Evidence for God from Science

basically just wanna hear your thoughts on this, do you believe it? how does it effetc your faith? was god in control of it?

also to everyone who accepts evolution as i imagine would be the majority here now, where does the soul come into all of it?

cheers

No one as of yet has been able to come up with a "recipe" for creating living cells out of non-living matter but that's not to say that they haven't been trying. Several groups are currently working on this so I would not rule out a naturalistic explanation by any means.

However as a theistic evolutionist, I would have no problems with a God-assisted process either. I just don't want to be accused of "God of the gaps" just because we don't know right now. I'll give science a chance here. Maybe God created the as yet unknown mechanism of abiogenesis and let natural processes do the work? This would make more sense if there are many additional worlds with life in our Universe.

push wrote:basically just wanna hear your thoughts on this, do you believe it? how does it effetc your faith? was god in control of it?

also to everyone who accepts evolution as i imagine would be the majority here now, where does the soul come into all of it?

cheers

Here is our web site's take on it...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Hi Push,

Search as you may, you will not find evidence for a soul that passes scientific scrutiny - not even 21 grams worth. Nor will you find any evidence for God - but that's not the point. God is a matter of faith. As far as letting scientific findings effect your faith, it doesn't have to. Nor should a person pick and choose amongst scientific findings based on whether or not the findings fit his or her particular brand of dogma. Following the evidence wherever it leads is what a scientist does, but he can still put on another hat and have faith in his God.

DB

David Blacklock wrote:Hi Push,

Search as you may, you will not find evidence for a soul that passes scientific scrutiny - not even 21 grams worth. Nor will you find any evidence for God - but that's not the point. God is a matter of faith. As far as letting scientific findings effect your faith, it doesn't have to. Nor should a person pick and choose amongst scientific findings based on whether or not the findings fit his or her particular brand of dogma. Following the evidence wherever it leads is what a scientist does, but he can still put on another hat and have faith in his God.

DB

thats what i was beginning to believe yeah, i was just thinking how can there be any evidence of the supernatural in the natural world? can i just ask a personal question then? whats behind your faith? i mean how come you believe? just curious is all because for a while now ive been trying to fit god into the scientific theories and have kind of forgotten about why i believed in the first place haha

i understand if you dont answer though mate

My basis for faith is on the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and on fulfilled prophecy from the Old Testament (I do not think that many of the prophecies typically given by apologists are particularly convincing apologetics, but Isaiah 53 and the book of Daniel when considering evidence for a young date of Daniel, which is a different topic entirely, are too strong to ignore.) In my opinion, it is a failure of the evangelical community today to encourage people to base their faiths more or less entirely on constantly changing scientific theories rather than going to the root of Christianity - the cross - in seeking positive reasons to believe.

Am I missing something here - because I came to faith because of science. The science of how the cosmos came about - the science of how complex life is. The logic behind the ressurection of Christ. Science is one of the great revelators of God - behind Christ, the Bible and the Holy Spirit. IMHO.

Silvertusk, I didn't mean to imply it wasn't a usefulu tool. Science has increased my faith in God and increased my sense of wonder and I think that science apologetics definitely have their place as a powerful evangelical tool. Since I worded that poorly, this is what I meant:

Growing up, the only apologetics I was really familiar with dealt with supposed proof of a young universe and proof against evolution, and I had no idea about the specific evidence of the Resurrection that was out there. I don't have an exact quote handy, but I read an essay recently where somebody basically stated that if your faith goes into crisis every time a new scientific study comes out, then your faith doesn't have the proper grounding.

David Blacklock wrote:Hi Push,

Search as you may, you will not find evidence for a soul that passes scientific scrutiny - not even 21 grams worth. Nor will you find any evidence for God - but that's not the point. God is a matter of faith. As far as letting scientific findings effect your faith, it doesn't have to. Nor should a person pick and choose amongst scientific findings based on whether or not the findings fit his or her particular brand of dogma. Following the evidence wherever it leads is what a scientist does, but he can still put on another hat and have faith in his God.

DB

I strongly disagree with this.

"Faith" is required in any belief. Throw at me anything you believe in and I am quite confident you can not be 100% certain of it under strict evidentialist conditions.

There is much evidence for God's existence. The fact some ignore it or miss it, does not mean it is not there for those who see it such as myself and Silvertusk. Perhaps you miss it?

From your words above I gather your faith in say Christianity over Islam is perhaps more like preferring chocolate over strawberry icecream. It does not really count as the kind of faith I see in Scripture, which is a faith based on evidence and seeing (as doubting Thomas is a perfect illustration of). Yes, many Christians perhaps disagree and think that Scriptural faith is blind, and I have seen many such people loose their faith just as easily as they attained it. I notice in Scripture evidence is always offered for belief. For early Christians, it was Christ's death and resurrection itself. Paul's own words to test everything and hold onto the good summarises it perfectly.

For myself, I see beliefs about God really do matter. If God created everything then they are the most important truths one can dedicated themselves to understanding. It is not a matter of preference, but rather of truth. As such theological beliefs are going to impact upon Science and vice-versa because each deal with issues of epistemology. This notion that certain pursuits of truth should be separated is something created by those who like to label things into nice neat boxes. Science, Philosophy, Theology and what-have-you all have the goal to strive for understanding what is true. To say belief in God is not really a matter of truth is in my opinion quite insulting to those who take their beliefs in God seriously including the many great thinkers throughout history including those who helped foster modern Science (such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal).

