Evidence for God from Science

cslewislover said:

But we all do bad things, and what you say is not my belief. It's our relationship with God that counts, but I don't think that will help you out very much here, since to me discussing this would entail a long time, I'd think (with you). A murderer can accept the Lord before he dies, repent of his sins, and be accepted by God. We don't get to heaven by works, but through grace. If someone ends up in hell, which I don't like the idea of either, it's because they do not accept God's grace. They don't want to be with God, and so God grants them their wish

I assure you I am not trying to antagonize you

But what about the people that believe in no god like buddhists, are they predisposed to hell?

What about the Vikings whose religion was based around heros and war, did the most of them end up in hell?

munster wrote:

cslewislover said

The part of that article quoted is just on one aspect of historical method - regarding documents - not on assessing what the documents claim. It's about assessing their validity as historical documents, not their contents. That's partly why the whole article needs to be read.

Every historical document has some relevance to history, including the Bible, it's just the ones who wrote the Bible were relying on word of mouth, and were grossly exaggerating what happened, and he does not take that into account, and that is why he is biased.

But you have to establish whether the documents are old, not fakes, etc., before you can start to assess what is actually inside them. This is just one step in researching any historical work, and it's of course a totally necessary one.

As far as making judgments about whether miracles occur, that's different. If you're totally closed to thinking that God would interfere in what we see as the natural order, then I don't know what would make you think otherwise. Unless you experienced something yourself, which even many Christians wish to experience.

If one were to believe in the Gospel then you would have to believe in miracles eg virgin birth, water into wine, loaves and fishes.

If you lived 100 years ago, I'm sure you would not have believed that what we do here on the internet would be possible. I'm sure you'd think that whoever told you about it was a nut case. I don't believe in fairy tales, but I do think there are things possible that I don't understand.

munster wrote:cslewislover said:

But we all do bad things, and what you say is not my belief. It's our relationship with God that counts, but I don't think that will help you out very much here, since to me discussing this would entail a long time, I'd think (with you). A murderer can accept the Lord before he dies, repent of his sins, and be accepted by God. We don't get to heaven by works, but through grace. If someone ends up in hell, which I don't like the idea of either, it's because they do not accept God's grace. They don't want to be with God, and so God grants them their wish

I assure you I am not trying to antagonize you

But what about the people that believe in no god like buddhists, are they predisposed to hell?

What about the Vikings whose religion was based around heros and war, did the most of them end up in hell?

I believe that people can come to a saving faith by God's calling, through the person's reaction to nature and to God's spirit. This would take some explaining. But I do not believe people who haven't heard a missionary tell them the gospel will necessarily go to hell. I could point you to a very short article on this if you wanted. I also believe that Christ went and spoke to those who had already died and gave them the choice to accept him. This is scriptural as well.

Have you ever read CS Lewis' The Last Battle?

cslewislover said

But you have to establish whether the documents are old, not fakes, etc., before you can start to assess what is actually inside them. This is just one step in researching any historical work, and it's of course a totally necessary one.

We know they are old, in fact ancient, but it has been accepted that they were written decades after Jesus' time, and I do believe that they ARE valuable documents, but not in a divine way.

If you lived 100 years ago, I'm sure you would not have believed that what we do here on the internet would be possible. I'm sure you'd think that whoever told you about it was a nut case. I don't believe in fairy tales, but I do think there are things possible that I don't understand.

The internet is a totally different thing, it was created by human progress, not divine intervention.

munster wrote:
We know they are old, in fact ancient, but it has been accepted that they were written decades after Jesus' time, and I do believe that they ARE valuable documents, but not in a divine way.

You keep saying how the time frame for the writing of the documents is bad. It's not. You should look into it more. Did you read all of that article yet??

If you lived 100 years ago, I'm sure you would not have believed that what we do here on the internet would be possible. I'm sure you'd think that whoever told you about it was a nut case. I don't believe in fairy tales, but I do think there are things possible that I don't understand.

The internet is a totally different thing, it was created by human progress, not divine intervention.

How do you know?*



Lol, it's an example though. And I'm sure you know that - of what something like a miracle could look like to us. Someday we'll know how God did it.

* Can you prove that it wasn't due to divine intervention? This is not just a rhetorical question.

I also believe that Christ went and spoke to those who had already died and gave them the choice to accept him.

I have heard something like this before ( I think) and as you can imagine, I find this problematic, because if that was the case there would be no need for his intervention on earth, as he could just say that to all of us when we die, christian, muslim, atheist, so I think its a bit of a contradiction.

Have you ever read CS Lewis' The Last Battle?

No, is it interesting?

munster wrote:
But what about the people that believe in no god like buddhists, are they predisposed to hell?

What about the Vikings whose religion was based around heros and war, did the most of them end up in hell?

14:15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We too are men, with human natures47 just like you! We are proclaiming the good news to you, so that you should turn48 from these worthless49 things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth,50 the sea, and everything that is in them. 14:16 In51 past52 generations he allowed all the nations53 to go their own ways, 14:17 yet he did not leave himself without a witness by doing good,54 by giving you rain from heaven55 and fruitful seasons, satisfying you56 with food and your hearts with joy.”57

You keep saying how the time frame for the writing of the documents is bad. It's not. You should look into it more. Did you read all of that article yet??

The most were written decades after Jesus's time, here is a quick link and its a christian site http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/ ... o-wrote-it, (shock horror, I admittely found it useful in one of my assignments!)

Can you prove that it wasn't due to divine intervention? This is not just a rhetorical question.

