Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:46 am**

Kurieuo: Sorry, I accidentally removed the whole thread but recovered most

Blind Electric Ray wrote:Hi all
I think I may be one of the guilty parties who provoked the decision to redesign the board. I confess to being a skeptic; I haven't made any final decision about God, although I would be lying if I didn't describe myself at the moment as being firmly in the non-believing camp.

That said, I have tried to restrict my activity (except under provocation) to asking pertinent questions. (Even for doing that I have been told I'm going to Hell on a number of occasions).

If the right evidence for God from science came along I would like to think I would be persuaded by it. I think that my position is therefore still within the guidelines, and indeed is potentially a whetstone on which a keen Christian knife might be sharpened. Or, possibly, worn away to nothing.

I have some questions and some observations on the "rules of engagement" - principally directed at the moderators - by the answers to which I hope to determine whether it is worthwhile continuing to participate on this board.

It seems to me that if this board really is about the evidence for God from science; to "provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity", then it needs to admit scientific reasoning in toto, and to accept all logical and scientific arguments. If it shies away from logical conclusions a Christian mightn't like, it isn't being scientific.

Being scientific means discussing and, if need be, accepting criticism of any putative proof or theory for the existence of God if it can be demonstrated to be fallacious. If those aren't the rules, fine: I'll go elsewhere, but if that is the case I do think it undermines the claims of the ministry to being scientific.

My view is skeptical, but I don't think it is necessarily contrary to the spirit of this board. The most a reasonable, scientific atheist can say about God is "not proven" (this is why I am prepared to be convinced). That is a very different thing from "disproved", and it is not fatal to a Christian viewpoint. But it may be fatal to a certain Christian argument, and it might (ought to, really) mean is that a Christian has a lot more work to do than she realises.

If that is a fair assessment of the board, then I'm in.

I would note in passing that the discouragement of those "who merely wish to debate and argue ... ignoring any and all reasons presented" should, it seems to me, apply to all points of view, not just atheist ones. Heaven knows (if you'll pardon the expression) there have been some irrational, illogical and downright unpleasant statements made by Christians on this board. There is benefit to the Christian position in seeming to be reasonable and logical, and it might be as sensible to bar unreasonable pro-Christian attitudes as well as atheist ones.

Yours in a spirit of hopeful enlightenment,
_________________
Blind Electric Ray

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:47 am**

Troy wrote:It is wrong to claim you are being scientific and reasonable when the perfect proof for God has been given, scientifically with perfect reason, and you still walk away from it. This is the problem is that the flesh thinks it is being scientific and reasonable, when it is not. This is attitude of the good self, for it thinks it is doing good but it is not for it is still without the mind of God and that is why you are unable to see what God wants you to be able to see. That is why we can go back and forth a thousand times and you still will not be able to see the unreasonableness of your thinking, because you don't realize your reasoning is not coming from a quickened spirit and regenerated conscience, but it is still striving in your old man and a dead conscience, so what seems normal to you is abnormal to God.

It is just like that movie, The Matrix. You don't realize you are living in a false reality, and no perfect amount of reasoning like,
http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=8 will ever convince you because you have already made up your mind in your heart of hearts that Jesus Christ was a liar and that there is no hell and so you don't think it matters, because your conscience is dead, insensitive to God.

The simplist of common sense says the universe does not happen all by itself, and all you have to do is look at your own complexity to know that you did not design yourself nor could you, and that intelligent design designed you, foreknew you and made you in His image. Can't your conscience see this in your intuition? It is so obvious yet you fight, not realizing it is God's will. You are suffering exactly what Satan suffers, but unlike Satan you yet can come to Christ and give up your selfish self-centered self-independent life separated from God and give your life to Christ. It is not that you can't do this, but you won't because God knows your heart and because he knows your heart, he has made Hell vast and wide for there are so many like you who want hell and not touch the heavenlies. This has always been your choice.

Just know one thing. After you leave your body you get no second chance. Game over. Pascal's Wager says you are gambling with your life and it is a losing game. It is as if you have already written your suicide note and proclaim Satan as your savior.

So be it.

