Evidence for God from Science

I have a few things that i have looked up on the main page that didn't sound right to me.
Hi, iam new here. Long post so yeah. Iam sorry if anything i say is offensive. I don't identify as christian because i don't take it seriously,it is the only religion i know so i guess it is close to my heart in a way. And note When i offer an alternative explanation such as in #3 i don't mean to say anyone is wrong,just that as far as i know i can say something i what with no proof or reasons to believe.
No need to quote the entire question, just type out the number and your response.

1. God needs no creator because he is timeless and therefore immune to cause and effect.

How do we know this? If that is the case why can there not there be an infinite regress of the universe popping in and out just as how since god is timeless and has always and always will existed?

What does that even mean? Timeless. To be unaffected by time? How would we know such a thing exists? If he is outside of time how did he ever get to creating the world? He can operate without it? What does that even look like?

2. The issue of the tree of knowledge. I found the explanation on the main site a lame excuse. I understand the whole choice thing,but responsible prevention to protect the ignorant innocent is the responsible thing to do. I guess if you want to be technical about it it is limiting choice,but why give them that choice. Would any parent seriously put something that serves no purpose that they KNOW will screw their kid over just to give them a choice? That doesn't make any sense. If you knew that your child would injure themselves from playing with a vase you think is ugly and have no reason for buying would you buy it? I wouldn't,because i don't need or ant the vase and it is only going to serve for bad things so why keep it? We wouldn't be puppets, we would be better off, he isn't controlling us, he is just not doing something he doesn't need to do.

3. Why he? Why a sentient being? Ignoring any particular religion why does it have to be a sentient being? Could It not be natural ...stuff that whatever god consists of that causes the world?

4.Why can't we be intrinsically good without lack a free will?

I hear the argument of why everything isn't all happy lala is to promote free choice... yeah, that is going really well. I don't think free choice is really worth a person's salvation, being it eternal fire pf separation. I mean isn't he the man!!! Can't everything bee all good and have free choice? Is it really free choice when we are designed naturally flawed and sinful? If anything original sin inhibits free will. Now i to follow more rules just because some people did something not that bad before i existed?

5.How can you trust him?
An eerie vibe went down my spine as i recited this though to myself.
if someone in the sky is going down his checklist and says
"natural disasters, check
disease,check
designed that guys life to die in a fire,check
all according to plan"

Now of course iam exaggerating,but what that is targeted at is how people say god works in mysterious ways and that he has a plan for everything. What is that plan and how good could it be that it involves those things to work?

Hi Sailor and welcome to the forum. Please post something about yourself in the introduction thread.

A quick response for each for now and if you wish we can take them point by point later.

sailornaruto39 wrote:1. God needs no creator because he is timeless and therefore immune to cause and effect.

How do we know this? If that is the case why can there not there be an infinite regress of the universe popping in and out just as how since god is timeless and has always and always will existed?

What does that even mean? Timeless. To be unaffected by time? How would we know such a thing exists? If he is outside of time how did he ever get to creating the world? He can operate without it? What does that even look like?

We know this (that God needs no creator) from rationality. Formal and final causation arguments (and by extension necessity and contingency) are rational and irrefutable arguments. Timeless simply means always was and always will be.

sailornaruto39 wrote:2. The issue of the tree of knowledge. I found the explanation on the main site a lame excuse. I understand the whole choice thing,but responsible prevention to protect the ignorant innocent is the responsible thing to do. I guess if you want to be technical about it it is limiting choice,but why give them that choice. Would any parent seriously put something that serves no purpose that they KNOW will screw their kid over just to give them a choice? That doesn't make any sense. If you knew that your child would injure themselves from playing with a vase you think is ugly and have no reason for buying would you buy it? I wouldn't,because i don't need or ant the vase and it is only going to serve for bad things so why keep it? We wouldn't be puppets, we would be better off, he isn't controlling us, he is just not doing something he doesn't need to do.