No I can't but that is the beauty of being human, you can never claim something 100% like I can't claim 100% that god doesn't exist,or that the Bible is grossly exaggerated. Likewise you can't claim 100% that God exists and that I am wrong, and anyone that says they can is mentally unstable, a person may claim it but will never truelly believe that.

Elshamah said:

14:15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We too are men, with human natures47 just like you! We are proclaiming the good news to you, so that you should turn48 from these worthless49 things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth,50 the sea, and everything that is in them. 14:16 In51 past52 generations he allowed all the nations53 to go their own ways, 14:17 yet he did not leave himself without a witness by doing good,54 by giving you rain from heaven55 and fruitful seasons, satisfying you56 with food and your hearts with joy.”57

Elshamah please could you find another way to make an argument besides quoting scripture, take a leaf out of cslewislovers book.

If one were to believe in the Gospel then you would have to believe in miracles eg virgin birth, water into wine, loaves and fishes.

Yes.

If one is to believe atheism, then everything, including your ability to come to the above conclusion is the result of meaningless accidents. Further, that life arose from non-life. A miracle by all scientific knowledge.

If one takes into account the myriad of delicate circumstances (gravity, atmosphere, elements, etc.) necessary not only for life to originate, but to sustain it and eventually become self-aware, could it not be considered miraculous? To call it coincedental is fool hardy at best. To think regarding all this that only one factor be changed by a mere fraction, and we are not having this conversation right now. Our discovery of the depths of the universe have shown it to be an inhospitable place. Many would like to reduce the earth to just one of many spherical objects floating in space. But the more we learn, the more amazing the earth becomes.

Likewise you can't claim 100% that God exists and that I am wrong, and anyone that says they can is mentally unstable, a person may claim it but will never truelly believe that.

So are you admitting to being mentally unstable? Because you are in fact making claims of what people can and can't know. Can you know that I exist?
If I have an encounter with you, you can know 100% for sure that I exist. To claim that you can meet me in person, shake my hand, and then claim that you can't know for sure whether I exist would demonstrate mental instability.

Also, I don't agree with throwing scripture at card carrying atheist. But to say you can't prove the bible with the bible is like saying I can't prove you live in your home, by looking in one of your windows and seeing you inside.

munster wrote:I also believe that Christ went and spoke to those who had already died and gave them the choice to accept him.

I have heard something like this before ( I think) and as you can imagine, I find this problematic, because if that was the case there would be no need for his intervention on earth, as he could just say that to all of us when we die, christian, muslim, atheist, so I think its a bit of a contradiction.

When Christ died, and before he was resurrected, he went and preached to those souls that had died before. But what you bring up is interesting. CS Lewis had a bit of a view like this. That Christ may have preached to ALL those who had not heard of him. Since God is outside of time, He could do this. I had never heard anyone believe this before, however - I mean that Jesus preached to everyone himself.

Have you ever read CS Lewis' The Last Battle?

No, is it interesting?

It's part of the Chronicles of Narnia series. The last one, of course. I brought it up because in it, Lewis has a person that believed in another god (a pretty nasty one at that), be admitted into heaven. He has a little discourse on this, between this person and the Christ figure. I can't remember how it is said, exactly, but it had to do with motive and faith. The person only knew of the false god, but he was very devoted, and righteous, you could say. The person, having the right motives and inclinations, was in fact desiring and worshiping the true God without knowing it.

As far as the books in the series go, I love The Magician's Nephew. It's chronologically the first in the series.

munster wrote:

You keep saying how the time frame for the writing of the documents is bad. It's not. You should look into it more. Did you read all of that article yet??

The most were written decades after Jesus's time, here is a quick link and its a christian site http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/ ... o-wrote-it, (shock horror, I admittely found it useful in one of my assignments!)

I know they weren't written immediately after his death. But that's OK. There are reasons why they were not, and that's OK too. It's cultural and normal for the time period. I wish I could remember more off the top of my head regarding this, but I have to go look some things up.

First off this was directed at cslewislover, but if you want to get involved fair enough

jlay said

If one is to believe atheism, then everything, including your ability to come to the above conclusion is the result of meaningless accidents. Further, that life arose from non-life. A miracle by all scientific knowledge.

Ah yes a typical 'god of the gaps' statement, and who do you propose made god, did that ever enter your head?

But the more we learn, the more amazing the earth becomes.

Percisely, we are still learning, so do not put everything down to God, and I am not here to discuss the fallacy of creationism, can you honestly be sure '100%' (sorry couldn't resist) that there isno other earth like planets out there?

But to say you can't prove the bible with the bible is like saying I can't prove you live in your home, by looking in one of your windows and seeing you inside.

You're looking in the window allusion is just silly, I mean can it be that simple to prove the bible is wrong or right? Unless we had a time machine, which are in short supply with this economic downturn.

ElShamah wrote:

Byblos wrote: For the record, it was munster who said that, not me. And if you didn't hear the Gospel until you were 17 I'd say for sure you didn't grow up Catholic.

i heard the gospel in my childhood , but through a lense of tradition, and the doctrine that men had to do good works, to be saved ( and to be catholic ). The first time, i heard salvation was only through grace and faith, was , when i was 17.

Then I hate to tell you this but you were never taught true Catholicism but I guess that's another topic altogether.

Byblos wrote: Then I hate to tell you this but you were never taught true Catholicism but I guess that's another topic altogether.

Well, its more than 25 years back, that i frequented the catholic church in a moreless frequent manner. So i really don't remember the details of doctrine, that was teached that time back. What i remember is, that as a teenager , i got a small book acidentally , which name was " the accomplished redemption ". It was the first time, i understood the principle of salvation. It sounded really strange to me, actually, almost unbelievable. Only after a certain time, i got accostumed to it. BTW. are you catholic ?