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:48 am**

Blind Electric Ray wrote:With respect, Troy. I would like the moderators' view. I attach no weight to your opinions, which are based on no sort of reasoning at all.
_________________
Blind Electric Ray

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:51 am**

Blind Electric Ray wrote:I think I may be one of the guilty parties who provoked the decision to redesign the board. I confess to being a skeptic; I haven't made any final decision about God, although I would be lying if I didn't describe myself at the moment as being firmly in the non-believing camp.

The new board isn't really the result of being anyones fault. It was just setup in a way that didn't appear to suit the purpose of the God and Science website. Hopefully this board will provoke more sincere skepticism where dialogue can occur, without people becoming too deeply entrenched as though it is an Christian vs. non-Christian war. I like to think we are all in the same world desiring to answer the same important questions in life. So in this sense we are all ultimately on the same side whether there are sharp disagreements on our beliefs.

Ray wrote:That said, I have tried to restrict my activity (except under provocation) to asking pertinent questions. (Even for doing that I have been told I'm going to Hell on a number of occasions).

Well, think of it this way when you come across those fundamentalist types... only Christ is judge according to the same Christianity such people are meant to follow. And so if a Christian is consistent then the most they can say about where someone will end up is that only Christ knows. They have no idea where you are at in life, or what is ahead of you--so it is very wrong in my opinion for anyone to make such declarations. In addition I in no way think "doubting" will send someone to hell, as doubting is what provokes one to using the mind God gave us to test things. And anyone who doesn't use their mind I'd say possibly isn't fulfilling one of the greatest commandments Jesus gave which was to love God with all your heart, soul and mind. At the same time, reason is dependant on experience, and ones faith in their own experiences at that. I often feel that is overlooked (it was once by me).

Ray wrote:If the right evidence for God from science came along I would like to think I would be persuaded by it. I think that my position is therefore still within the guidelines, and indeed is potentially a whetstone on which a keen Christian knife might be sharpened. Or, possibly, worn away to nothing.

I don't expect to really convert with some magical works, as I expect beliefs are more complicated than something a message or two could resolve. I've written a little piece on my personal website about how "I" think people generally come to their beliefs. What I do hope by participating in discussions such as this, is that maybe in someone's life journey certain things I say will ring of truth and perhaps be of benefit to someone down the track.

Ray wrote:It seems to me that if this board really is about the evidence for God from science; to "provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity", then it needs to admit scientific reasoning in toto, and to accept all logical and scientific arguments. If it shies away from logical conclusions a Christian mightn't like, it isn't being scientific.

Being scientific means discussing and, if need be, accepting criticism of any putative proof or theory for the existence of God if it can be demonstrated to be fallacious. If those aren't the rules, fine: I'll go elsewhere, but if that is the case I do think it undermines the claims of the ministry to being scientific.

If you're looking for evidence to be provided where someone will allow you to see God with your own eyes, or allow God to be placed under laboratory conditions, then I don't think such evidence exists (unless God reveals Himself directly) and nothing will satisfy your doubt. Yet, I don't think there is anything from science that can disprove God. This does not mean I accept God based on some blind faith, but rather I see evidence for God (one way being through science) which leads me, along with my experiences, to have faith that God exists. Evidence comes in many shapes and forms, and science is just one field of knowledge (though a powerful one at that), but I believe it is by no means the only way to gaining knowledge.

It is also possibly a little open-ended as to what you might mean by "scientific means." For example, those who fancy the thought from the Enlightenment might consider "scientific means" to assume that physicalism is true from the get go, and as such God can not exist. From the start God can be dismissed without bothering with an examination, because the presumptions accepted automatically rule out God as being a possibility from the beginning. Such in a way begs the question, but such assumptions I find are buried deep within many people, and as such nothing can really prove God to such people. On the other hand, I understand "scientific means" to incorporate empirical methods, for which I only believe there to be circumstantial evidence for God--empirical evidence that we'd expect if God existed and had created our world.

Ray wrote:My view is skeptical, but I don't think it is necessarily contrary to the spirit of this board. The most a reasonable, scientific atheist can say about God is "not proven" (this is why I am prepared to be convinced). That is a very different thing from "disproved", and it is not fatal to a Christian viewpoint. But it may be fatal to a certain Christian argument, and it might (ought to, really) mean is that a Christian has a lot more work to do than she realises.