To use your own analogy type, if you were teaching your kid how to ride a bike would you keep holding onto the bike while he's riding it or at some point you would let go so he can ride on his own, knowing full well he might fall and hurt himself? I think the analogy speaks for itself.

sailornaruto39 wrote:3. Why he? Why a sentient being? Ignoring any particular religion why does it have to be a sentient being? Could It not be natural ...stuff that whatever god consists of that causes the world?

Please read up on actuality and potentiality (necessity and contingency).

sailornaruto39 wrote:4.Why can't we be intrinsically good without lack a free will?

I hear the argument of why everything isn't all happy lala is to promote free choice... yeah, that is going really well. I don't think free choice is really worth a person's salvation, being it eternal fire pf separation. I mean isn't he the man!!! Can't everything bee all good and have free choice? Is it really free choice when we are designed naturally flawed and sinful? If anything original sin inhibits free will. Now i to follow more rules just because some people did something not that bad before i existed?

Free will without a choice? Well that's a first. But I'd like to see you put that into a logical syllogism.

sailornaruto39 wrote:5.How can you trust him?
An eerie vibe went down my spine as i recited this though to myself.
if someone in the sky is going down his checklist and says
"natural disasters, check
disease,check
designed that guys life to die in a fire,check
all according to plan"

Now of course iam exaggerating,but what that is targeted at is how people say god works in mysterious ways and that he has a plan for everything. What is that plan and how good could it be that it involves those things to work?

In other words how could God allow natural evil and that has been answered a million times over. Please do a search.

"We know this (that God needs no creator) from rationality. Formal and final causation arguments (and by extension necessity and contingency) are rational and irrefutable arguments. Timeless simply means always was and always will be."

---What logic would that be?

"if you were teaching your kid how to ride a bike would you keep holding onto the bike while he's riding it or at some point you would let go so he can ride on his own, knowing full well he might fall and hurt himself?"
Yes, and when he falls i will help him out as many times as necessary. Besides, he WANTS to ride the bike Iam not forbidding him to ride it and then buying a children's bike when there is no need for it if iam no one is riding it. I don't see how it help to plant a useless tree that can only do bad.

"Please read up on actuality and potentiality (necessity and contingency). "
---i have, nothing that would imply sentient being.

"Free will without a choice? Well that's a first. But I'd like to see you put that into a logical syllogism."

---Iam not sure what you meant by that. So humans are intrinsically neutral when it comes to good and even and can go either way?
Well i suppose i can't. But as it is now it(free will) isn't worth much. Did god design down to the very hard wiring of our brains? If so why leave them so susceptible to do bad? Or did he role a dice and just went with it? As i said before i think i'd rather be designed good rather than flawed and then held accountable for something i can't help.

"n other words how could God allow natural evil and that has been answered a million times over. Please do a search."

---Yes it has, i was just hoping for a better answer here because everyone seems pretty smart and serious here, none of that "you burn sinner!!!" stuff.
Answers i usually run into are

-It is our fault "God allows the earth to reflect the consequences sin has had on creation." "Sin is the ultimate cause of natural disasters just as it is the cause of death, disease, and suffering."

-It is Satan's fault

-To help us learn from them

-Punishment

-oh well, he must know what he is doing

Which are all lame excuses for something that can be dealt with easily

Sailor,
Start with this article on the Home site. If you have any questions about the article, we can go from there. It should answer some of your questions.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/tree.html

RickD wrote:Sailor,
Start with this article on the Home site. If you have any questions about the article, we can go from there. It should answer some of your questions.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/tree.html

I already read that, which is why i posted in the first place.
Which is why i think the whole thing is silly, he didn't want them to know about evil yet made the tree anyway. He wants free will yet holds all of humanity accountable for the meager actions of 2 and uses a non sequitur loophole to make it look like he saved the day. And what is wrong with being naked? Back then their should have been nothing wrong. Could they have killed someone and thought nothing of it?

Again not really regarding how taking preventative measures is not infringement of will. If he never made the tree (not even if adam never made it) we would be better off.

