Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote: So man can decide to do ANYTHING it wants and God must accept it - He SHOULD accept it? No consequences for evil actions? So it doesn't matter whether one chooses to do good or unimaginable evil - whatever PATH one chooses should be ok with God. The puny, lowly creature of very limited understanding, foresight and knowledge dictates to the all-wise, all knowing and all-powerful Creator, the tail wags the dog? Such a God would be callous and unloving, leaving man to his own evil devices - and we have seen how well THAT works out, haven't we?

Where does "must", "should" and "be ok with" come into play? At what point do our actions dictate who God should be in any moment beyond the unwavering expression of who 'he' is? Love?
Suddenly we have this incredible power to make God angry, vengeful, spiteful, jealous, sit up, roll over and play dead? Not even in the ballpark of what I am suggesting.... Sounds like God has some esteem issues to work out, maybe he needs a hug?
One of the most effective ways of directing someone to where they are 'failing' is to demonstrate a superior model as a reflection.... And somehow we wonder how humanity is so angry, vengeful, spiteful and jealous? HMMMMM! Might as well add sit up, roll over and play dead to the list.

Yes, this multiple pathways thing is a desire of MAN - who wishes to dictate to God what He should have to accept. Ever look at the teachings behind some of these pathways - cults of human sacrifice, hate, promotions of indiscriminate killing and brutality (look at radical Islam).

Yep, well my God will beat up your God and two ridiculous children are suddenly rolling around on the floor; biting, scratching, hitting, kicking and pulling hair. Only the "Christians" are now so socially 'evolved' that they pay a bully to come in and sucker punch em, "what me? I didn't!"......

Who says that God will be denied - IN THE END? You see, a common mistake amongst unbelievers is to think that everything that is going on now will ALWAYS go on, or will always be TOLERATED. The ONLY reason God hasn't ended the present age of evil is that He mercifully desires that some will still come to Him and follow Him. It is only love that has kept salvation available to those remaining who will accept it. And God honors and rewards those who sincerely and diligently seek Him, and respond positively as He enlightens them. But many seek in insincerity, only finding that which they wish to find or that which justifies the behaviors they desire to continue. God has revealed to us that many things are evil in His sight and are harmful to us. And He's not going to allow men to declare what He says is evil as being "good" or acceptable. He has mercifully built in consequences to sin so that people will learn and reach out to him in the midst of their misery and suffering, much of it brought upon themselves through their sins.

The bible has pages and pages of how we deny him, it's a predominant focus with a loop hole.....
If this is actually who God is, he has little faith in his own image, that his brilliant and perfect creation is not enough reflection to inspire us to see within ourselves.... If this is who God really is, he needs to sit back, relax and take a really deep breath...
Strange, we're too busy fighting over which God is the correct one to see any of it.... Rolling around on the floor like foolish children, trying to convince ourselves that we're just a filthy rag (irony anyone?)..... Was that the brilliant plan.... Look around you man, it certainly is the outcome!
This is our own immaturity, and it's time to grow up!

Philip wrote:What we have inherited through Adam is our sin NATURES - his fallen genetics that include a sin nature, a corrupted (post eating of the off-limits tree) nature/genetics that are inevitable to produce sin, as ALL with it WILL sin. We aren't condemned merely for the sin of Adam, but for our OWN sins. But the genetics that have been passed down through Adam also include our sinful natures, with which mean that we cannot/will not be able avoid sinning - as even believers still sin - an inevitability of being in the flesh/mortal/descendants of Adam.

That is factually wrong, genetics means something physical, not spiritual. That is the point that I don't understand, how is it passing on?

Or don't you believe anymore that man has free will. Free will by logic entails opposition.

Let me ask you this, is God free to do sin?

The way I see it, I see all men needing redemption, you see all men needing redemption. I say all man sin because they can, you say all man sin because that has been passed down from adam.

I say if there was an Adam he wasn't made perfect, therefore he sinned too. The potential to sin by logic was always in Adam. You say he was made "in God's image" therefore he was perfect and yet he sinned.

So my question is, can God sin too then? does God have the free will to sin? if Adam can sin, and he was in God's image, perfect, then God too can sin, for God is perfect too. I don't know how you can solve that.