I agree, science can be used to rule out certain forms of Christian viewpoints. For example, I consider it a given the young-earth creationist position is wrong. Although I never initially assumed a young-earth approach before I was familiar with the scientific reasoning against such a view, having become familiar with scientific arguments for an old universe and Earth reinforces quite strongly that such Christians have simply got it wrong. At the same time, you must realise you say God is "not proven", whereas I accept no God is "not proven". You begin with no God as default which seems most logical to you, I see God as default which seems most logical to me. Both are positive positions, though I know many Atheists may not accept this, just as I don't by the I don't have to prove anything line.

Ray wrote:If that is a fair assessment of the board, then I'm in.

If you have come to debate against Christianity, then this is likely not the right board. If you are thinking I know this, this and this is wrong within Christianity and so "I'm going to prove these Christians wrong" type of approach, then perhaps an Atheist vs. Christian board would be more to your liking. But if you ever have questions you'd like a rational Christian response to then feel free to post.

Ray wrote:I would note in passing that the discouragement of those "who merely wish to debate and argue ... ignoring any and all reasons presented" should, it seems to me, apply to all points of view, not just atheist ones. Heaven knows (if you'll pardon the expression) there have been some irrational, illogical and downright unpleasant statements made by Christians on this board.

It sounds as though you might be looking to present reasons against Christianity in an attempt to persuade others by your arguments against Christianity... if this is the case then perhaps an Atheist vs. Christian board would be more appealing to you, something this board is no longer.

I've also noticed some irrational (especially fideistic) Christian responses. Troy comes across very fideistic in his replies (i.e., he is right regardless, because he is right!). Should such Christian messages be moderated or something? I think it is perhaps good to imagine participating at a board devoted to Judaism. I may disagree with their Judaistic viewpoints, and even some blatant irrational remarks some persons might make, yet I'd have to respect them as being Jewish on their own board, and so understand running some fundamentalist-type Jews into the ground would not be that acceptable. At the same time, if I desired answers to some things about Judaism, I'd ask them why they believe this, this and that. If their response wasn't to my liking, I may inquire further. However, it wouldn't be my place to tell them they are wrong, attack their faith and attempt to run their beliefs into the ground. Doing such would perhaps be seen as intollerant, especially if I as a Christian were doing it. Upon receiving a response to my questions, whether satisfactory or not, the best thing would be for me to move on rather than seek to show them wrong. In addition, it would not make sense to bar unreasonable pro-Judaistic attitudes on a Jewish board, predominantly because it is a Judaistic board and such persons would still be considered a part of the Jewish faith. Now substitute Christianity for Judaism with this board, and I see no real difference. The one thing that will not be acceptible from Christians, is if they make inflamatory remarks to anyone. Such will be moderated.

<Additional note: I wasn't up to speed with the latest posts on the old board, so although I stick to my words above, nonsense will be moderated no matter who is behind it as seen fit by moderators.>

Ray wrote:Yours in a spirit of hopeful enlightenment

Thanks for asking all these questions as I'm sure there are many others wondering the same things. I hope this makes your decision about whether to remain here easier, and if you do have any questions you'd simply like to hear a Christian response to, I do encourage you to post your question.

Kurieuo.

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:51 am**

Troy wrote:What makes you think I am fiedistic? You didn't say. I gave a proof, in fact the best proof I have ever seen, non-fiedistically.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm

I think this site might be a point of pride for it may be into science, but it can't handle simple reasoning and blames it as fiedistical for it seems like all such scientific theories seem vain in that simple clear thinking reasoning.

Men love mental gymnastics but this is a problem if you forsake basic clear thinking.

I think that is what makes you make this comment since you never thought of this wonderful proof after making this site science related.

That is what the Holy Spirit revealed to me. I didn't realize you thought this way. I have subsequently removed you from my site as a result. Oh well. You seemed good but science seems to be a point of pride here.

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:52 am**

Hi Troy,

No offense was intended, and sure you've got reasons... but I can't deny my feelings that you came across as fideistic in some respects. Your last statement especially (i.e., "That is what the Holy Spirit revealed to me"). I'm not saying whether such is a bad or good quality, but I suppose you took it as negative? which wasn't my intention. Perhaps you attach a different meaning to fidiesm than I do, but I'd agree with how this page explains it - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm. But if you think I'm wrong, then I have no real qualms.