I searched up just to double confirm it and found something understandable but doesn't excuse the suffering of the world.
Apparently it is to make love more valuable. And i actually get that and that makes total sense. You love the people you do because they would go through pain for you. But there is plenty of value in a happy world where we ll love and are healthy and know nothing but.

It essentially comes off to me rather cruel that the best way to make us enjoy love is to feel pain. Wouldn't most parent aspire to prevent as much pain as piratically possible for their kids? And considering the whole all kind thing, suffering should not cross his mind.

Sailor,

Which is why i think the whole thing is silly, he didn't want them to know about evil yet made the tree anyway.

The article says God didn't want Adam and Eve to know about evil, HOWEVER, Satan had already rebelled against God, and God knew Satan would try to tempt Eve. How Could Adam and Eve freely choose to love God, if everything was ok to do? That wouldn't be a real choice, and it wouldn't be real love, if there was no freewill involved.

He wants free will yet holds all of humanity accountable for the meager actions of 2 and uses a non sequitur loophole to make it look like he saved the day.

God holds you and I accountable for our own sin.

Again not really regarding how taking preventative measures is not infringement of will. If he never made the tree (not even if adam never made it) we would be better off

I'm not sure how we would be better off. God wants a relationship with each of us. He wants us to love him. How could Adam and Eve make that choice, if there was nothing to choose from?

I searched up just to double confirm it and found something understandable but doesn't excuse the suffering of the world.
Apparently it is to make love more valuable. And i actually get that and that makes total sense. You love the people you do because they would go through pain for you. But there is plenty of value in a happy world where we ll love and are healthy and know nothing but.

The world you're describing(happy world) is what heaven will be like. The only way you can get there is to choose to have a relationship with God, here and now in this temporary creation.

It essentially comes off to me rather cruel that the best way to make us enjoy love is to feel pain. Wouldn't most parent aspire to prevent as much pain as piratically possible for their kids? And considering the whole all kind thing, suffering should not cross his mind

You're assuming pain is always a bad thing. If I stick my hand in a fire, but God doesn't allow me to feel pain, what happens next? Also, God uses pain and suffering to draw people closer to Him. Sometimes when people get too comfortable with life, they don't need God.

"The article says God didn't want Adam and Eve to know about evil, HOWEVER, Satan had already rebelled against God, and God knew Satan would try to tempt Eve. How Could Adam and Eve freely choose to love God, if everything was ok to do? That wouldn't be a real choice, and it wouldn't be real love, if there was no freewill involved."

I don't even wanna get started on the issue of satan XD. "How Could Adam and Eve freely choose to love God, if everything was ok to do?"

Everything not being free to do shows exactly how we don't really have free will. And how could they choose to love god? The same way you can choose to eat hot dog or burger and. When did i mention everything being ok to do?

"god holds you and I accountable for our own sin."
not original sin? If so what did jesus die for?

"The world you're describing(happy world) is what heaven will be like. The only way you can get there is to choose to have a relationship with God, here and now in this temporary creation."

That is what i was thinking, so why not just have heaven for all, sounds better to me.

"You're assuming pain is always a bad thing. If I stick my hand in a fire, but God doesn't allow me to feel pain, what happens next? Also, God uses pain and suffering to draw people closer to Him. Sometimes when people get too comfortable with life, they don't need God."

I see, your right i guess i did over generalize pain,but that isn't the pain iam talking about, the ones that are mostly out of your control. In where you most likely will learn nothing from.

And @ the latter, no offense,but that is rather petty. To have us forcibly rely on him, where is the free will in that?

This is the kind of thread that frustrates me. Why? Because more and more people clearly have no understandings of the basics, and working backwards often makes the issue far more confusing to the person asking the question than if you were starting with a clean slate (or if they had simply been taught properly the first time). This happens a lot with atheists, and often Christians who have become atheists due to enormous holes in understanding.

