Evidence for God from Science

Where atheism has failed is not only in science, where clear paths to naturalism cannot be fully explained in our physical world, but also the message of God which is "love" for all mankind. This perhaps is it's GREATEST failure. Not acknowledging the love of God for mankind, but also God's desire for mankind to live out it's existence in love to others..

A HUGE failure... Wow, I'm shocked how many many people miss this VERY CRUCIAL point... You can make blunders in your understanding about God throughout your life, but if your miss this one, sadly, YOU HAVE MISSED IT ALL...

Its not that we don't acknowledge the love of God for mankind. We don't acknowledge that there is a god or gods at all. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove god doesn't exist. Its on anyone who wants to prove god does exist- and to do so without using the bible.

I certainly agree Gman, what really doesn't get me about atheists is their relentless quest to not only disprove Christian Theism but to convert everyone to that view. And even if they somehow manage to find a way to show Christian Theism to be false how do they expect all human beings will flock to their view? Well not only flock to but remain fulfilled and happy with that sort of view. I mean as a philosophy, atheism leads directly to nhilism. If atheists want to be consistent and honest with their view that's what it leads to. Personally, I couldn't live with myself I don't think if I became an atheist. I don't think I"ll ever enjoy life again, since I wouldn't be able to get past the notions that life is meaningless, that when I die, I cease to exist, and possibly the worst thing of all, when my friends and loved ones die while I'm still living, I'll be dealt with the fact that I won't ever see them ever again. I really wondering if that is a price worth paying for, for being a man of logic, reason, and science or in this case secular science. This kind of goes along with my last thread on what would I do if things got bad for the case for Christian Theism. I know if certain unnecessary things were disproved I could always redefine my paradigm but if certain things like the resurrection and the universe having a beginning were disproved I would be forced to give it up intellectually... but at the same time, I don't know if I would give it up completely because Christianity fulfills me emotionally, Christianity fulfills my desire for meaning, Christianity fulfills the desire to be loved unconditionally, and most importantly, Christianity fulfills the desire of a future, a wonderful and thrilling future. The main thing that I would love to ask all the top atheists and atheism as a whole is, when and if Christian Theism is disproved, what will atheism replace people's deepest innermost needs with? All I've seen for the most part as of now, in the theoretical sense, once atheists accomplish such a daunting and almost impossible task of disproving Christian Theism, they will replace our innermost needs with the thing most of them claim the universe came from, nothing. And even if they come up with something whether it be things like relativism, or living for day to day pleasure, or getting the masses to dedicate themselves to the STATE as in a communist ruler of some sort, even if atheists try to do things like that, it's only a matter of time until those things wear off and fail because those things may satisfy people for a little while, but as far as giving people lasting and deep meaning, love, a future their ways and their philosophy just won't work. I wasn't so sure about this not too long ago, but now, I wonder if I had only one choice as far as how I'm going to live my life, to choose between a Christianity that is disproved and a atheism that is proven. Even if I was living in a world where atheism was proven wouldn't it be a better choice to go with the Christianity that is disproved? Because, at the very least Christianity has a great moral system, it gives people a sense of meaning and purpose and if you are living in a world where naturalism is proven to be true, since on the face value of things, with naturalism, life is meaningless, then it would be perfectly ok then, to still hold to certain views even if they are disproved and meaningless. I guess to put it bluntly Christianity with one leg (or even no legs) is better than atheism with an infinite number of legs. Let me know what you think because I may fully adopt this viewpoint, because previously I wanted to a Christian and be reasonable, logical, on the cutting edge of science and so on. But if I can't have both, like I currently think I can and hope I still will with the help of Christian apologetics, what would be the best thing to take, either a sense of peace, love, meaning and hope (and be considered "stupid") with Christianity or having a sense of being logical, reasonable, on the cutting edge of science (and feel miserable and meaningless). As torn as I would feel to either side, a big part of me wants to go with the former. Anyway, let me know what you think guys, take care and GB.

abc123 wrote:Its not that we don't acknowledge the love of God for mankind. We don't acknowledge that there is a god or gods at all. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove god doesn't exist. Its on anyone who wants to prove god does exist- and to do so without using the bible.

