Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder why its so hard for some people to allow for a God who can make organisms capable of responding to their environment instead of having to keep popping in for yet another tweak.

Audie,

I can't speak for everyone, but for me, it's not an issue of not allowing God to be able to do that. I just think it wasn't done that way. I also have no problem believing that God could've created everything in 6 twenty four hour days. I just don't think He did it that way either.

To put it as simple as possible, I think God introduced new life over the billions of years of life's history on earth. Each time he introduced new life, it was life that was suited to the conditions of the earth at the time.

God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away.
Where's HappyFlappyDiest? Oh, serenading Jac.

God should have just of told us exactly how it all works, so we wouldn't have to keep arguing about this crap.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder why its so hard for some people to allow for a God who can make organisms capable of responding to their environment instead of having to keep popping in for yet another tweak.

Audie,

I can't speak for everyone, but for me, it's not an issue of not allowing God to be able to do that. I just think it wasn't done that way. I also have no problem believing that God could've created everything in 6 twenty four hour days. I just don't think He did it that way either.

To put it as simple as possible, I think God introduced new life over the billions of years of life's history on earth. Each time he introduced new life, it was life that was suited to the conditions of the earth at the time.

God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away.
Where's HappyFlappyDiest? Oh, serenading Jac.

God should have just of told us exactly how it all works, so we wouldn't have to keep arguing about this crap.

Imagine how entertaining it must be though just watching on?
Oh, I just found out what the purpose of life is: God's entertainment.

Kurieuo wrote:Imagine how entertaining it must be though just watching on?
Oh, I just found out what the purpose of life is: God's entertainment.

Human beings exist so God can experience the thrill of having limitations.

Kurieuo wrote: God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away.
Where's HappyFlappyDiest? Oh, serenading Jac.

"God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away."

I don't necessarily believe this; all I believe is that 'some thing' programmed the laws of physics. Everything else is chance.




Maybe I need a new approach to reach Jac, serenading has not been effective. It's time for...... poetry!

I don't know why you're not there
I give you my love but you don't care
So what is right and what is wrong?
Gimme a sign
What is love
Baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away.
Where's HappyFlappyDiest? Oh, serenading Jac.

"God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away."

I don't necessarily believe this; all I believe is that 'some thing' programmed the laws of physics. Everything else is chance.

Not just "some thing" but "some intelligence" obviously, right?

At what point would such has stopped. For example, is some some compelling in such laws to eventually have conscious sapient life? (i.e., the anthropic principle)?

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:I found where this is coming from. http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte ... ticle=3840

By the way, reading through your last post you seemed to have missed a few concepts/been confused on a few that I pointed out. It may clarify to re-read.

This man knows what he's doing is absurd. He's assuming his variables without explanation, he's not taking into account sustainability of different time periods, he hardly takes any consideration (granted he does) of events that wiped out a good portion of our population, he's not taking into account the prevalence of cultures and their population sustainability, he's not taking into account the medical advancement of different societies at one time that can lead to successful birth, he's assuming that women in every society had about 2.5 babies, and he's (purposely) forgetting that for most of human history we were hunter gatherers and our population did not probably exceed 50k for about 400k years.

Oh I see what you are getting at but yours is based on assumptions more than evidence.Atleast the calculations I gave show it is possible to have 7 billion people in 4300 years, since Noah's flood,it does not require more time to have 7 billion people.

I'm sounding like a young earth creationist but I'm not I believe there was a former world on this earth full of life that perished,then there was a Gap of time,until God created this world.I do not believe this world has went on continually for billions of years eventhough I believe the earth is very old and not young based on 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and the lack of evidence in science life evolves.

I believe the evidence in this earth proves it true,that there was a former world full of life that perished,we have too much evidence of death and extinction to deny it and it does not prove life evolves if we had dinosaurs,primates,etc living in the former world until it perished,then eventually God created this world.I see a gap in 2 nd Peter 3:3-7 and I think it has been overlooked because of people thinking it is referring to Noah's flood,but it is'nt.