The problem is, I am of the position where the capacity to sin is the result of being "not perfect". And my contention is that since we rose through evolutionary stages and are not perfect, we all are not eternal, for what is not divine can not be eternal hence we are given free will by God. We all sin, because we can sin, because we have the choice to do so and that ability makes us spiritually imperfect even if I don't rape, murder or steal. Sin is not that I commit this act, sin is a divine abnormality that I am not perfect, that I am not complete goodness, perfection. I am imperfect and will not see eternity. To be eternal is the goal. For what is eternal is divine and what is not eternal is mortal.

Because I don't think God can commit sin either, since he is goodness and is pure. I don't think God has the free will to sin or go against his divinity and nature. But we can and do, so we are infact not exact replicas of God, and evidence suggests neither were first humans.

Physical death was always on earth. Yes everyone needs saving because everyone sins, I don't deny that. So Rick, philip, I don't get your objection as to what I will tell any unbeliever about Christ. We all sin.

Philip wrote:Neo, I am not accusing you of anything, but I am asking you clarifying questions so as to understand how you decide which parts of Scripture to believe. You apparently believe in Jesus, a need to be saved, and yet you are rejecting very key elements from the very same books of Scripture that explain this key need (ESPECIALLY, salvation). You are elevating logic and reason over the miraculous - even though you say you believe in the miraculous - as you are also picking and choosing WHICH miraculous parts of Scripture you will accept. My question is, what is your criteria for doing so - as you are apparently accepting aspects of Scripture that aren't scientifically or humanly logical and other parts of such elements you reject? How do you know which is WHICH and what is WHAT? And if you don't know the answers to these, how is Scripture of any value to you?

One thing, for sure, you surely can't believe in an all-powerful God Whose Word is important to Him, Who DIED to fulfill it, for Whom the integrity of His Word is immensely important. To allow numerous chunks of Scripture to be blended in with fiction - whether or not the writers believed it to be true - means that God isn't concerned about His truths being mixed up with fabrications/untruths - which would necessarily mean we are going to develop some very wrongful beliefs and horribly evil practices by following these inauthentic parts. We might as well believe that all paths/all religions lead to God.

Again, God speaks a universe into being but SOMEHOW He can't do so unless He did it precisely this way or that or in such a way that we would have complete and logical understanding of. If there is a Creator God, that is EXACTLY what I WOULD expect - many things which don't match up with human logic. A God allowing the brutality and murder of part of Himself for beings He created? And BY the hand of these miserable creations? Wouldn't God know the evil they would commit if He gave them free will? What's this whole thing about substitutionary atonement? ANY of that HUMANLY logical? If human logic is the basis of determining whether or not various Scriptures (the originals) are true, then we might as well discard much of it that is not KNOWN history.

That second and third paragraphs parts are nonsensical reductio-ad-absurdum.

I have told you before, if I have evidence against something then that is my criteria for rejecting that part. In this case I have evidence against genesis 1. If if upsets established ideas then I can't help but feel sorry for it, but I can't revert my position. I have to be honest and let the chips fall where they may. If God is indeed the author of evolution then I do not think I am doing anything wrong, and if I am wrong (which is not supported by evidence) I don't think that God is being diminished or christianity is in peril just because I have rejected something on basis that I have good reasons to reject it. I didn't come to this position overnight, fellows. Its been more than a year for me to reach it and I have given it considerable thought.

Like you I want to reconcile all I can too, believe me I want that because it is bloody hard to let go of what you believe to be true. And painful as it is I am not going to cheat myself out of my own understanding. I can't believe something I don't find truthful, can you? And I have to bear the consequences of my ideas. If you guys are giving me a hard time on this, you who have seen me for almost 3 years here, how much of this will affect me when people around me go against this? I can visualize that. I am not going to reconcile scripture by being dishonest about my understanding and the scriptures. It is my respect for those same scriptures and the spirit that they carry that I haven't tried to pitch and patch it so that I can fit in with the rest of widely accepted christian doctrines.

If anything I am trying my best to be honest. I am willing to accept what my position entails. I have let the chips fall where they may and I have accepted the outcome however upsetting or unfavorable it seems.

Believing in the miraculous does not mean I go against reason even when it is merited. It is my contention that evolution has showed us our initial moments, I got to respect that. I am awed by the intricacy of the whole thing. To me its beautiful. Much beautiful than God himself creating and killing things off just to get man on board, what a strange waste of time and life? he could have straight made man if man was to be a special creation after all, that is rather strange about PC. Plus, we have genes that chimps and mice have, problem is it works in them but not in us, why would god do that put something in us that we know doesn't work? sounds least bit intelligent.