Really? Don't you think it is incumbent upon you to provide an explanation why there's something rather than nothing? And to do so without appealing to infinite regress or a violation of the law of non-contradiction?

I do not see any proof for believing in god. So in fact I don't need to prove there is nothing there. I do not see any proof that there is something there i.e. god. I used to be a Christian and do not feel the need to disprove Christians or convert anyone. I find many of the assumptions about atheism to be funny.

The burden of proof isn't on me to prove god doesn't exist. Its on anyone who wants to prove god does exist- and to do so without using the bible.

Poppycock. This is the fallacy of nuetral ground. There is none, btw. Essentially the atheist wants the Christian to set asside the collection of documents that speak to the truth of God's reality, and our very existence. A completely fallacious and unreasonable argument no matter how you cut it.

As far as the burden, Byblos nailed it.

You can't know anything apart from the Bible. And by that I mean what God has revealed to us within it. The really sad part is when the atheist trespasses all in it, just to try and find any meaning in life. It's like the person who arguing against the existence of air. Of course he is standing in, breathing it, talking with it, all the while he is trying to say it doesn't exist.

jlay posted:

Poppycock. This is the fallacy of nuetral ground.

Sorry jlay. as hard as I tried, I couldn't resist.

As jlay says, poppycock.. He is right.

abc123 wrote:Its not that we don't acknowledge the love of God for mankind. We don't acknowledge that there is a god or gods at all. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove god doesn't exist. Its on anyone who wants to prove god does exist- and to do so without using the bible.

And yet you have no proof to show that God does not exist... Nothing, nada, zip... We simply cannot say that we have 100 percent proof to prove that there is or isn't God. However, I can say that if you study the evidence, that the belief in God is the most logical answer..

abc123 wrote:Its not that we don't acknowledge the love of God for mankind. We don't acknowledge that there is a god or gods at all. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove god doesn't exist. Its on anyone who wants to prove god does exist- and to do so without using the bible.

Abc here watch this short clip >>http://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvide ... HIIjfxr4o0

derrick09 wrote:I certainly agree Gman, what really doesn't get me about atheists is their relentless quest to not only disprove Christian Theism but to convert everyone to that view. And even if they somehow manage to find a way to show Christian Theism to be false how do they expect all human beings will flock to their view? Well not only flock to but remain fulfilled and happy with that sort of view. I mean as a philosophy, atheism leads directly to nhilism. If atheists want to be consistent and honest with their view that's what it leads to. Personally, I couldn't live with myself I don't think if I became an atheist. I don't think I"ll ever enjoy life again, since I wouldn't be able to get past the notions that life is meaningless, that when I die, I cease to exist, and possibly the worst thing of all, when my friends and loved ones die while I'm still living, I'll be dealt with the fact that I won't ever see them ever again. I really wondering if that is a price worth paying for, for being a man of logic, reason, and science or in this case secular science. This kind of goes along with my last thread on what would I do if things got bad for the case for Christian Theism. I know if certain unnecessary things were disproved I could always redefine my paradigm but if certain things like the resurrection and the universe having a beginning were disproved I would be forced to give it up intellectually... but at the same time, I don't know if I would give it up completely because Christianity fulfills me emotionally, Christianity fulfills my desire for meaning, Christianity fulfills the desire to be loved unconditionally, and most importantly, Christianity fulfills the desire of a future, a wonderful and thrilling future. The main thing that I would love to ask all the top atheists and atheism as a whole is, when and if Christian Theism is disproved, what will atheism replace people's deepest innermost needs with? All I've seen for the most part as of now, in the theoretical sense, once atheists accomplish such a daunting and almost impossible task of disproving Christian Theism, they will replace our innermost needs with the thing most of them claim the universe came from, nothing. And even if they come up with something whether it be things like relativism, or living for day to day pleasure, or getting the masses to dedicate themselves to the STATE as in a communist ruler of some sort, even if atheists try to do things like that, it's only a matter of time until those things wear off and fail because those things may satisfy people for a little while, but as far as giving people lasting and deep meaning, love, a future their ways and their philosophy just won't work. I wasn't so sure about this not too long ago, but now, I wonder if I had only one choice as far as how I'm going to live my life, to choose between a Christianity that is disproved and a atheism that is proven. Even if I was living in a world where atheism was proven wouldn't it be a better choice to go with the Christianity that is disproved? Because, at the very least Christianity has a great moral system, it gives people a sense of meaning and purpose and if you are living in a world where naturalism is proven to be true, since on the face value of things, with naturalism, life is meaningless, then it would be perfectly ok then, to still hold to certain views even if they are disproved and meaningless. I guess to put it bluntly Christianity with one leg (or even no legs) is better than atheism with an infinite number of legs. Let me know what you think because I may fully adopt this viewpoint, because previously I wanted to a Christian and be reasonable, logical, on the cutting edge of science and so on. But if I can't have both, like I currently think I can and hope I still will with the help of Christian apologetics, what would be the best thing to take, either a sense of peace, love, meaning and hope (and be considered "stupid") with Christianity or having a sense of being logical, reasonable, on the cutting edge of science (and feel miserable and meaningless). As torn as I would feel to either side, a big part of me wants to go with the former. Anyway, let me know what you think guys, take care and GB.