Kurieuo.

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:53 am**

Troy wrote:Let the Holy Spirit reveal things to you intuitively with God's conscience. Let us not be afraid of the Holy Spirit's revelation in our spirit giving us a spirit of wisdom. When God speaks to our hearts, we can know it and say it that it is the Holy Spirit. We can be that certain about something for God gives us that confidence. He really does. And so I have been able to communicate to you a perfect proof, amazingly no one to date has been able to disprove, nor does it appear anyone ever will. Now that is powerful science, don't you think?

Edited by Kurieuo: Thread opened at http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=8

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:53 am**

Actually, that may be in some way "a" science, but not an empirical science of the sort most desire. To play the other side, the wisdom you call God speaking to our hearts via the Holy Spirit can easily be dismissed as our subjective conscience. Infact, being brought up within a Pentecostal background, I have come to believe that what many pentecostals call the Holy Spirit speaking is usually their own subjective conscience. That isn't to say that the Holy Spirit doesn't move, but I think one really needs to test everything to see whether it is "really" from God: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 1:4).

Kurieuo.

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:53 pm**

Kureio
Thanks for the considered and measured response. Other posters on this thread might like to take note, and they might be pleased to find themselves being taken seriously if they do.

If you're looking for evidence to be provided where someone will allow you to see God with your own eyes, or allow God to be placed under laboratory conditions, then I don't think such evidence exists

No, I'm not. I would be happy with circumstantial evidence for the existence of a Christian god which wasn't better explained by something else, or at the limit, the admission "I just don't know". The part in italics is important: many of the received theories for the existence of God (the argument from design for example) I think are circumstantial evidence for an intelligent creator of the universe, but that is a long way from offering any support for an omniscient, omnipresent, immaterial being who sent his son to die for the sins of the human race. (As it happens I think the argument from design is fallacious, but since it doesn't go very far towards establishing a Christian god anyway, that shouldn't be too bothersome for this forum)

I understand "scientific means" to incorporate empirical methods, for which I only believe there to be circumstantial evidence for God--empirical evidence that we'd expect if God existed and had created our world.

That's all I'm after. I fully agree you can't be expected to do better than that. Actually, something I have often wondered is, if God really did show up, in personam, in modern day Sacramento, how would s/he prove who she was? What would persuade you that a person who claimed to be God (or the son of God) actually was? I think this is an important question, since from my knowledge of the New Testament (which is rusty, I confess) Jesus didn't do anything too outrageously supernatural (ok, he produced a few fishes and loaves; walked on water, but no *real* showstoppers), and indeed had trouble convincing people himself.

I agree, science can be used to rule out certain forms of Christian viewpoints. For example, I consider it a given the young-earth creationist position is wrong.

Hmm, I wonder if our Trojan friend would agree with that! But the more serious question is this: if science and philosophy can be used to rule out all (prevailing) Christian viewpoints then, notwithstanding the possibility that a new and compelling argument might present itself (such as the arrival of God in person in Sacramento), if and until it does, what is your position? In other words, would there be any point at which you would be prepared to acknowledge (after Lakatos and Kuhn) that the paradigm has degenerated, and a new research program is needed? To maintain your credibility as a scientist, there must be a point where you find the proverbial Oolon Colluphid Trilogy persuasive, mustn't there?

It sounds as though you might be looking to present reasons against Christianity in an attempt to persuade others by your arguments against Christianity

With the caveat that I am not responsible for anything I say in the face of Trojan provocation, I promise not to present any arguments against Christianity. I would like to examine, scientifically, the arguments for Christianity. If they stand up, I would like to think I'd be man enough to say so.

I've also noticed some irrational (especially fideistic) Christian responses

I'm pleased to hear that! Thank you, too, for adding the word "fideistic" to my vocabulary. It's an extremely succinct way of expressing a complicated idea.

But I guess my point is that it is arbitrary to allow "Christian" perspectives, no matter how odious, ill-informed, and illogical, just because they're "part of the club". I have been accused (several times) of being in league with Satan (I don't believe in Satan, for the record), of being a liar and being a hater of God. I'm none of these things - I don't know what God or Satan is, and i've not (consciously) made any existential claims on this board that could be accused of being false. Such hysterical and paranoid behaviour does the Christian cause no favours, and if I were you, I'd treat it the same way you treat anti-Christian rhetoric. It certainly won't help to foster any understanding in undecided non-Christians.

