Evidence for God from Science

recently I was pinned down in presenting the Personal God hypothesesis when I was charged that the idea was narcissistic in nature.

His contention
1. God loves answers our prayers and works for the faithful puts ourselves on our high horses. What makes us in this huge universe think we are more important than a rock or a fish. What gives us the right to think that there is human transcendence of soul(our existence in spirit) beyond physical existence? It makes more sense to see that all that exists is connected(Spinoza idea that nature is God in a way).

2. One area where science really does undermine religious belief — belief in a personal God clearly reflects our kind of natural narcissism and our tendency to project our own values onto the
world. The idea that we are made in the image of God scientifically should be the other way around.

3. It is improbable that the happening of the universe had us in mind. Evolution tells us that our complex Neuroscience is a result of neccesary adaption which undermines the idea that it has any intrinsic significance over any other adaption that animals have. It is not amazing that we are able to observe a scientifically beautiful world since the concept is neccesary for us to evolve to be able observe it in the first place. It is more likely to be pure accident-- it is foolish to think otherwise on grand delusions.

I could not find an answer for this except for number 3 where I stated the fined tuning argument indicates a intention for complex life. But he shot it down saying that it is equally possible for there to be a multiuniverse and we just happen to get it right. If it was not right then we would not be here to observe it so the only observable universe is the one that allows complex life.

I need your guys help for my understanding and my argument. If you have a problem with the way one is worded (These statments assumes this and that and that is faulty since it leads to this and that) you can post but I am presenting it as a hypothesis(not scientific though) and I cannot adequately reason a hypothesis by saying all the alternatives are bad since really we cannot say we know what all the alternatives are. Maybe that is too ambitious though I do not know.

Your help will be appreciated.

wrain62 wrote:1. What makes us in this huge universe think we are more important than a rock or a fish. What gives us the right to think that there is human transcendence of soul(our existence in spirit) beyond physical existence? It makes more sense to see that all that exists is connected.

When the son of God is crucified for the sake of a rock or fish I'll give up on my self centerdness.

The cosmological argument/arguments against infinite casuality in a naturalistic universe do a VERY good job of showing that "more sense to see that all that exists is connected" is extremely untrue. Your friend here actually contradicts himself, as he talks of a multiverse later which is by definition outside of our universe and godlike in nature.

wrain62 wrote:2. One area where science really does undermine religious belief — belief in a personal God clearly reflects our kind of natural narcissism and our tendency to project our own values onto the world. The idea that we are made in the image of God scientifically should be the other way around.

If we are made in the image of God, it naturally follows that we have a belief in God. You can claim it is the other way around all you want, but you cannot prove it. This person is asserting many things, but nothing you've said shows me he/she has done anything to back them up.

wrain62 wrote: 3. It is improbable that the happening of the universe had us in mind.

If you start with atheism as a premise, this is of course your conclusion.

wrain62 wrote: Evolution tells us that our complex Neuroscience is a result of neccesary adaption which undermines the idea that it has any intrinsic significance over any other adaption that animals have. It is not amazing that we are able to observe a scientifically beautiful world since the concept is neccesary for us to evolve to be able observe it in the first place. It is more likely to be pure accident-- it is foolish to think otherwise on grand delusions.

See above

wrain62 wrote: multiuniverse

I don't have the faith to believe in a multiverse. There's a reason it's a recent invention, atheists want something to replace God with. Ask this person for proof of a multiverse, and you will only get mathematical equations that assume what they prove and try to make it fit. God is a much more likely alternative.

wrain62 wrote:recently I was pinned down in presenting the Personal God hypothesesis when I was charged that the idea was narcissistic in nature.

An investigation of the Biblical claims might be helpful:

The Ten Commandments
The Two Great Commandments
Jesus washing the feet of the disciples (servant-leadership)

As I understand it, narcissism is a form of lawlessness in many ways - both practical and Biblical. A narcissist is by definition above-the-rules, though such an individual may choose to follow them for some purpose of expediency. A narcissist is also above all others.

The testimony of scripture as to whether or not a true narcissist can live with an authentic faith seems clear. God is, is absolutely authoritative, and the authority is solely His (thank God!). Not one mortal individual can lay claim to a single article of boastfulness on account of his or her deeds. Furthermore, the Bible points to the inward condition of the heart and mind as being an equivalent ground for sin as are the outward actions of the individual; this is perhaps the most dangerous zone for any narcissist who is otherwise capable of exercising restraint on their own body.

The person with whom you are debating posits that the believer in a personal God withholds for their self a level of universal authority consistent with narcissism. On a case-by-case basis, this may be true as far as it goes. However, it is a strange thing that a narcissist would generate or perpetuate a belief that is otherwise contrary to their natural tendencies; thus making them unable to fulfill the critical attributes of true belief. So, saying that it is narcissistic to submit ones' self to the belief that they are naturally flawed and fundamentally ineffective at approaching an authority to which they may claim no possible contribution sounds rather like a perfect contradiction to me.

I find the scientists and "rationalists" much more likely to be narcissists. Science and reason are wildly claimed to support an infinite number of personal assumptions and assertions -- and are further politicized and weaponized to exercise power over others. Scientific and rational authority, insofar as they exist in the mind, are co-opted for the sake of personal authority. Personal authority also goes hand-in-hand with personal morality.

In the world that rejects God, the most acceptable proof of free will is the exercise of decisions that are the most lawless. In the world that embraces God, the most effective use of free will is the exercise of decisions that are the most submissive to God.

- Nathan