Evidence for God from Science

Here is some of the evidence for the existence of God:

1. The creation points to a creator.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)


The steady state theory of the universe, the idea that the universe has always existed has been disproven scientifically. We know that the universe is expanding and gradually losing its total amount of usable energy. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html This points to a beginning. If the universe has always been here it would have run out of usable energy by now and stopped expanding. (If you had a flashlight with batteries that has always existed then it would have run out of juice by now). Time and space both came into existence when the universe began to exist. Therefore the cause of the universe had to be beyond time, beyond space, and beyond the material realm. The cause of the universe had to be a personal entity because impersonal forces cannot choose to bring time and space into existence. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-c ... e-universe Since God is beyond time, he had no beginning. Since God is beyond space, he did not come from anywhere. http://www.everystudent.com/wires/universe.html An expanding universe is consist with the Scriptures saying that the Lord stretches the heavens. (Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22, and Psalm 104:2)

The chances of the universe coming into existence on its own is so small that atheist scientists have come with ideas like an osciliating universe, the multi-verse theory, etc. Each of which would still require a creator. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-ulti ... e-universe *Because the Hebrew word for day (yom) in Genesis 1 can be translated as both a time period and a 24-day, I will save the question of the age of the universe for another day.*


2. The existence of life itself.

In biology textbooks, it is theorized life emerged from random combinations of chemicals in a primordial soup. http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_Evo ... _life.html
The likelihood of that occuring is so low that many atheists/agnostics like Francis Crick (co-discover of DNA in 1953) believed that the best explanation of life on Earth was panspermia (life came from an alien planet). http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origins/o ... emembered/ http://www.panspermia-theory.com/directed-panspermia/
In fact Francis Crick theorized that it was directed panspermia, an alien civilization purposely sent biological life to other planets. So Francis Crick is an intelligent design theorist but a godless one. However directed panspermia only moves the goalpost back (how did life emerge on that alien planet). The Urey experiments that supposedly showed amino acids could naturally come together have been discredited. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... -life.html
The complexity of life points to a designer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v_SQJFPItg (Frank Turek video) http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm


3. The existence of objective morality.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (Romans 2:14)

Without God, morality is just subjective, it would just one person's opinion versus another. There is no true "evil" under subjective morality because your concept of evil would be different than Hitler's concept of evil. How could you compare the two concepts? Objective morality means that morality exists as a meta-physical concept ,that is to say that particular actions or ideas are right and wrong regardless of human opinion (if 90% of a population believe that it is moral to kill everyone over the age of 50 that does not make it moral). Objective morality means that there is a moral code of which we can measure morality that is beyond the human brain. People from all civilizations, with or without the Bible, know that the moral code exists. The Moral Law points to a Moral Law giver. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOJeseNJneg The great writer C.S. Lewis points out that the moral code is not always the standard which we follow but it is the standard that we want others to follow when treating us. http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.co ... CqMaPldWJk When we mistreat others, we want mercy. When someone mistreats us, we want justice. Here is a quick test to see if someone is a moral relativist, if they deny objective morality take their wallet and see their reaction. In their book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist ,Frank Turek and Norm Geisler lay out the following situation:

" A professor, who was teaching a class in ethics at a university, assigned a term paper to his students. He allowed the students to write on any topic of their choice, only requiring them to properly back up their thesis with documented sources. One student, a relativist, wrote convincingly on the merits of moral relativism. He argued, 'All morals are relative, it's all a matter of opinion; I like chocolate, you like vanilla," etc. His paper was well written, properly documented, the right length, on time, and stylishly presented in a handsome blue folder. The professor read the entire paper and then wrote on the front cover, 'F. I don't like blue folders!'
"When the student got the paper back he was enraged. He stormed into the professor's office and declared, ''F. I don't like blue folders!' That's not fair, that's not right, that's not just! You didn't grade the paper on its merits!'
"Raising his hand to quiet the bombastic student, the professor calmly retorted. 'Wait a minute. Hold on. What's this you say about being fair, right, and just? Didn't your paper argue that it's all a matter of taste? You like chocolate, I like vanilla?'
"The student replied, 'Yes, that's my view.'
"The professor responded, 'Fine, then. I don't like blue. You get an F!'
"Suddenly the light bulb went on in the student's head as he finally got the message. He really did believe in moral absolutes: at least he believed in fairness, rightness, and justice. He realized that he was charging his professor with injustice by appealing to an objective standard of justice. That simple fact defeated his entire case for relativism." (Chapter 7: Mother Theresa Versus Hitler)

