Evidence for God from Science

This is something I should have included in my "Atheists and Youtube" discussion thread that I did several months ago, this video is around two hours long of a "former Christian" now turned atheist describing why he de-converted. From what I could see he lists things such as religous experiences being imaginative experiences produced by our brains along with the Occam's razor concept that you take the simplest answer in which in his case, naturalism without invoking a creator God is much more simple. I didn't see anything as far a any major or new challenges that I've never seen before, but if any of you all see anything worth noting you can bring up in the replies. But here is the link to the video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsAZSz2Y ... re=related

Take care.

derrick09 wrote:This is something I should have included in my "Atheists and Youtube" discussion thread that I did several months ago, this video is around two hours long of a "former Christian" now turned atheist describing why he de-converted. From what I could see he lists things such as religous experiences being imaginative experiences produced by our brains along with the Occam's razor concept that you take the simplest answer in which in his case, naturalism without invoking a creator God is much more simple. I didn't see anything as far a any major or new challenges that I've never seen before, but if any of you all see anything worth noting you can bring up in the replies. But here is the link to the video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsAZSz2Y ... re=related

Take care.

Sorry I just had to laugh at that video... Pretty weak arguments that we hear over and over again on this forum. But I have to congratulate this kid on making this video, and increasing my faith. He has made my faith much more stronger and his god or religion weaker...

Yes indeed, praise God for that.

derrick09 wrote:This is something I should have included in my "Atheists and Youtube" discussion thread that I did several months ago, this video is around two hours long of a "former Christian" now turned atheist describing why he de-converted. From what I could see he lists things such as religous experiences being imaginative experiences produced by our brains along with the Occam's razor concept that you take the simplest answer in which in his case, naturalism without invoking a creator God is much more simple. I didn't see anything as far a any major or new challenges that I've never seen before, but if any of you all see anything worth noting you can bring up in the replies. But here is the link to the video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsAZSz2Y ... re=related

Take care.

Hi Derrick09, Why bring this subject up again as subject matter was touched upon in your "Atheists and Youtube" discussion thread?

Is there something specific you would like to discuss or make a statement? If a statement - then what is it since you stated you haven't seen anything as far a any major or new challenges in this video?
-
-
-

Hello, well in the first thread, the atheists and youtube thread, I was mostly referring to the hateful atheist debate/response videos or videos relating to the "blasphemy challenge" videos, while this one had to do with a former Christian or claimed Christian now turned atheist and his "deconversion documentry" I was wondering if any of you all saw anything in this video as different or challenging for us apologists to answer or respond to. Now I personally didn't see anything impressive but I didn't watch the whole video, watching whole atheist related videos kinda makes me nervous for fear that I WILL see something that will cause me to have doubts.

derrick09 wrote:Hello, well in the first thread, the atheists and youtube thread, I was mostly referring to the hateful atheist debate/response videos or videos relating to the "blasphemy challenge" videos, while this one had to do with a former Christian or claimed Christian now turned atheist and his "deconversion documentry" I was wondering if any of you all saw anything in this video as different or challenging for us apologists to answer or respond to. Now I personally didn't see anything impressive but I didn't watch the whole video, watching whole atheist related videos kinda makes me nervous for fear that I WILL see something that will cause me to have doubts.

You said, 'for us apologists to answer or respond to'

So derricjk09, let's hear how you would respond to this as an apologist for a change - maybe we would like to hear /read what you have to say about this
-
-
-

Well first I would try to respond to one of his main points i.e. religious experiences being imaginative experiences somewhat hasty. I would respond by asking how is he certain that ALL religious experiences are imaginative. Then I would also point out that just because most religious experiences may very well be imaginative it doesn't mean that God had some sort of hand in it just like if natural forces were used like with the Exodus Red Sea crossing, it to doesn't mean God wasn't involved because God can use natural forces. Ok, that's one of his points that I responded to, another one, the point where he claims that naturalism basically offers a more simple answer than Christian Theism. I would respond by saying that this scenario doesn't seem to fit well with the evidence since how can natural laws and matter be powerful enough to produce thinking, complex individuals like us? Doesn't the cause and driving force behind everything be MORE powerful and complex than the thing it creates? Isn't a kitchen and a oven more powerful and complex than the cookies it produces? Or how about the minds and the machinery that go into making a computer? So since we need a powerful and complex being or force to allow something such as the universe or us to come into existence, it doesn't work well to imply nothing or some kind of dead simple matter producing something more complex and organized like human beings with complex brains. And since natural laws and matter are weak, thus they are not the most simple answer as to how everything began, in this case, God is more simple, since God is powerful and intelligent enough to get the job done. Ok, that's how I would respond. Is that good enough, I know it's not William Lane Craig material but hopefully it's not Kent Hovind material.

