Evidence for God from Science

God punished Adam for sinning, though God created Adam and his tendancy to turn to sin in the situation that he was in.

This is like throwing a ball really hard at a window and then blaiming the ball for braking the glass and then punishing the ball.

This does not sound like God being at all fair. Or does it to you?

Or was this story just symbollic, then again God has created everyone who does evil nowadays with the tendancy to do evil, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Give me you opinions.

Essedarius wrote:God punished Adam for sinning, though God created Adam and his tendancy to turn to sin in the situation that he was in.

This is like throwing a ball really hard at a window and then blaiming the ball for braking the glass and then punishing the ball.

This does not sound like God being at all fair. Or does it to you?

Or was this story just symbollic, then again God has created everyone who does evil nowadays with the tendancy to do evil, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Give me you opinions.

This isn't like throwing a ball at a window really hard. Can a ball decide not to hit the window? Not really.

God created Adam as a <i>person</i> not a robot, if God denied Adam the right to free will, He wouldn't have accomplished His original goal.

Besides, God told Adam not to eat from the tree at the center of the garden. Was eating the fruit the sin or was disobeying God the sin? Obviously it was the disobedience. Adam had the choice between listening to God or listening to his wife (and indirectly through her, the serpent). It's his fault he sinned, but God promised him salvation anyways (He prophecied the coming of Christ).

What wouldn't be fair is forcing Adam not to sin.

lets talk biological then....

God created Adams brain, and God gave Adam the background influence that changed Adams personality accordingly. God gave Adam, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING he had, including what choices Adam would make.

Nothing came out of Adam independantly, because if something did, God would have given him the influence so that Adam could reach that not so "independance".

We are all able to be compared to a ball being thrown hard at a window. If God has made us to sin, (thrown us at the window hard) we sin (we brake the window), and is he has made us to be good, we are good.

Essedarius wrote:lets talk biological then....

God created Adams brain, and God gave Adam the background influence that changed Adams personality accordingly. God gave Adam, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING he had, including what choices Adam would make.

Nothing came out of Adam independantly, because if something did, God would have given him the influence so that Adam could reach that not so "independance".

We are all able to be compared to a ball being thrown hard at a window. If God has made us to sin, (thrown us at the window hard) we sin (we brake the window), and is he has made us to be good, we are good.

Your main fault is that you assume God predestined Adam to sin. He did not. God does not practice predestination, that is the opposite of free will. Adam was presented with two choices, one from God, and one from Eve (who received it from the serpent). God did everything He could without limiting Adam's free will to keep him from sin, but Adam didn't listen.

I dont know what more i can say to explain my opinion on why God chose absolutely everything about Adam, and hence plotted out when he sinned.

Ok, what affects a persons life and the choices they make?

Their genetics and the background affects they were brought up in (which both they cannot help).

There is no sense of "individuality", "independance" "free will", because them two determinants, determine everything about that person and they cannot chose that.

Through this you coud say that no1 is really responsible for anything they have ever done, and why should that not be a correct statement?

Essedarius wrote:Ok, what affects a persons life and the choices they make?

Their genetics and the background affects they were brought up in (which both they cannot help).

There is no sense of "individuality", "independance" "free will", because them two determinants, determine everything about that person and they cannot chose that.

Through this you coud say that no1 is really responsible for anything they have ever done, and why should that not be a correct statement?

Because your view implies "physicalism", the philosophy that matter and energy are all that make up humans and that the laws of nature determine behavior. We believe that a person has a soul that isn't made up of atoms and molecules or even of energy. This soul works with the brain but actually makes the conscious decisions. Genetics and background influence but do not determine decisions.

What is basically comes down to is if you believe something that you definately cant proove or disproove because the whole concept is beyond our perseption, or whether you want to believe what humans have proven and developed through hard work and persevierence, challenging each other and themselves.

Do you want to believe in items like "soul", because it cannot be disproven because the whole thing is based on saying that we cant understand it, and makes you feel like there is something higher about life. Or do you want to develope your own opinions based on factual evidence and putting yourself out to attain that evidence.