4. God is a loving, personal God who will reach out to those who genuinely seek him.

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: (Acts 17:26-27)

I knew that God existed because I saw the evidence for God in his creation and knew that objective morality existed however my image of God was that of an impersonal deity who created the universe and sat back. However I became a Christian when I was 18 after I encountered the Holy Spirit when I was praying. "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44) I know that no amount of evidence can draw someone to God, only the Spirit can. If the Spirit is drawing you, feel free to contact me by private message.
http://www.cru.org/how-to-know-god/woul ... nally.html
http://christiananswers.net/godstory/jesus1.html

christianwarrior wrote:3. The existence of objective morality.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (Romans 2:14)

Without God, morality is just subjective, it would just one person's opinion versus another. There is no true "evil" under subjective morality because your concept of evil would be different than Hitler's concept of evil. How could you compare the two concepts? Objective morality means that morality exists as a meta-physical concept ,that is to say that particular actions or ideas are right and wrong regardless of human opinion (if 90% of a population believe that it is moral to kill everyone over the age of 50 that does not make it moral). Objective morality means that there is a moral code of which we can measure morality that is beyond the human brain. People from all civilizations, with or without the Bible, know that the moral code exists. The Moral Law points to a Moral Law giver. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOJeseNJneg The great writer C.S. Lewis points out that the moral code is not always the standard which we follow but it is the standard that we want others to follow when treating us. http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.co ... CqMaPldWJk When we mistreat others, we want mercy. When someone mistreats us, we want justice. Here is a quick test to see if someone is a moral relativist, if they deny objective morality take their wallet and see their reaction. In their book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist ,Frank Turek and Norm Geisler lay out the following situation:

I can understand a theist perceiving morality as objective; he will probably see his God as the moral dictator and proclaim whatever God says is! But what about the guy who does not see this God as the moral dictator? You will have a situation where one person will claim “God is right” and the other person argues; No I am right! and neither of them can prove the other wrong because right and wrong can’t be demonstrated.

It seems to me proclaiming God as the moral law giver only works for those who already perceives him that way. To everyone else that claim will have no more merit than to proclaim me, you, or anybody else as the moral law giver.
Your thoughts?

Ken

If morality is subjective then yes neither person would a greater claim to morality than God. http://www.bethinking.org/morality/can- ... ithout-god
Yes, if you do not believe that God is a moral agent and you believe that there is subjective morality than you would not proclaim God as the moral law giver. Yes, the moral argument only works if you accept objective morality. If we are just evolved beings who were not created by a divine being then morality is purely subjective. That would mean that morality is purely what our brains perceive. However if morality is objective then there must be an standard of which morality can be measured. Anyways I hope that you continue to explore this website and seek out the truth.

christianwarrior wrote:If morality is subjective then yes neither person would a greater claim to morality than God. http://www.bethinking.org/morality/can- ... ithout-god
Yes, if you do not believe that God is a moral agent and you believe that there is subjective morality than you would not proclaim God as the moral law giver. Yes, the moral argument only works if you accept objective morality. If we are just evolved beings who were not created by a divine being then morality is purely subjective. That would mean that morality is purely what our brains perceive. However if morality is objective then there must be an standard of which morality can be measured. Anyways I hope that you continue to explore this website and seek out the truth.

Thank-you; and I agree!

Ken

The creation points to a creator.

I couldn't agree more. However, what stops me from settling in an opinion about the so-called creator is that there's not that much evidence towards that creator being an intelligent one. Most atheists I know claim that the universe has blindly created and the thing is...their arguments are, for the most part, pretty logical. So I keep wobbling between theism and atheism...

He realized that he was charging his professor with injustice by appealing to an objective standard of justice. That simple fact defeated his entire case for relativism.

Nice story, but it proves nothing aside from the fact that human being are contradictory. And that's not exactly something new. Some atheists I know claim that the human being is just pathetic because of stories like this one. Stories which show that the human being isn't even intelligent enough to live according to its own convictions. Example: I am utterly convinced that the table on my living room isn't alive, but I still get angry at it when I collide with it, as I feel it's its fault. For one second, that is... I sure feel pathetic.