And what of Christian perspectives which are prepared to forego the belief in god - that treat the bible as a figurative document?

Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I would be interested in your further thoughts.

As for kiwi jokes - there aren't any, are there?

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:54 pm**

Blind Electric Ray wrote:Jesus didn't do anything too outrageously supernatural (ok, he produced a few fishes and loaves; walked on water, but no *real* showstoppers), and indeed had trouble convincing people himself.

...Outrageous...as in bringing a dead man back to life?

Just a thought.
.
.

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:04 pm**

I mean an act which is uncontrovertable evidence of its author being the all powerful, all knowing, all loving creator of the universe. With respect, I don't think that bringing a person back to life gets there - I'm prepared to be persuaded, but there's a cost which I don't think you'll want to incur: if that's all you require, you may find a number of decidedly mortal heart surgeons (and water ski-ers, if we include walking on water) find themselves elevated to deity status. I'm not sure you'd want that.

What I'm thinking about is evidence that supports intervention by God, but which is not otherwise explicable. I do not mean to deny Jesus' divinity - I express no opinion on it - but merely to observe that Jesus' actions on earth, as reported in the Bible don't unequivocally establish it by themselves.

Anyhow, this was an aside, and as I mentioned, I don't think you need to present "evidence of God in person" to present a compelling case for Christianity, so we shouldn't allow ourselves to be side-tracked by a passing comment.

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:40 pm**

Kueirio,

You just deleted my last two posts. <snip>

<snip>

I have lost interest, I don't like the games you are playing. So that's the last you will hear of this Christian. When you delete a persons posts as much as you do and lock threads on important things for no reason it reveals your true heart as typfied by your Pentecostal background.

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:55 pm**

Troy wrote:I have lost interest, I don't like the games you are playing. So that's the last you will hear of this Christian. When you delete a persons posts as much as you do and lock threads on important things for no reason it reveals your true heart as typfied by your Pentecostal background.

You said this once already. Let's hope you keep to your "Christian" word this time.

Blind Electric Ray wrote:if that's all you require, you may find a number of decidedly mortal heart surgeons (and water ski-ers, if we include walking on water) find themselves elevated to deity status.

While modern medicine can bring some back from death, it is only possible (so far) in the first few minutes. The Biblical claim is that Lazarus had been dead and buried for four days.

As a side note, if at death, the repentant sinner goes to heaven, Lazarus must've had many stories to tell of the wonderful four days he spent in paradise...odd...no mention of Lazarus sharing any news. This would've been quite important news to share...and wouldn't it make for a great "Gospel" to share and convert others...hmmm.
.
.

Posted: **Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:04 pm**

Ray wrote:No, I'm not. I would be happy with circumstantial evidence for the existence of a Christian god which wasn't better explained by something else, or at the limit, the admission "I just don't know". The part in italics is important: many of the received theories for the existence of God (the argument from design for example) I think are circumstantial evidence for an intelligent creator of the universe, but that is a long way from offering any support for an omniscient, omnipresent, immaterial being who sent his son to die for the sins of the human race.

Actually you would be suprised that some "Christians" deny God's total omniscience by denying He knows precisely what we are going to do in the future (e.g., Gregory Boyd is one although he himself tends to think such doesn't make God not omniscient). Not that I take this view as I think it unnecessary, but it does show there can be a wide range of opinion within Christianity on qualities "we think" God has. I don't think anyone will ever to be able to nail down God's qualities exactly and say "this is God." We can only draw from logic, experience, science, even tradition and whatever other means God has decided to reveal Himself through. I believe we only know as much as God has revealed and allowed to be revealed, but we will never fully comprehend or entirely understand God. To say otherwise, would to most Christians be to take away from God... yet we do believe God has revealed certain things to us, which also happen to highlight certain traits.

Ray wrote:(As it happens I think the argument from design is fallacious, but since it doesn't go very far towards establishing a Christian god anyway, that shouldn't be too bothersome for this forum)

In what way do you think it is fallacious, or were you just meaning you find it unpersuasive? You are right though that such an argument would not justify the Christian God anyway, only that God exists. The second fundamental truth relevant to Christianity after God exists, is that God has revealed Himself decisively in Jesus Christ. So given someone accepts the first, the second becomes an important question.

