--is much more compelling than perhaps you're aware of. The implications of those things are rather profound, imo.

So yeah, there are really, really important and strong arguments out there. Deep time, evolution, and the Bible's take on any of those (and so the related accounts of creation, the flood, the tower of babel, etc), though, are all of much, much less importance in my own personal view. But that's just me.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I'm curious who Audie has in mind, as while Wise has made the claim she's talking about, I've not seen it repeated here. Even as frustratingly intractable as ACB is with his gappery nonsense, he at least pays lip service to the notion he could be wrong. I really don't know anybody here who has claimed they can't be wrong, either explicitly or implicitly.

But regardless, this:

Byblos wrote:I would help you, that's not the issue at all (in fact, that's precisely why I mentioned the subject to begin with). It's just that I am not sure how to, considering I've outlined where I think your thinking is faulty and you rejected such outline. I figured you didn't need help after all. I cannot answer your charge as it pertains to others, not to me. So I suggested to not give it so much attention and concentrate on the arguments you see as most worthy to be considered for debate. How else could I have helped, what did I miss?

is, I think, excellent advice.

Jac is right I will never get to a point where I refuse to admit I could be wrong,especially when it comes to the bible and God's word ?............. No other creation theory could or can.

Do you admit you could be wrong about God? Like, the bible isnt really God's word?
That "God" gives you no help at all interpreting it?

"No other can or could". Reckon you figure evolution cannot be right, gap cannot be wrong. That is what you just said.

I know I'm not wrong about God because I was born again but it is possible I could be wrong about certain interpretations. I don't reckon evolution can't be right. It is based on a lack of evidence that I reject it. I go by evidence to determine what is true or not.

Naturally all creationists reject the evidence backing evolution, or at least enough of it, but I'm curious as to what kind of evidence you need to make evolution plausible.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I'm curious who Audie has in mind, as while Wise has made the claim she's talking about, I've not seen it repeated here. Even as frustratingly intractable as ACB is with his gappery nonsense, he at least pays lip service to the notion he could be wrong. I really don't know anybody here who has claimed they can't be wrong, either explicitly or implicitly.

But regardless, this:

Byblos wrote:I would help you, that's not the issue at all (in fact, that's precisely why I mentioned the subject to begin with). It's just that I am not sure how to, considering I've outlined where I think your thinking is faulty and you rejected such outline. I figured you didn't need help after all. I cannot answer your charge as it pertains to others, not to me. So I suggested to not give it so much attention and concentrate on the arguments you see as most worthy to be considered for debate. How else could I have helped, what did I miss?

is, I think, excellent advice.

Jac is right I will never get to a point where I refuse to admit I could be wrong,especially when it comes to the bible and God's word ?............. No other creation theory could or can.

Do you admit you could be wrong about God? Like, the bible isnt really God's word?
That "God" gives you no help at all interpreting it?

"No other can or could". Reckon you figure evolution cannot be right, gap cannot be wrong. That is what you just said.

I know I'm not wrong about God because I was born again but it is possible I could be wrong about certain interpretations. I don't reckon evolution can't be right. It is based on a lack of evidence that I reject it. I go by evidence to determine what is true or not.

Ok, you infallibly know "about God", whatever that means.
Anyway, we got one bit of infallibility established.
Hevk, I will even let you have that; who knows.

Now, evidence.

So you go by evidence? Really? Why do you run from the demonstration that there was no flood?
Why resort to one silly explanation after another to try to weasel out of it rather than be good for your word, and go by evidence?

ACB has long demonstrated he doesn't go by evidence--be it the linguistic evdience provided around Genesis 1 or, per your converastions, the whole glacier thing. I don't think he ought to address any evidence related to evolution or deep time or any such matter until he deals with the evidence that glaciers couldn't survive a global flood.

BTW, Audie, I rethought the strong arguments claim. All the ones I suggested are extremely powerful, in my view, but I think the Kalam argument would be a lot more interesting to you. You hold very strongly (intentionally or not) to a philosophical doctrine called epistemic responsibility, and I think the KCA majors on that in a way other arguments don't. It also happens to be a speciality of Byblos', and I know the two of you seem to discuss matters particularly well.

Jac3510 wrote:BTW, Audie, I rethought the strong arguments claim. All the ones I suggested are extremely powerful, in my view, but I think the Kalam argument would be a lot more interesting to you. You hold very strongly (intentionally or not) to a philosophical doctrine called epistemic responsibility, and I think the KCA majors on that in a way other arguments don't. It also happens to be a speciality of Byblos', and I know the two of you seem to discuss matters particularly well.

Thanks. I will look into discussing it with byb. You are right, we did find
some way to talk on common grounds. Which I dont specialize in making easy.

Jac3510 wrote:ACB has long demonstrated he doesn't go by evidence--be it the linguistic evdience provided around Genesis 1 or, per your converastions, the whole glacier thing. I don't think he ought to address any evidence related to evolution or deep time or any such matter until he deals with the evidence that glaciers couldn't survive a global flood.

All you do is get angry and declare you are right. It is you not going by evidence,not me.Jac you yourself believe in a world wide flood. You just can't stand Gap creation that it blinds you to what God's word says. I backed up how glaciers could survive a world wide flood. You are not being honest with yourself.It is Audie that rejects the evidence I give for how glaciers could survive a world wide flood,yet believes life evolves and has no evidence that demonstrates life evolves. You cannot reach her compromising God's word. She either will believe it or not.

ACB evolution has evidence after evidence its just you like many other anti-evolutionists don't understand and acknowledge it.

neo-x wrote:ACB evolution has evidence after evidence its just you like many other anti-evolutionists don't understand and acknowledge it.

No evidence life evolves though.If you know about evolution then nothing I have explained throughout this thread is wrong concerning evolution. You just choose to believe life evolves. Please provide evidence like I do if life evolves,just doubting me because of a sterio-type that creationists reject evolution because they don't understand it does not make you right. None of you who have chosen to believe life evolves have shown or proven me wrong about why I reject evolution. I'm not trying to be a know it all,but I reject evolution for very legit reasons and you should too.

As a creationist, I'm saying your reasons are not legit. But talk to bippy. He's probably the creationist here with the most study on the subject. Convince him your reasons for rejecting evolution are "legit" and I'll concede it to you after all. But what I have seen from you, your arguments against evolution, are . . . well . . . they're pretty bad. Not quite munkys r still heer, so that's good, I suppose. But definitely not "legit" in my assessment.