Most atheists I know claim that the universe has blindly created and the thing is...their arguments are, for the most part, pretty logical. So I keep wobbling between theism and atheism...

And the universe also created physics laws to create itself?

And the universe also created physics laws to create itself?

No, the atheists I'm talking about are more intelligent than...than that! From their point of view, the universe isn't the supreme force, since it had a beginning. They claim that a supreme force - it has no name, but you can call it X, to make things easier - created both our universe and the laws of physics which operate inside our universe.

MBPrata wrote:

And the universe also created physics laws to create itself?

No, the atheists I'm talking about are more intelligent than...than that! From their point of view, the universe isn't the supreme force, since it had a beginning. They claim that a supreme force - it has no name, but you can call it X, to make things easier - created both our universe and the laws of physics which operate inside our universe.

"But you can call it X"?

A supreme force which created the universe and the laws of physics...

You just described God. I hope you see the irony in what you said.

RickD wrote:

MBPrata wrote:

And the universe also created physics laws to create itself?

No, the atheists I'm talking about are more intelligent than...than that! From their point of view, the universe isn't the supreme force, since it had a beginning. They claim that a supreme force - it has no name, but you can call it X, to make things easier - created both our universe and the laws of physics which operate inside our universe.

"But you can call it X"?

A supreme force which created the universe and the laws of physics...

You just described God. I hope you see the irony in what you said.

I believe the difference between "X" and God (from what atheists have told him) is that X is not intelligent.

Ken

I believe the difference between "X" and God (from what atheists have told him) is that X is not intelligent.

Precisely, Ken. Also, I used the expression "blindly created" up there. There's not that much irony, in my opinion. And even if there was, irony isn't that much of a deal; it's something almost unavoidable when debating a complex matter.

MBPrata wrote:

I believe the difference between "X" and God (from what atheists have told him) is that X is not intelligent.

Precisely, Ken. Also, I used the expression "blindly created" up there. There's not that much irony, in my opinion. And even if there was, irony isn't that much of a deal; it's something almost unavoidable when debating a complex matter.

Let's see...an unintelligent being who created the universe and the laws of physics...that would be like saying an unintelligent person created the most complicated computer. Maybe an unintelligent person just randomly created the most complicated computer?

And you don't see how ridiculous that sounds?

Atheist: I don't believe in God. But I do believe in a being who preexisted this universe, who created the universe and all its laws.

Bewildered theist: But you just described God!

Atheist: No, that's not God, I prefer to call it X.

Theist: alrighty then!


If you guys actually believe that an unintelligent being created a universe, with its laws that allow the universe to function , then you simply refuse to acknowledge what's right in front of you.

Let's see...an unintelligent being who created the universe and the laws of physics...that would be like saying an unintelligent person created the most complicated computer. Maybe an unintelligent person just randomly created the most complicated computer?

You seem to be able to think outside of the box (since you said "complicated", not "intelligent" computer). That's good.

So, keeping ourselves in thoughts outside of the box, I would say: is it really that complicated? Isn't everything that happens in the universe just a consequence of those "constant" laws (gravity, electromagnetics and nuclear forces)? 4 or 5 laws in effect doesn't seem that complicated, if you ask me...

By the way, I'm not being rethorical; I'm actually asking, because I never understood christian's views on this...is it really that complicated?

I am not sure there exists any "evidence" for the existence of God as a human-like person. But I am okay with it. I think the lack of evidence for God's existence just means we have to strengthen our faith in other ways.

Evidence to me is something factual like the sky is blue. Here is an apple. Attributing any of our life experiences as proof of the existence of God is a subjective judgement because our conclusions may not be equally shared by everyone. But again, not having evidence for the existence of God should not degrade our faith.

The strange thing about nature is that it follows mathematical rules pretty consistently. Processes that drive life follow the same mathematical rules found in nature. Life is like a ball rolling down a hill that loops around back on itself. It follows mathematical rules but with a feedback loop. As life lives it cycles from the end back to the beginning in a repeating process we call living. But it does so according to mathematical rules dictated by nature.