Firstly, thanks for asking the questions you have, Sailor.
Secondly, your comments are loaded with way too many presuppositions, many of which would take a lot of time to unfold. In short, your comments show a lack of understanding of a) God's nature and b) His intentions. I know they are only 2 things, but trust me, they are very detailed and take time to absorb. I'm not saying you can't do that, but you have to start somewhere before jumping to all of your conclusions. Many people do this, so it's not as though you purposefully meant to do it, but it is a flaw that needs rolling out before you move onto the other topics which rely on them.

One of the comments I will address is this one:

"To have us forcibly rely on him, where is the free will in that?"

This comment implies that there is something inherently wrong with reliance. Children rely on their parents for survival because they do not know better; they need protection; they need guidance; they need food, etc. But is that wrong of them? No, of course it isn't. How about a pregnant woman who must rely on her husband to do even some minor things for her when she cannot? Reliance is not an inherently bad thing.
We need things from God, too. Relying on Him doesn't mean we are somehow weak minded or weak willed. In fact, it's the complete opposite. Having faith that He will take care of our needs (spiritual, temporal, whatever you want to think) is a very strong motion on our part.
Also, there is no forcing from God to rely on Him. The last thing Jesus wants is to force his way into our heart. You know the saying "you can't make someone love you"? He is no different. He will continue to show us how wonderful it would be to do so, but He won't demand it. No one wants to be adored falsely, especially God. He does not make us follow Him or love Him. He requests it and has shown us why it would be good for us to do so.

1. God needs no creator because he is timeless and therefore immune to cause and effect.

How do we know this? If that is the case why can there not there be an infinite regress of the universe popping in and out just as how since god is timeless and has always and always will existed?

What does that even mean? Timeless. To be unaffected by time? How would we know such a thing exists? If he is outside of time how did he ever get to creating the world? He can operate without it? What does that even look like?

What is time? I think you can look into a couple of good books to understand the model of time by science. Hawking's "A brief history of time" can be a good start.
Now I think this is an honest oversight on your part, let us for the moment look into science and see what is the model of time.



The diagram above is from “A Brief History of Time” Chapter: “Space and time” pages 14 to 19.

Essentially, you are looking at light cones, light travelling from the past and future. Now light is the only source to see in the past or the future and as nothing travels faster than light than it is safe to assume that we can see events happening in the past only when the light energy radiated from them reaches us. This is how we get time and how time is mapped on a cosmological scale. It also implies events that may as well occur outside of the cone of past and present and even beyond the reach of light since light tends to fade the farther it goes from its source. so if an event is to occur outside the cone or beyond the cone of time than we could not see it as the light emitting from it never reached us.

And the above is precisely the explanation that is given for the origination of matter. As Hawking describes, since the origin of time happened before we could actually trace it in time, it is impossible to calculate. And therefore the origin of matter can not be calculated either. And since science does not believe in a God, they simply assume, matter always existed. please note, ALWAYS, ETERNITY, INFINITE. No proof, they say it can not be traced.

Also note, nothing can come out of nothing. Matter can only form matter, something can not come out of nothing. There is no such thing as "nothing" in the cosmological scale. So matter that we see today has to be a residue of pre-existing matter. Which in-turn would be the result of pre-existing matter. There is no end, hence we are in infinite regression. But at some point matter must have formed. It simply can not exist with out cause...are you with me?

I mean if matter can exist in eternity, why not God? no one has proof. no one has seen the birth of time or matter or God. yet both parties believe their respective theories nonetheless. No physicist on Earth can answer you on how matter first originated. They would tell you it always existed.

My question to you is,
How would you justify this? since this is the very base theory you have an objection on. There are indeed entities in the universe whose origins can not be traced. They are outside the cones of light, impossible to trace. How does matter get a free pass into it and not God. Care to explain?

I would respond to your points one by one. But first I would like to see your response to this.

Sailor,
To understand the deeper questions, one needs to come to an understanding of the basics, first. Hopefully I can properly convey what I mean.

Everything not being free to do shows exactly how we don't really have free will. And how could they choose to love god? The same way you can choose to eat hot dog or burger and. When did i mention everything being ok to do?