Unless God let evolution do its work, that is why we have deformities and defects, that is why we die, that is why diseases are born, that is the reason you see accidents of nature. But that is also how nature has a great balance of life, that is why the planet is alive and thriving, that is precisely why in the last 5 major extinctions, life has still found its way, it survives. It is because of death in this planet that earth has not gone barren, we get food and crops. Evolution answers all that in one framework. Infact all of modern biological research in genetics is based on predictions and postulations of evolutionary theory. It is near impossible to explain life without evolution.

So I am all ears if you can show me who God cannot sin or how spiritual death is passed on, or physical death or sin for that matter? How does nature (please define that term) goes in DNA molecule structure and where is the spiritual aspect that goes in, which genes carry those? More importantly you have to show me how Adam is "made in the image of God" is perfect? If Adam can sin, can God too? then weren't they both perfect or is there any difference and what I am saying makes more sense?

Byblos wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Byblos wrote:

neo-x wrote:All you guys have to tell me ia that how does spiritual death came from one man. I can understand the spiritual death of one man, but how is it passed to everyone has escaped me. Please do tell.

Because the real Adam and Eve are really and truly the first 'humans' made in the image of God and we are all really and truly their descendants. In evolutionary terms, DNA evidence may show a mixture of other descendants which would be coming from prior (biological) ancestors, though not human.

Im not sure i follow you are saying that imperfect spirit is passed on with dna?

I don't know whether or not it's passed on through DNA. I believe it is inherited nonetheless. I guess that's where 'we are born this way' plays a role.

How is it inherited, if its not passed on? does god send spirits in the babies, he must, its not in the human genome I can tell you that. So is he sending imperfect spirits?

RickD wrote: No rick, why should I? What does it change in my love for god or Christ or God's love for me? Please tell me.

Which Christ, Neo? Not the Christ of the bible. He's not even real. You can't convince me. The bible says Adam brought sin and death into the world of humanity. The bible also says Christ redeemed man from sin and death. But since you say Adam never did that, why should I believe you about your Christ? Do you see my point yet?

No rick, i honestly don't. Im trying but im not seeing it. What does this has to do with Christ identity?

Sorry Neo. If you're witnessing to an unbeliever about Christ, which Christ are you telling him about? If you're telling him about the Christ of the New Testament, and he asks you why man needs redemption, what would you tell him? Or, if he asks you about spiritual death, what do you tell him. If spiritual death didn't enter the world of mankind through one man, how can one man redeem mankind from the curse of sin and spiritual death?

Quite odd that you would ask this of me. All men need redemption because all men sin, no one is perfect. Because of that all men are spiritually not perfect either. How do you connect it to one man, is beyond me. That part you will have to explain. But Christ being the son of God, can redeem all of us. Adam's oneness of sinning is irrelevant at this point unless you can show me a connection.

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
I reject the fall, and Genesis story precisely because it doesn't fit anymore. That is why i say that adam and eve are not even allegory, because the writers obviously thought they were real. And that makes them wrong.

Sorry, I just noticed this too. The fall and the Genesis story don't fit WHAT anymore? Do you mean they don't fit your evolutionary beliefs? Because the story of the fall, and the Genesis story, are still as relevant as ever, to the need for redemption. Unless I can't put two and two together anymore Neo, it seems like you're saying the need for redemption doesn't fit anymore?

Sorry, thats not what I said. The fall and genesis story does not meet fact anymore and is internally inconsistent now.

Tell me, since the time of early fathers the church has had varying positions on this same chapter, with Augustine who spent his years trying to understand it, once conceding that it is impossible to know what genesis 1 really means. You think you got it right, yec thinks they got it right, and there are people in the middle who find discrepancies between genesis one and two, with two creation stories. You say day means long periods and yet not a single bible has ever printed the term "long period" instead of the word day, have you wondered why? Yec's say the day is a day and we have tons of evidence that proves it wrong. So you pick and choose to whichever makes most sense to you (you don't say you do but I see it differently), you settle your doctrines this way. I have looked and found internal inconsistency with respect to facts. And instead of picking and choosing my way around it, I have rejected it on grounds of evidence.

And I agree the story is relevant, it was when it was penned down, it conveyed important lessons, and it is abundantly clear by how later authors reference it the genesis story; so its not allegory. That much is clear.

Either its fact or fiction. And the problem is genetic evidence postulates, its not factual. What do you want me to do, call it allegory and settle down with it?