Do you want to believe what you have been told by a collection of books, or do you want to put out effort and strive to find your own meaning?

Personally, I choose the second option, because I am that way inclined.

Essedarius wrote:What is basically comes down to is if you believe something that you definately cant proove or disproove because the whole concept is beyond our perseption, or whether you want to believe what humans have proven and developed through hard work and persevierence, challenging each other and themselves.

What do you mean by "prove"? Just because something cannot be proven by the scientific method doesn't mean it is false. Try proving all of what you just posted, using only the scientific method!

And physicalism simply hasn't been proven by humans. It has been demonstrated that the brain plays a very significant role in thought, but this does't mean that the brain is all there is.

Essedarius wrote:Do you want to believe in items like "soul", because it cannot be disproven because the whole thing is based on saying that we cant understand it, and makes you feel like there is something higher about life. Or do you want to develope your own opinions based on factual evidence and putting yourself out to attain that evidence.

Do you want to believe what you have been told by a collection of books, or do you want to put out effort and strive to find your own meaning?

Personally, I choose the second option, because I am that way inclined.

Do you believe that George Washington was a general in the American Revolution? Old books are the only way we can know that.

Plus, effort has been put into theology, and thought of the soul. The ideas of "free will" and the soul are derived from the Bible, after much study. We believe that the Bible was revealed to man by God, who knows all. Basically the logic is:

1.) Evidence such as fulfilled prophesy and historical documentation establish the accuracy and divine inspiration of the Bible.

2.) The most consistent interpretation of the Bible involves a soul and free will.

3.) Therefore, the soul exists.

What you seem to think it is, but it isn't at all, is:

1.) We don't understand consciousness.

2.) Therefore, the soul exists.

This would be VERY bad logic.

And, BTW, I have read a physicalist description of how consciousness might work. It's in Douglas Hofstadter's book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. I don't complacently ignore the evidence but rather do examine it. I just believe that both experience and divine revelation make the existence of the soul more probable than its nonexistence.

What i had posted that I said determined Adam's choices have been proven in their own way from what humans understanding and have tested. There is no proof at all for "soul", silly human proof or anything, nothing.

Why would you want to believe in something that gives no logic to anything we have discovered?

Do you believe that George Washington was a general in the American Revolution? Old books are the only way we can know that. [\quote]

The books of George Washington give strong evidence for his existance as why would they make up someone and give a bibliography to someone who didn't exist?

Soul is from old books, but the fact its written about, doesn't mean it exists at all, the whole concept could have been made up - to prove something exists we need evidence, there is no evidence for "soul" to exist. To prove more or less a human existed (because we know humans are actually real), we need written documentation of them existing, which we indeed have for George Washington.

You also say the bible is from longer ago than books for George Washington, although i believe what i said above is even more valid to my argument than this.

1.) Evidence such as fulfilled prophesy and historical documentation establish the accuracy and divine inspiration of the Bible.

2.) The most consistent interpretation of the Bible involves a soul and free will.

3.) Therefore, the soul exists.[\quote]

I think your logic is quite exaggerated.

Your basically saying (and without me taking away the integrity of what you said) that because the bible predicted some things and they happened (i'd like to know exactly what) and the most refined and less contradictory version of the bible says soul exists (and a lot of the most contradictory also say that too), it therefore has to exist.

If a stock broker is able to predict some things (like certain shares rising or falling), does this mean that he can say something exists like for example telekinesis and its definately right?

Here are my points I give to you now:

1) Science is developing more and more, old theories are being kicked out
2) The science we have today very well states (nearly) perfectly accurately whats going to happen if you do a certain something, and how stuff works.
3) Science is the only source of accuracy we have for how the brain works.

Another quote:

What you seem to think it is, but it isn't at all, is:

1.) We don't understand consciousness.