It is easy to overlook it if you think of Noah's flood here, you won't see a gap if you do,you must realize it cannot be talking about Noah's flood before you can see the gap.

PaulSacramento wrote:One of the main issues with the Global flood in terms of population base is that IF the flood was indeed Global AND all humans died except the 8 on the ark, then ALL human life ( we won't even get to the issue of animal life) would have had to come from them and spread to the different continents like Australia and the Americas and so forth.
And would have had to that within just a few generations, traveling in mass from the ANE to all over the globe, transatlantic and pacific migration.

This is a long read but might help.

http://www.kjvbible.org/greenland_ice_sheet.html

Kurieuo wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away.
Where's HappyFlappyDiest? Oh, serenading Jac.

"God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away."

I don't necessarily believe this; all I believe is that 'some thing' programmed the laws of physics. Everything else is chance.

Not just "some thing" but "some intelligence" obviously, right?

At what point would such has stopped. For example, is some some compelling in such laws to eventually have conscious sapient life? (i.e., the anthropic principle)?

----I wrote a response only to be deleted again, something doesn't want me talking to you Kurieuo-----------
I'm over my loss and I'll write again.

I'll concede on the first point; it is "some intelligence" not "some thing."

To address #2, I don't know. I have no idea why this being did what it did, I have no idea why it stopped ( if it did); I have no theology, I have no holy book.
It is remarkable that we fall within this narrow range that allows life, but (big but) with the possible unfathomable amount of universes that exist, one was bound to have the correct compatibility for life.

I personally believe if a god made this universe with the sole purpose of life evolving on this earth, theism is the more logical conclusion.
I don't believe my deist god planned life at a specific place at all, I believe it is a byproduct of the natural laws it set in motion; It probably knew life would evolve somewhere, and we just happen to be one of those somewheres.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:I'll concede on the first point; it is "some intelligence" not "some thing."
...

To not take this thread off-topic, I've started a new thread here to discuss further here:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 19&t=40030

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:One of the main issues with the Global flood in terms of population base is that IF the flood was indeed Global AND all humans died except the 8 on the ark, then ALL human life ( we won't even get to the issue of animal life) would have had to come from them and spread to the different continents like Australia and the Americas and so forth.
And would have had to that within just a few generations, traveling in mass from the ANE to all over the globe, transatlantic and pacific migration.

This is a long read but might help.

http://www.kjvbible.org/greenland_ice_sheet.html

Philip wrote:

Audie: Respectfully rejects this.

But why?

And, just for the sake of argument, which would be more loving? A God who just watches a purposeless, often-brutal and evil-filled survival of the fittest/Darwinian repercussions, letting it drag out as it will, or a God whom has purpose in what is happening and Whom wants a glorious eternity for those willing to love Him BACK?

This isn't a good argument Phil since God's divine creation in of itself is "brutal and evil-filled" and, according to some views, is so on purpose.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away.
Where's HappyFlappyDiest? Oh, serenading Jac.

"God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away."

I don't necessarily believe this; all I believe is that 'some thing' programmed the laws of physics. Everything else is chance.

Not just "some thing" but "some intelligence" obviously, right?

At what point would such has stopped. For example, is some some compelling in such laws to eventually have conscious sapient life? (i.e., the anthropic principle)?

----I wrote a response only to be deleted again, something doesn't want me talking to you Kurieuo-----------
I'm over my loss and I'll write again.

I'll concede on the first point; it is "some intelligence" not "some thing."

To address #2, I don't know. I have no idea why this being did what it did, I have no idea why it stopped ( if it did); I have no theology, I have no holy book.
It is remarkable that we fall within this narrow range that allows life, but (big but) with the possible unfathomable amount of universes that exist, one was bound to have the correct compatibility for life.

I personally believe if a god made this universe with the sole purpose of life evolving on this earth, theism is the more logical conclusion.
I don't believe my deist god planned life at a specific place at all, I believe it is a byproduct of the natural laws it set in motion; It probably knew life would evolve somewhere, and we just happen to be one of those somewheres.

Seriously?

Philip wrote:

Audie: Respectfully rejects this.