And yes I give Yec's credit on this, they are the most internally consistent when it comes to it. We are not. For instance, you say Adam and eve are literal but you also say that word day means long period while that word is written exactly along side evening morning periods, and no bible prints the words long periods exactly for the same reasons. It does not make sense, why does a long period has morning and evening? or is that bit not literal anymore? If they did, there will be a massive problem of referencing down the road, from the books of law, poetry, prophets, the idea of God making everything in 6 days, resting on 7 is quite important through out the scriptures.

Exodus 20:11
for in six days God made (the) heaven(s) and (the) earth, the sea, and all things that be in those, and rested in the seventh day (and then he rested.

See how the writer re-affirms a six day creation, when talking about the the seventh day which Israel must keep and observe holy?

On the standard that you have weighed me in, I'd say you reject scripture too. Or do you have an explanation for this verse?

Neo, as long as you've been a member here, you still don't understand the position set forth by Rich, and Hugh Ross regarding Yom? There are plenty of instances in scripture where it is undeniable that yom means something other than a 24 hour period. See this:http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm
The article even addresses your evening/ morning issue:

In Genesis 1 Moses says "and there was evening and morning the xx day". Does the use of evening and morning indicate a sunrise and sunset for each creative day? First, let's look at what evening and morning are not. They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset. According to young earth theory, the Sun was not created until Day Four, thus there could be no sunrise or sunset for the first three days of creation. However, God uses the terms evening and morning for those first three days. Therefore, they cannot be actual evenings and mornings.
We are left with only one option. The words for Evening and Morning can only represent the beginning and ending of the creative period, and not actual sunrise and sunsets. Scripture itself sets this pattern for us. Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6. Thus, the evening and morning of creation can mean the start and end of the creative process that is attributed to that creation period.
- See more at: http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom. ... ay34k.dpuf

Obviously I don't expect you to accept this Neo, but this is basic stuff regarding OEC, that you should know about before arguing against it.

RickD wrote:Neo, as long as you've been a member here, you still don't understand the position set forth by Rich, and Hugh Ross regarding Yom? There are plenty of instances in scripture where it is undeniable that yom means something other than a 24 hour period. See this:http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm
The article even addresses your evening/ morning issue:

In Genesis 1 Moses says "and there was evening and morning the xx day". Does the use of evening and morning indicate a sunrise and sunset for each creative day? First, let's look at what evening and morning are not. They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset. According to young earth theory, the Sun was not created until Day Four, thus there could be no sunrise or sunset for the first three days of creation. However, God uses the terms evening and morning for those first three days. Therefore, they cannot be actual evenings and mornings.
We are left with only one option. The words for Evening and Morning can only represent the beginning and ending of the creative period, and not actual sunrise and sunsets. Scripture itself sets this pattern for us. Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6. Thus, the evening and morning of creation can mean the start and end of the creative process that is attributed to that creation period.
- See more at: http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom. ... ay34k.dpuf

Obviously I don't expect you to accept this Neo, but this is basic stuff regarding OEC, that you should know about before arguing against it.

It doesn't really matter what period length you give the creation story, give yom any length of time you desire, the timeline still doesn't match up with our observable universe..... This is only minds attempting to defend a story that just doesn't make sense merely so it doesn't contradict their own investment in belief.

We are observing light that is 13 billion years old, yet according to the story you are defending God created the heaven and earth well before he created the stars, not going to even look it up..... Was it the fourth day/period? We already had grass and trees before the stars were created..... Doesn't work my friend!

I am really not sure HOW our sinful nature passes on, whether genetic or spiritual of some sort.
What I do know is that we ARE sinful.
We are "broken" since birth.
I see it everyday.
Are amazing capacity and understanding for good and our desire to NOT do it or even do something we KNOW to be bad, even deadly for us.
Adam and Eve's sin was to want to be like God, they were not perfect, nor were they created perfect ( Only God is Perfect), that they had a sinful nature is clear in how easily it was for them to turn against God.
I think the moral of the story is that, even though God gave them everything they needed, they still WANTED more.
Their sinful nature and ours is to WANT above NEED, to want to be God to want to have more, to want to do what we know to be wrong and bad for us.
How they came to be passed down?
Honestly I don't know how much I personally care about that HOW, I just know that it IS.

neo-x wrote: I say if there was an Adam he wasn't made perfect, therefore he sinned too. The potential to sin by logic was always in Adam. You say he was made "in God's image" therefore he was perfect and yet he sinned.