Hi Derrick
You are like me in many ways. This is kind of the conclusion I have come to. I cannot imagine a life without God and would not want to - so even if all the evidence was against him I would still hold onto that hope that he did exist. Call that stupid - I really dont care - but that is the way it is.

Luckily for us - there is an abundance of evidence.

My catch all for me when it comes down to doubts about proofs is 1) why is there anything at all rather than nothing. and 2) What made the apostles behave the way they did after their leader was supposedly killed. What made 10 of them want to willingly go to their deaths in quite grizzly and unpleasant ways spouting a belief in a risen saviour when they were in a unique situation to know absolutely whether what they knew and saw was true or not.? When I doubt - I always think back to those points.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

abc123 wrote:I do not see any proof for believing in god. So in fact I don't need to prove there is nothing there. I do not see any proof that there is something there i.e. god. I used to be a Christian and do not feel the need to disprove Christians or convert anyone. I find many of the assumptions about atheism to be funny.

Nobody's asking for a proof of God. We're simply asking a reasonable question, since from nothing nothing comes, then where did the first thing come from? If all we see around us are conditioned (dependent) realities, would it not be reasonable and responsible to conclude the existence of at least one unconditioned (independent) reality to start it all? (whether or not this independent reality is unique is another matter). You can bury your head in the sand and never think of the implications or you can attempt to answer the question and challenge your possibly faulty belief system. But make no mistake about it, it IS a belief system (a religion of sorts).

I used to be a Christian

What do you mean by that?

jlay wrote:

I used to be a Christian

What do you mean by that?

Not sure what else I could mean by that. I mean I was a Christian but after much study I do not think that God exists now. Its very freeing to know that I am responsible for my self and not some god who is in the air. I have come to value life even more because I know that this is it and there wont be another chance to enjoy the ones I love.

I know the stereotypes from both sides.
Christians say we are hurt and angry with illogical arguments, and many from the Atheist point of view think that Christians are not intelligent enough to understand the facts. When both of these stereotypes are poppycock.

Byblos wrote:

abc123 wrote:I do not see any proof for believing in god. So in fact I don't need to prove there is nothing there. I do not see any proof that there is something there i.e. god. I used to be a Christian and do not feel the need to disprove Christians or convert anyone. I find many of the assumptions about atheism to be funny.

Nobody's asking for a proof of God. We're simply asking a reasonable question, since from nothing nothing comes, then where did the first thing come from? If all we see around us are conditioned (dependent) realities, would it not be reasonable and responsible to conclude the existence of at least one unconditioned (independent) reality to start it all? (whether or not this independent reality is unique is another matter). You can bury your head in the sand and never think of the implications or you can attempt to answer the question and challenge your possibly faulty belief system. But make no mistake about it, it IS a belief system (a religion of sorts).

You are correct it is a belief system. Its what I believe. I don't believe in god. And to answer the question of from where the first thing comes from- I don't know, because I wasn't there. I do think there has to be a better answer than creationism or big bang or evolution though. I think all three of those theories have huge holes in them.