So I am not sure life by itself could be considered evidence for the existence of God. Although life is very strange, complicated, and fills us with a sense of awe, the feeling of awe by itself is not evidence for the existence of God. Evidence would be like holding an apple in your hand and saying I have an apple. Evidence would be like the sky is blue because everyone agrees that the color of the sky is blue. But again, not having mundane evidence means nothing with regards to our faith. Our faith comes from within and does not require evidence. Faith does not require any evidence to be justified. And searching for evidence of this kind is an indication that we need to strengthen faith. Although, in very strange way, we are the Universe's way of experiencing itself.

We do not have to claim that morality is "objective" to value the importance of being moral. We do not have to prove the existence of God to know the importance of living a moral life. But God is often used as a symbol representing the idea that valuing morality is important. The message of the Bible is very simple and very clear. And that message is being a moral and good person is important. What is absolute is that being moral is important.

What it means to live a moral life changes over time. And in some cases it may not be so clear what is moral and what is not moral based on the context. I think it is important to have a little humility around judging what is good and what is evil. But again, the important thing we should hold on to is the idea that living a moral life is important. There may be times when a person of God is struggling to determine what is morally good. There are many every day issues
that require a strong sense of morality that are not mentioned in the Bible. Abortion for example is not directly mentioned in the Bible but requires a strong sense of morality. While at the same time there are statements in the Bible that seem strange by today's standards and should not be taken out of the historical context in which the Bible was written. For example, touching pig skin was considered immoral at the time the Bible was written. Yet today, playing with a football hardly seems immoral.

Leviticus 11:7-8 "And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."

At the time this was written, people did not understand the nature of disease and associated pigs with disease. Again, we can't let the historal context in which the Bible was written deter from the fundemental message that having morality and being a good person is important. Having some level of moral relativism is somewhat impossible to avoid. Saying what it means to be moral as an absolute is just not practical in today's rapidly changing world. Again, however, what is absolute in terms of morality is the idea of having morality and being good is important.

Most people have no problem with a loving personel God. As many of us know the Kingdom of God comes with within:

Luke 17:20 "Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

Although the Bible tells us to spread the Gospel and evangelize, it just seems to me our best way to change the world and leading people out of the darkness is by example. The best way to be to get other people to value a spiritual life is by showing the people around you your willingness to treat people who are our enemies, infidels, and morally bad as sacred, holy, and deserving of our forgiveness. What better way to treat a murderer who has proven to have no value for other people's existence than to show they themselves are valued? And then in that experience of being valued, then the murderer might have a revelation about their own immorality.

Having faith in an omnipotent being is easy, how can you ever lose or be disappointed in omnipotence? But having faith in the people around you requires a stronger deeper sense of faith. Having faith in people around you with all their imperfections and our disappointments requires us to make a stronger leap of faith along with a willingness to forgive.

God and faith are very different concepts. Faith is a sense of spirituality and morality. I think God exists but not in the way most people think. God is not out there outside of us. God exists within each of us. I think first and foremost God is just a word. Where does God exist if God is just a word? God exists in our language. God exists in our written and spoken words. There is no question the word God exists. And there is no question that the word of God, or about God, exists. And there's no question that based on the word of God people live a spiritual and moral life. But not having evidence for the existence of God in the same way we experience eating an apple does not mean our faith in God should be lessened one iota. The Japanse have a funny saying, "The first person to raise their voice in an argument loses." I think when it comes to God and faith, the harder we try to convince other people of God existence by using words it weakens our core message that being a moral and good person is important.

MBPrata wrote:

And the universe also created physics laws to create itself?

No, the atheists I'm talking about are more intelligent than...than that! From their point of view, the universe isn't the supreme force, since it had a beginning. They claim that a supreme force - it has no name, but you can call it X, to make things easier - created both our universe and the laws of physics which operate inside our universe.

And that X was always here with its laws/ways to create universe?
Isn't this faith?

Am curious, as always.

And that X was always here with its laws/ways to create universe?

Probably, since it is the supreme force.

Isn't this faith?

I don't know what's your exact concept of "faith", but I'd say...maybe. The problem: this "faith" won't save anyone, because if the supreme force is blind and/or has no intelligence, it doesn't even know we're here, so it won't do anything for us.