When I talk about "free will", I mean freedom to choose between right and wrong. Not absolute freedom to do even impossible things. God gave a command not to eat of a certain tree. The freewill comes in when Adam and Eve decided to go against God, because they thought they knew better than God. You didn't mention everything being ok to do. I did, to try to show you what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

"god holds you and I accountable for our own sin."
not original sin? If so what did jesus die for?

He died for the sins of the whole world. 1John 2:2. That whoever believes on Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16.

That is what i was thinking, so why not just have heaven for all, sounds better to me.

Again, Here's where we need to understand the basics of free will. God desires our love. In order for it to be love, we need to choose to love God. If everyone entered heaven, there would be people there who denied the God of heaven. This temporary life gives us a chance to choose an eternal relationship with God, or deny God on His terms.

I see, your right i guess i did over generalize pain,but that isn't the pain iam talking about, the ones that are mostly out of your control. In where you most likely will learn nothing from

Romans 8:28 says that all things work together...That means everything that happens to a child of God, God uses for good. Even the painful things. We sometimes think of pain in a sense of our temporary world. Remember, God has the eternal picture in mind.

And @ the latter, no offense,but that is rather petty. To have us forcibly rely on him, where is the free will in that?

God is not forcing anyone to rely on Him, Sailor. We need to realize that we aren't good enough on our own to make it to heaven. Otherwise, the crucifixion of Christ is meaningless. Don't you think, if there was any other way that we could be at peace with God, that God would have sent His only begotten Son to die? God cannot look upon sin. Jesus died in our place. He took all our sin(past, present,and future sin)upon himself. 2Corinthians 5:21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The issue of the tree of knowledge. I found the explanation on the main site a lame excuse. I understand the whole choice thing,but responsible prevention to protect the ignorant innocent is the responsible thing to do. I guess if you want to be technical about it it is limiting choice,but why give them that choice. Would any parent seriously put something that serves no purpose that they KNOW will screw their kid over just to give them a choice? That doesn't make any sense. If you knew that your child would injure themselves from playing with a vase you think is ugly and have no reason for buying would you buy it? I wouldn't,because i don't need or ant the vase and it is only going to serve for bad things so why keep it? We wouldn't be puppets, we would be better off, he isn't controlling us, he is just not doing something he doesn't need to do.

Why is it that when we disagree with or question God we first assume that it is his reasoning that is screwed up?
At some point we must understand that the creator is not bound by comforming to our reasoning or satisfying our selfish desire for explanations. Your post indicates that your first assumption is that God is just screwing us over. Yet it neglects so many aspects of how His nature and character are revealed. Comparing the tree of G&E to an ugly vase just really fails to get any reasonable discussion off the ground. There is no question that the tree serves an essential purpose in the whole of God's redemptive plan whether we understand it or not.

sailornaruto39 wrote:"Free will without a choice? Well that's a first. But I'd like to see you put that into a logical syllogism."

---Iam not sure what you meant by that. So humans are intrinsically neutral when it comes to good and even and can go either way?
Well i suppose i can't. But as it is now it(free will) isn't worth much. Did god design down to the very hard wiring of our brains? If so why leave them so susceptible to do bad? Or did he role a dice and just went with it? As i said before i think i'd rather be designed good rather than flawed and then held accountable for something i can't help.

Man's mind became corrupted at the fall. To deny free choice is odd. You appear to want to absolve yourself of bad behaviour.

Of course, the very meaning of choice involves causal determination. Can you demonstrate that choices being causally determined are not true choices? A choice itself entails being free. How does the free transform the choice? Choice and free choice are one and the same.

gotta give sail kudos for not doing that stupid post and run things that half the people do on here.

At least he makes valid arguments and then debates them.....

SOrry i didn't know so many posts had came. And sorry i don't know how to use the forums quote thingie.
@monica:
"Because more and more people clearly have no understandings of the basics"
which is why i asked

"a) God's nature and b) His intentions."
and you know these?