I think you are better than you think.

Silvertusk wrote:I think you are better than you think.

Yes very good!
-
-
-

derrick09 wrote:i.e. religious experiences being imaginative experiences somewhat hasty. I would respond by asking how is he certain that ALL religious experiences are imaginative. Then I would also point out that just because most religious experiences may very well be imaginative it doesn't mean that God had some sort of hand in it just like if natural forces were used like with the Exodus Red Sea crossing, it to doesn't mean God wasn't involved because God can use natural forces.

Atheists often like to drive discussions, and make poor passengers when we jump in the driver's street. They love asking all the questions and then making scoff remarks while answering none. So do reverse the burden in your exchanges by asking questions. Some other questions that come to my mind would be:

• How does he know that "spiritual experiences" do not form part of the natural?
• How does he know his physical experiences (sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing) are based on what is real, particularly if they are epistemically aligned via evolution for survival rather than the necessity of truth?

Interestingly, the Christian worldview provides solid foundations for affirming our senses to be epistemically aligned for truth given we are created by a loving and truthful God. So I think Christianity is in this respect more coherent than Atheism when it comes to embracing truth and reality.

derrick09 wrote:the point where he claims that naturalism basically offers a more simple answer than Christian Theism.

If by "naturalism" he means "Atheism", then simpler maybe. Too simple perhaps.

I am happy to opt for the explanation that has the greatest explanatory power, makes sense of the world we live in, provides the best answers for life's big questions, is more practical for living, provides meaning to living, and which is ultimately the most coherent.

These deconversions lack any credibility. These people were never Christians to start with. This is why they spend so much time trying to convince you what good Christians they were. They were non-bellievers to start with. Plain and simple.

Thats a really interesting video. It honestly wasn't until this year I learned people have deconverted or completely lost their faith in Christianity. I'm still really new to spirituality. I guess I could say I got out from under my rock. I can really relate to this guy and his doubts. After I was baptized this past may doubt and fear hit me extremely hard. My two mindsets were waging war. I too didn't want anyone from the Church I'm a part of to fall with me. Or to come to be in my rationality. For feeling this way I truly believed myself to be 'nobel.' However, I came to realize one night that my mind had been suppressing the true reasons behind my thinking. I was not only too prideful to ask for help from other Church members but I feared their judgement. I desired to be rational I felt that if I didn't pursue people who 'thought' like me, than my rationality would be quickly dismissed and shown that I was wrong. I too believed that God wanted to use the incredible knowledge and rationality I had to take on atheists. Psalm 36:2 I understood that night that I really wasn't as 'rational' as my mind had told me I was. Long story short I finally worked up the courage and humility to ask for help. I was honestly surprised to know just how many people have experienced the same type of doubt I have been going through. I still have many questions but I am currently being mentored in my faith. I am so thankful for God and his mercy. I am also thankful that those I challenged were not as influential on me as the professor was to that guy in the video. The professor's word's were quite manipulative. His subtle flattery, his 'kindness', his almost subliminal hints at having the truth that guy desired, and his suggestions on how to perceive fellow Church members and to stay away from them. It really angers me to see someone in such a vulneral position be manipulated. The professor reminds me of the flatterer from Proverbs 29:5 and also Psalm 5:9

Speaking of Occam's razor, take the antitheists' wager versus Pascal's wager:

Antitheist:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

Pascal:

A person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain

"If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him."

Ummmm i highly doubt that... and athiests don't even know that..

musician wrote:If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind.

I always have to just laugh at this kind of statement, because when adhering to a worldview that embraces pure naturalism, those who 'remember' you will eventually die off and for an infinite amount of time, no one will be around to remember anyone else. But it makes people who don't have any other thing to place hope into feel warm and fuzzy inside, so I suppose that's why its used.

It seems to me that only if those you left behind were eternal beings would this statement be anything more than gasping for meaning and failing.