2.) Therefore, the soul exists.[\quote]

No, thats what I am saying you think, and thats what you do think (backed up with some vague bible passages)

Essedarius wrote:What i had posted that I said determined Adam's choices have been proven in their own way from what humans understanding and have tested. There is no proof at all for "soul", silly human proof or anything, nothing.

Why would you want to believe in something that gives no logic to anything we have discovered?

The soul does give lots of logic to the field of theology.

Essedarius wrote:Soul is from old books, but the fact its written about, doesn't mean it exists at all, the whole concept could have been made up - to prove something exists we need evidence, there is no evidence for "soul" to exist. To prove more or less a human existed (because we know humans are actually real), we need written documentation of them existing, which we indeed have for George Washington.

The difference is that we believe the Bible to be directly inspired by God, and that it wasn't made up by any human being. Therefore the Bible constituses strong evidence. It is a philosophy matter to determine what evidence you will or will not accept, as I will mention later.

I think your logic is quite exaggerated.

Your basically saying (and without me taking away the integrity of what you said) that because the bible predicted some things and they happened (i'd like to know exactly what) and the most refined and less contradictory version of the bible says soul exists (and a lot of the most contradictory also say that too), it therefore has to exist.

If a stock broker is able to predict some things (like certain shares rising or falling), does this mean that he can say something exists like for example telekinesis and its definately right?

I will just summarize the prophesy thing here, but there are many books and other sources to obtain a complete list. For one, the Bible predicted not only that certain cities would fall, but precisely when and how. For example, when describing the destruction of Tyre, the Bible said that it would be destroyed so completely that the land it was on would be barren "like the face of a rock". It turned out that everyone fled to an island when Alexander the Great attacked, and so the Greeks threw everything into the sea to the point they were picking up the dirt that remained on the ground before they were finished. So a detail that looked far-fetched turned out to be literally true. In another situation, Grant Jeffrey claims to have proved that the Bible said Isreal would become independent in 1948 A.D. After World War II, the United Nations split Palestine into Palestine and Isreal in... 1948 A.D.! I do have to be careful, though, because Grant Jeffrey has been caught using some discredited arguments. Nonetheless, it would be fallacious to assume that all of his arguments were bad.

Also, there are the prophesies about Jesus Christ. His birth place, means of death, price he would be betrayed for, and many other tidbits were predicted hundreds of years ahead of time. One does have to accept the historical authenticity of the gospel accounts to believe these, however, but nonetheless the evidence for that is strong but too lengthy for a forum post.

These predictions are much stronger than a stockbroker simply predicting how a few shares of stock would behave. They provide evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired. Other lines of evidence for the Bible exist, but I do not need to discuss them all here. People have written entire books on the subject.

Essedarius wrote:1) Science is developing more and more, old theories are being kicked out
2) The science we have today very well states (nearly) perfectly accurately whats going to happen if you do a certain something, and how stuff works.
3) Science is the only source of accuracy we have for how the brain works.

You believe in some form of scientism. Scientism comes in two forms.

One form is "strong scientism". Strong scientism states that science is the only path to objective truth. The problem is that science cannot prove the statement "Science is the only path to objective truth." Therefore it is self defeating and you might as well just say, "This sentence is false."

The other form is "weak scientism". Weak scientism states that whenever science and some other field of study conflict, science is always right. This is a philosophical statement with no proof.

I don't believe in either form of scientism. I believe that when science and another field of study conflict, the arguments of each field of study need to be weighed and examined. From this, I have concluded that the soul exists simply because theology provides a stronger case for the existence of the soul than science provides for its nonexistence. The theological case comes from the fact that God is all-good coupled with the very arguments you have been using.

Essedarius wrote:No, thats what I am saying you think, and thats what you do think (backed up with some vague bible passages)

No, that isn't my case at all. My case is that the theological argument is stronger than the scientific argument. If there were no theological argument for the soul, I would believe that the brain is all that exists.

Your quoting problem comes from the fact that you are using the wrong slash. You need "/" instead of "\".

Also check out this thread; it is all about the soul.