Actually, something I have often wondered is, if God really did show up, in personam, in modern day Sacramento, how would s/he prove who she was? What would persuade you that a person who claimed to be God (or the son of God) actually was? I think this is an important question, since from my knowledge of the New Testament (which is rusty, I confess) Jesus didn't do anything too outrageously supernatural (ok, he produced a few fishes and loaves; walked on water, but no *real* showstoppers), and indeed had trouble convincing people himself.

Actually within the gospels, Jesus performed many miracles and healings and thousands apparently flocked to him. But you're right that many did not "see" Him for who He was, yet Christ did not come to convince and funnily enough even used parables so only those who sought understanding would understand what He was saying (Matt 13:10+). His works and mircales were eventually used as evidence He was God. Christ also claimed to be God, which was one reason the Pharisees disliked him (blasphemy)--infact they reasoned Jesus obtained his power from demons (Matt 9:34). In addition, Christ fulfilled many prophecies expected of Messiah. Perhaps if God was coming to Earth as a human we might be able to expect some notice in advance?

And perhaps it would be expected someone claiming to be God would be immortal. Infact this is why Jesus' followers were so distressed at Jesus' crucifixion. Though they loved Jesus, His crucifixtion would have symbolised, if anything, that He was cursed by God rather than God. Yet, Christ's resurrection is what would have proven His claims to be God. And I believe there are some very good reasons for believing in a literal resurrection. Sure one can always ignore any evidence or argue them away to stick with physicalist assumptions, but I think the evidence we have is quite convincing if our presumptions don't rule out the possibility of God's existence.

Ray wrote:
K wrote:I agree, science can be used to rule out certain forms of Christian viewpoints. For example, I consider it a given the young-earth creationist position is wrong.
Hmm, I wonder if our Trojan friend would agree with that! But the more serious question is this: if science and philosophy can be used to rule out all (prevailing) Christian viewpoints then, notwithstanding the possibility that a new and compelling argument might present itself (such as the arrival of God in person in Sacramento), if and until it does, what is your position?

While I believe science and philosophy can be used to rule out certain Christian positions, this is perhaps more a shaping of Christian doctrine within Christianity. There are many different Christian doctrines held within Christianity, but ruling out one for another, does not really mean one whole "Christian position" is ruled out--only that a particular Christian doctrine isn't acceptible. Christianity is malleable when it comes to secondary issues like that of Biblical inerrancy, evolution, etc (though these are obviously all important issues for Christians). It is perhaps what frustrates Atheists, as they think they've got a solid argument against Christianity, only to find someone with differing Christian viewpoint catches them offguard.

But lets say I was really compelled by the persuasiveness of new arguments to think Christianity isn't true. I would perhaps be in a rational dilemma. "Reason" is certainly one way we gain knowledge, but then there is also "experience." When you think about it, reason actually depends upon our experiences in order to function. Without any experiences there would be nothing to reason about. Yet at the same time, without reason, we couldn't reflect on our experiences. To add something additional, I believe Modernism by placing such value on empiricism and rationalism has often relegated one's experiences in life as unimportant. This is possibly why many become involved Post-Modernism where personal experiences are more uplifted although reason is often downplayed.

That said, I strongly trust my experiences with God and feel I know who He is on some personal level. I had a link somewhere (can't find it right now

) that such experiences aren't in anyway unreal, but neuroscience has shown they are generally just as real as if you were seeing an apple on a table. Whether such experiences really involve God or are self-induced I suppose will remain an open question, but I am sincerely convinced of God's reality through them.

So to say Christianity is totally ruled out, would in a sense be like if you go to visit someone at their home at night but you're not sure if they're home. You may see the light on in the house, hear some voices as you approach the door and some laughter. All the signs are that someone is home. Yet, when you knock and someone answers the door, all those signs become negligable and nothing could really destroy your belief that someone is home, unless you become so skeptical of the reliability of your experiences that the person before you is really imagined. That of course, is always an option

. But if you trust that experience, then you would I suppose be in a kind of rational dilemma if someone presented compelling arguments against believing someone was home.