But why?

And, just for the sake of argument, which would be more loving? A God who just watches a purposeless, often-brutal and evil-filled survival of the fittest/Darwinian repercussions, letting it drag out as it will, or a God whom has purpose in what is happening and Whom wants a glorious eternity for those willing to love Him BACK?

And, let's not forget - God didn't just merely create and then TWEAK the systems of the universe and biological life, but He controls them

This above is what I said I reject (as a reasonable possibility).

Whether the universe (meaning our little backyard universe of some 28 billion light years diameter, not what is really out there, which the physicists say make our "universe less than a grain of sand)
has "purpose" as a human being might understand it, is could be the definition of "moot".

As for the actions of what is thought of as being a loving god, and the created as is, then watches and does nothing to improve the, as you said, brutal conditions...
I see zero of loving in that. Zero.


"Darwinian" processes, that is evolution and for that matter other natural processes
are, ultimately, of a mathematical nature.

Through those are created effects and structures which people variously think of as good and beautiful, moral and so on. Others will see the same things other ways.

I personally, am delighted to get the chance to see a wild snake. Others will be horrified and think of "satan".

The values we place on things are pretty much just subjective.

Evolution has given us to be the kind of people we are, for better and worse.

I'd not call that "dragging out", I think its fantastic. We, and all our ancestors, pulled outselves collectively out of the mud and sing Hande's "Messiah" and take photos of deep space. Cool! Even if some people do misbehave horribly.

I dont think a "loving god" would have deliberately created the horrors inflicted
by the natural world, or people who inflict them on eachother. If there's a god doing it, he is a psycho monster.

If this is his universe, I wish I'd been given a choice of some parallel universe with a different god.

This "glorious" and, "love him back" has, sorry, zero credibility with me. Its a nice idea, Id be glad if it were true. Maybe a gold meteor will land in my yard. I just dont believe it. No more than I do that this so called "allah" is planning to hang me by my hair in eternal fire for the sin of not covering my hair in public.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... urning.jpg

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

Audie: Respectfully rejects this.

But why?

And, just for the sake of argument, which would be more loving? A God who just watches a purposeless, often-brutal and evil-filled survival of the fittest/Darwinian repercussions, letting it drag out as it will, or a God whom has purpose in what is happening and Whom wants a glorious eternity for those willing to love Him BACK?

And, let's not forget - God didn't just merely create and then TWEAK the systems of the universe and biological life, but He controls them

This above is what I said I reject (as a reasonable possibility).

Whether the universe (meaning our little backyard universe of some 28 billion light years diameter, not what is really out there, which the physicists say make our "universe less than a grain of sand)
has "purpose" as a human being might understand it, is could be the definition of "moot".

As for the actions of what is thought of as being a loving god, and the created as is, then watches and does nothing to improve the, as you said, brutal conditions...
I see zero of loving in that. Zero.


"Darwinian" processes, that is evolution and for that matter other natural processes
are, ultimately, of a mathematical nature.

Through those are created effects and structures which people variously think of as good and beautiful, moral and so on. Others will see the same things other ways.

I personally, am delighted to get the chance to see a wild snake. Others will be horrified and think of "satan".

The values we place on things are pretty much just subjective.

Evolution has given us to be the kind of people we are, for better and worse.

I'd not call that "dragging out", I think its fantastic. We, and all our ancestors, pulled outselves collectively out of the mud and sing Hande's "Messiah" and take photos of deep space. Cool! Even if some people do misbehave horribly.

I dont think a "loving god" would have deliberately created the horrors inflicted
by the natural world, or people who inflict them on eachother. If there's a god doing it, he is a psycho monster.

If this is his universe, I wish I'd been given a choice of some parallel universe with a different god.

This "glorious" and, "love him back" has, sorry, zero credibility with me. Its a nice idea, Id be glad if it were true. Maybe a gold meteor will land in my yard. I just dont believe it. No more than I do that this so called "allah" is planning to hang me by my hair in eternal fire for the sin of not covering my hair in public.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... urning.jpg

Seriously?