>>I gather your faith in say Christianity over Islam is perhaps more like preferring chocolate over strawberry icecream<<

Heh, heh - well I guess that's one way to put it. But for me,that would apply more to Cath vs protestant. Islam would be more like spinach or tofu. I prefer butter pecan, anyway.

>>quite insulting to those who take their beliefs in God seriously<<

I have no intention to insult anyone.

>>I notice in Scripture evidence is always offered for belief<<

Interesting that in John, miracles are repeatedly done specifically to prove that Jesus is God. In the other gospels, He refuses to do miracles to prove who He is.

These kind of discrepancies, of which there are hundreds, leads me to a point of non-interest in dogma. If God had wanted us to squabble over dogma, He couldn't have constructed the Bible more to that purpose. Alternately said, if He wanted us to follow a certain dogma it seems to me He would have made it very clear.

DB

some good replies in here and i agree with that essay i think it was about if your faith goes into crisis everytime a new theory comes out it never really stood on solid ground. i see this as true in my life, i use to be a firm believer but just recently as ive kinda taken an interest in science and whatnot ive just been thinking a lot and not followin the lord.

i would also be interested in readin of this evidence of the resurrection, the daniel book and isiah 53 if you could all point me in the right direction thats be appreciated

I've been awake for 22 hours, so allow me to respond later today in detail after I've gotten some sleep.

For now, I will say that a couple of years ago, I went through an intense crisis of faith and doubt going through very similar lines as what you've posted so I can understand your mindset (by the way, I also accept evolution).

push wrote:some good replies in here and i agree with that essay i think it was about if your faith goes into crisis everytime a new theory comes out it never really stood on solid ground. i see this as true in my life, i use to be a firm believer but just recently as ive kinda taken an interest in science and whatnot ive just been thinking a lot and not followin the lord.

i would also be interested in readin of this evidence of the resurrection, the daniel book and isiah 53 if you could all point me in the right direction thats be appreciated

Although symbolic in nature, the book of Daniel, particularly chapters 7 and 9-10, end up describing well the events that happened in history after the traditional date for the book being written, including references to Alexander the Great. This website http://www.biblequery.org/dan.htm describes some of the prophecies and main arguments in favor of an early date. If you are interested, I could elaborate more on the arguments.

Isaiah 53 is a Old Testament passage written centuries before Jesus that describes the life and death of Jesus to a T. I believe that many of the messianic prophecies often given the Old Testament can seem vague, but this one is crystal clear. In my view, the idea that this could be a coincidence requires far more faith than belief in the resurrection. There is a reference to his being of the root of Jesse (53:2), his treatment at the hands of fellow men (53:3), his treating of people's sicknesses/healing them "infirmities" (53:4), him being pierced/killed AND that it was for OUR transgressions (53:5) BUT that this punishment brings us peace and heals us (53:5), that all have sinned and that the sins are on Jesus (53:6), that he did not open his mouth before being led "like a lamb to the slaughter" (53:7), that he had no descendants (53:8), that he was buried with the rich (53:9), was sinless (53:9, that his life was a guilt offering and that it was the Lord's will (53:10), that he will see life again (how would you see this one coming if you were making it up?) (53:11), that he will eventually be richly rewarded by God (53:12), and that he specifically intervened for our sins (53:13).

I apologize that I keep pushing this off, but I got carried away there, and I need to be at work in ten minutes. I will definitely post about the Resurrection of Christ tomorrow. In the meantime, I'd recommend you look into an introductory apologetics book like The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. I have a somewhat big collection of books on the subject, and I can tell you that's by far one of the most accessible ones and best places to start.

It's really difficult to sum up all of the evidence for Jesus's resurrection, because entire books have been written on the subject, so I'll only provide the basics of the argument. The existence of Jesus and his execution has been verified by non-Christian historians such as Josephus and a number of others, and the appearances of Jesus to his followers after his resurrection during the several weeks before he ascended to heaven appear as a creed in the early church.

The most powerful evidence to me, in addition to the prophecies I mentioned in my last post, are the testimony of his disciples. They went out in a culture that was very hostile to their beliefs and with a new belief that was philosophically far different from anything that had ever been seen before. They suddenly regrouped and spread the known world at that time spreading their beliefs, for which they were willing to die. The disciples who had been friends with Jesus knew whether or not this was true or not, and in their preaching, they pointed this out in appealing to the historical nature of what had happened, the post-resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, etc. You find this kind of appeal to fact throughout the New Testament. The fact that they were wiling to take on poverty and face cruel deaths implies that they knew whether or not it had happened. It would have been strange for them to split up and spread out spreading the word for something they knew deep down was a lie.

Yes, people today are willing to die for their beliefs (such as suicide bombers, etc.), but the difference is that they have not witnessed events that confirm their faith firsthand. This only applies to the disciples back then.

With all this evidence in hand, all the squabbling over evolution and the age of the earth seems insignificant in perspective. We know that God appeared in history and provided his Son, and the specific means he used to create the world and us have no effect on whether this happened. The evidence speaks for itself.

Hope this helps!

true true thtas all good and clears some stuff up for me yeah, only question i have is how do we know they actually went out and preached the word? maybe they just wrote they did or it could even be like camp fire stories, im sure im missing something here haha