I'm not sure I dealt with your words in the way you desired, but I just can't imagine accepting as untrue everything that I am convinced of.

Ray wrote:In other words, would there be any point at which you would be prepared to acknowledge (after Lakatos and Kuhn) that the paradigm has degenerated, and a new research program is needed? To maintain your credibility as a scientist, there must be a point where you find the proverbial Oolon Colluphid Trilogy persuasive, mustn't there?

Perhaps a part of my previous response in this message answers this somewhat. I find it really hard seeing a "point" that would enable me to drop what I am currently convicted of, especially when I think the Christian paradigm is strengthening rather than weakening as I learn and experience more and more. It just makes so much sense to me... And out of all other religions (research programs?), a significant theological point I find with Christianity, is that it is the only faith I've found where God reaches down to us in our sins. I've noticed within others there is an emphasis on good works and working your way up, but if God is all-righteous then I see it as impossible for God to accept us with even just one blemish--unless God makes a way.

Ray wrote:As for kiwi jokes - there aren't any, are there?

I've heard a few -- I'm sure I could dig some up.

Kurieuo.

PS. I sent a PM regarding some other things in your first message, not sure if you read it yet.

Posted: **Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:05 pm**

there can be a wide range of opinion within Christianity on qualities "we think" God has

I agree with that. However my point was a stronger one: the argument from design doesn't support any qualities for the creator other than the fact of creation, and possibly (but only at the time of creation) omniscience/omnipotence (I have been doing some thinking in another thread, and have explained what I mean there. This is actually a concession I didn't expect to make!) In any case, even if omniscient and omnipotent, the creator could still be malevolent, accident prone, illogical or even, after Nietzsche, dead.

we will never fully comprehend or entirely understand God

This is a familiar refrain, and again one with which I wouldn't take issue in the general case of Christianity (and I can certainly see the argument that this would detract from the idea of God), but in the specific case of a ministry aimed at building its metaphysic on rational grounds, isn't this a little problematic? It does have something of a fideistic ring to it, doesn't it?

In what way do you think it is fallacious, or were you just meaning you find it unpersuasive?

I started to reply here, but it got a little long-winded, so I separated it into another post. The teleological argument certainly ups the stakes (I hadn't realised this until I went through it this evening). But I do think as a proof it's logically fallacious. Once a creator is proved, it may have something to say about the creator's qualities.

It is perhaps what frustrates Atheists, as they think they've got a solid argument against Christianity, only to find someone with differing Christian viewpoint catches them offguard.

I think that's a very fair call. The differing christian viewpoints are by no means internally consistent (hence my comment that you should be equally censorious of the "home" team as the "away team"!) and indeed some of the milder Anglican views I've experienced are less convinced in any sort of supernatural god than I am! Christianity at its limits becomes a sort of benignly-intended sociology, and an atheist argument isn't really relevant to it. My mother is like this (but I love her dearly!). I have no problem with that at all as long as rational debates can't be ruled out on the grounds of blasphemy/offensiveness etc. The closer one gets to the literalist end of the Christian spectrum, the more trouble I have with this.

Modernism by placing such value on empiricism and rationalism has often relegated one's experiences in life as unimportant. This is possibly why many become involved Post-Modernism where personal experiences are more uplifted although reason is often downplayed

I'm very intrigued by this idea, which has never occurred to me. Could you elaborate? Do you think post modernism is alligned for or against Christianity? Your implication is that is it's alligned against science. In practice maybe, but not in theory: I think postmodernism has some very interesting things to say about rationalism, but I think the "downplaying of reason" aspect arises from a misunderstanding of the value of the post modern programme in the first place.

And out of all other religions (research programs?), a significant theological point I find with Christianity, is that it is the only faith I've found where God reaches down to us in our sins

Except that Christianity, as with all other religious research programmes (it's a term applied by Kuhn to competing scientific theories, and certainly as far as the ministry of this board is concerned, that counts religion), is the determinant of what are sins in the first place, which gives you a circularity, doesn't it? i.e., religion defines your moral code, then provides a method of absolution from breaches of it ... does that offer any independent reason favouring that research programme?

Evidence for God from Science

Which types of evidence?

Which types of evidence?