"This comment implies that there is something inherently wrong with reliance."
no not really. But if you can help it promoting independence is a good thing

"Children rely on their parents for survival because they do not know better; they need protection; they need guidance; they need food, etc. But is that wrong of them?"

nope,because they are being taught to not be so dependent

" Relying on Him doesn't mean we are somehow weak minded or weak willed."
i know,it isn't our fault, iam just saying, the world could have been designed better adapt no? parents can only help you with so much.

"Also, there is no forcing from God to rely on Him."

If that is the case,then iam coo. But what about all the things people say such as "believe or burn" not that iam saying anyone hear is doing that.

@neo: what you brought up is interesting,but it sounds more like a moot, nothing that really says anything about god having to exist. From what i understand if he does exist it would be in that "elsewhere" correct?

"My question to you is,"
You sort have answered it yourself. it can go both ways. Either god was always here or matter(or stuff) was always here.

@rick:
" God gave a command not to eat of a certain tree."
yeah,but why put it there, the lack there of the tree would not mess with free will.

"He died for the sins of the whole world."
but how is that holding us accountable?(ignoring the flaws of how it works)

"there would be people there who denied the God of heaven"
but that begs the question of how the inner workings of choice are made. Are they made randomly or fine tuned

@jilay:
"Why is it that when we disagree with or question God we first assume that it is his reasoning that is screwed up? "
because you would think that someone that can apparently do anything could have made everything perfect to where that wouldn't happen and satisfy everything he wants.
Essentially what you are saying "dude he is god we can't understand him,the tree must have had some purpose"
i have no use for answers like that, because i feel that they argumentative give-ups

NONE THE LESS, i thank everyone for answering, if you can keep it coming, i know i can be dim witted and rather stubborn so bare with it.
I was rather intimidated to go on here at first,but i see iam dealing with a great community.


I have been noticing it alot more ever since (rick?) said it,(implied) suffering brings people together.
I saw on animal phobias, the people who had never met were getting along due to a trial they had in common. And the movie Joy ride, to female friends seemed close than ever after one was saved from the bad guy. But could not we be all just live happily ever after? Iam sure if we were all sure of god and that he was truly kind we would all love him/her/them/it.

But i think to myself could we all not be at perfect peace if god not willed it? And then i think of what you all say that it would infringe on our choice.But then that leads me to wonder, how does god manage the system of choice. Did he roll dice and say "ok this person is going to be more susceptible to atheism". To an extent we can't control what makes sense to us. The only way that he can't infringe on free will at all is to roll the dice(the way i see it). Anything else would be direct tampering.

sailornaruto39 wrote: " Relying on Him doesn't mean we are somehow weak minded or weak willed."
i know,it isn't our fault, iam just saying, the world could have been designed better adapt no? parents can only help you with so much.

Say again?

sailornaruto39 wrote: "Also, there is no forcing from God to rely on Him."

If that is the case,then iam coo. But what about all the things people say such as "believe or burn" not that iam saying anyone hear is doing that.

sailornaruto39 wrote: @rick:
" God gave a command not to eat of a certain tree."
yeah,but why put it there, the lack there of the tree would not mess with free will.

How would it not mess with free will if there wasn't an option to do it? If there wasn't and would never be a tree, then there would be no reason to warn against it. If there was no tree, there would be no option to eat of it no matter how badly you wanted to. That's not free will because the option to disobey simply isn't there.

sailornaruto39 wrote: "He died for the sins of the whole world."
but how is that holding us accountable?(ignoring the flaws of how it works)

The same way that people who have set themselves on fire are held accountable for their choice of not jumping into the river for relief. The river is there and you will be held accountable for your choice of not jumping in by burning to death. One of the main problems here is that many people aren't willing to admit that they're on fire.

"I don't need that river. I'm not on fire."
"Look at the way those people in the river are behaving! I would never act so silly!"
"Nobody needs that river because there's no such thing as fire! Ouch! That's not fire, I'm just a victim of brainwashing from constant input by a fire-believing world!"