So my question is, can God sin too then? does God have the free will to sin? if Adam can sin, and he was in God's image, perfect, then God too can sin, for God is perfect too. I don't know how you can solve that.

How can a perfect (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) being not identify that potential and also fully realize the outcome?.... He creates a being with full knowledge that it will 'sin' and then decides to be angry and punish it for doing exactly what he knew it would do when he was creating it? Sounds pretty evil!



Finally we're breaking it down and having a real conversation..... Bravo Neo

I don't think that we can get "perfection" from "In God's IMAGE" as it is written in Genesis.
I don't think that the notion that Adam was perfect is anywhere to be found in Genesis.

PaulSacramento wrote:I don't think that we can get "perfection" from "In God's IMAGE" as it is written in Genesis.
I don't think that the notion that Adam was perfect is anywhere to be found in Genesis.

Exactly, it still doesn't help the point.... You can't create something imperfectly as a perfect being and not have full knowledge of the outcome.
How then does a perfect being get angry and punish it because it did exactly what he knew it would do?

Suddenly God is demonstrating his own imperfection, because it's rather sadistic!

Is God's creation truly this unintelligent, or is it unintelligent because it is man's own creation in an attempt to explain God?

revolutionary wrote:
It doesn't really matter what period length you give the creation story, give yom any length of time you desire, the timeline still doesn't match up with our observable universe..... This is only minds attempting to defend a story that just doesn't make sense merely so it doesn't contradict their own investment in belief.

Rev,
I'm gonna cut you a little slack because you're new here. You really need to understand the OEC interpretation before you start spouting off at the mouth.
Read this article, and you'll see some of what we're talking about:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ation.html

We are observing light that is 13 billion years old, yet according to the story you are defending God created the heaven and earth well before he created the stars, not going to even look it up..... Was it the fourth day/period? We already had grass and trees before the stars were created..... Doesn't work my friend!

Again, you're talking from ignorance Rev. Before you make yourself look more foolish, please do yourself a favor and do a search on the home site here:http://www.godandscience.org

You really need to understand what you're arguing against. No OEC I know would say the earth was created before the stars. And the only way that someone can get that from scripture, is through a YEC lens.

So, cut the "you're better than the rest of us" crap, go do some research, and come back when you know what you're talking about. Either that, or take your own advice, and ask questions.

RickD wrote:Neo, as long as you've been a member here, you still don't understand the position set forth by Rich, and Hugh Ross regarding Yom? There are plenty of instances in scripture where it is undeniable that yom means something other than a 24 hour period. See this:http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm
The article even addresses your evening/ morning issue:

In Genesis 1 Moses says "and there was evening and morning the xx day". Does the use of evening and morning indicate a sunrise and sunset for each creative day? First, let's look at what evening and morning are not. They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset. According to young earth theory, the Sun was not created until Day Four, thus there could be no sunrise or sunset for the first three days of creation. However, God uses the terms evening and morning for those first three days. Therefore, they cannot be actual evenings and mornings.
We are left with only one option. The words for Evening and Morning can only represent the beginning and ending of the creative period, and not actual sunrise and sunsets. Scripture itself sets this pattern for us. Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6. Thus, the evening and morning of creation can mean the start and end of the creative process that is attributed to that creation period.
- See more at: http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom. ... ay34k.dpuf

Obviously I don't expect you to accept this Neo, but this is basic stuff regarding OEC, that you should know about before arguing against it.

I understand that rick, what i don't understand is how you justify exodus 20:11 with genesis 1? Are you saying moses wrote genesis 1 with yom as long periods and exodus 20:11 as 24 days?

Neo,

You do realize that the ancient hebrew language was limited, don't you?

Yom has many literal meanings. There was no other word in ancient hebrew, that meant "a long unspecified time". Yom is the only word that has that as one of its meanings. The link I posted explains that.

First, one must understand that the Hebrew language is not nearly as diverse as our English language. Whereas our vocabulary is around half a million, the Hebrew language has only 8,700 words. The French language, one of the poorest modern languages in vocabulary and the language of choice for diplomats, has just about 40,000 words or over 4 times the amount of words that Ancient Hebrew has.
Many of the Hebrew words could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common. Such is the case with the word Yom.
- See more at: http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom. ... i30se.dpuf

Rick, I get your point and I am aware of the nuance. So you are saying that exodus 20:11 also uses yom as longer periods of time?