Evidence for God from Science

Please excuse my intrusion here, and let me make it clear that I am most certainly not decided that the Christian faith is the wrong one. Far from it, I give all faiths equal credibility because, let's face it, no one can ever truly know anything. Believing in one's own existence is a matter of faith, in my experience, much more believing in the Divine Still, I admire this website tremendously because it attempts to use science and logic, the most reliable tools we have available, to support itself, rather than completely unfounded pronouncements of unquestioned correctness (which can be seen all too often and accomplish nothing).

I read the introduction to the website for non believers, and it seems generally well thought out. However, there seem to be some logical fallacies there, and I was hoping to address them so that we can come to a better understanding. I have an open mind, so please do not take these as attacks on your faith, just questions directed at people who know better than I do. That said, here are some of the sections that I must take issue with logically, and hope someone can help me to demystify. I do not seek a debate here, just resolutions to concerns involving logic.

Because of the exquisite fine tuning of the universe, the atheist must believe in the existence of a "super universe" which randomly spews out universes with differing physical laws. What scientific evidence exists to support this model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain evidence about any other universe (even if one does exist). Therefore this belief is, and always will be, based solely upon blind faith! Some cosmologists are "uncomfortable" with the fine tuning of the universe simply because such fine tuning suggests design and (oh no!) a Designer...

Now I don't profess to know anything about anything, literally, but what makes the presence of a Designer more logical than the lack of one? If we are to believe that the universe was designed by God, a being so complex and intelligent that He could design the entire universe in all its glory, then was there a creator even more infinitely complex and intelligent who designed God? Causality, if we are to take it as absolute truth, demands a God to have created the universe, but it would also demand a Creator for the Creator. If God spontaneously came into existence or existed eternally as a being so complex and intelligent as to have designed our universe, then we are no further along than where we started from, as the universe itself could just as easily have spontaneously come into existence, just as complex as it is now. If either is just as likely to happen, then would not adding God into the mix be more, not less unrealistic than imagining the universe to have originated on its own?

Granted, I fully accept the fact that it's still unbelievably unlikely for the universe to have come out the way it did. My point here is that, by the logic of causality, does not the existence of God require the belief in not only the unlikely occurrence of this vastly complex universe, but also in a Supreme Being infinitely more complex than that, also with no known origins?

Those are some my general observations and recommendations for examining the evidence for God's existence. I have seen several web sites produced by atheists who claim that they can prove that God does not exist. However, all of these atheistic arguments against the existence of God use some form of straw man argument, because they argue against the existence of a god who is significantly less powerful than the God described in the Bible. The Bible says that God is transcendent (exists beyond the three physical dimensions of the universe)2 and exists beyond our dimension of time (the Bible states that God was acting before time was created).3 Atheists argue against the existence of a god who is finite and limited to a single dimension of time. This is the straw god who cannot logically exist. In fact, there are religions that are logically impossible. For example, the god of Mormonism is a former man who became a god. He had a father, who had a father, etc. One runs into the problem of where the first God came from. In contrast, the God of the Bible had no father, but is eternal, existing in at least two dimensions of time.

This would all appear to be an answer to my previous point, but, in fact, it merely extends the problem. This reasoning, that God is transcendent and exists in more than just the dimensions we know and love, is flawed for two reasons. The first is that it comes from the Bible, which, although a most fascinating book, cannot be used as a source of absolute truth unless one is already faithful to it. I am not saying that anything in the Bible is necessarily untrue, but to simply quote it for the purposes of scientific explanation rather defeats the point of science, doesn't it?

The second flaw is that, even if the Bible is correct in saying that God exists in more than our dimensions of space and time, it still does not explain His origins. Once again, if God can have existed and will exist eternally, in all His complexity, without a Creator, why cannot the universe? We know the origins of neither, so believeing in God only compounds the unlikelihood of it all.

Atheists often use arguments that are logically flawed. For example, I very often hear the argument that if the universe were not finely tuned, then we would not be here to discuss it. In other words, since we are here, the universe must be finely tuned to support advanced life. The argument commits the logical fallacy of converse accident, applying an exception to a generalization when the generalization should apply. There is no logical reason why our being here would cause the universe to be finely tuned and we have no evidence that more than one universe exists. The generalization must apply when we have only one example.

Now I may misunderstand you here, but I must say that our presence does indeed prove that the universe is finely tuned for human life. We do, after all, exist as far as this discussion is concerned. Therefore, the fine tuning is reasonable, but there is of course no reason to say that human life caused the fine tuning. Then again, I have never heard an athiest argue that it did.

According to naturalism, the universe has no purpose and no interest whether or not there is life in it. Logically, we should not be here. In fact, modification of laws of physics almost always results in universes that don't even contain matter! Our presence in the universe suggests that we are not here by accident. In fact, the atheist must address the question of why there is anything at all. Why should there be a universe instead of nothing?

Indeed they should question how they exist. The fact that we're here is quite a marvelous unlikelihood. But again, if we apply this same logic to the existence of God, it is unlikely a thousand times over. The odds against this universe forming are ludicrous, undoubtedly, but think of the odds of a being intelligent enough to form that universe? They're astounding. Once again, I'm not discounting the possibility, but it still seems to me that believing in God is just an unnecessary extra step in explaining an inexplicable universe.

There is, by the way, a lot of this work that I am leaving out, and if any of it applies in attempting to answer my questions, then by all means use it, but my response to most of the omitted material is the same that I have been using: belief in God is no more - though no less - unfounded than the crazy theories that scientists have been putting out. Essentially, we don't know anything with any certainty, but rounding the probability of God's existence to 1 rather than 0 or just leaving it a probability is a stretch that is the only issue standing between me and having religious faith. God is, by necessity, so much more complex and intelligent than the universe, so He must be that more unlikely to have existed in the first place, and so the human observer must either believe...

1. The universe somehow, at tremendous improbability, popped into existence or eternally existed as it is, fine tuning and all.

2. God must somehow, at even more tremendous improbability, have popped into existence or eternally existed as He is, omnipotence and all.

3. That we can only know anything for certain about the universe after we've died, so we might as well stop arguing about it as if we're all experts while we're here.

Yes, you can get absolute proof of God's existence. One way to get proof is to die. I do not recommend this method if you have not accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. All who die get to see God. However, those who have rejected Him through their lives on earth are separated from God at the judgment, since He cannot have contact with those who insist upon holding onto their sinfulness.

An easier (and less risky) way to get evidence for God's existence is to see if the promises of the Bible are true. The Bible promises that if you accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that He will come into your life and that you will have a personal relationship with Him. But you need to believe first, so you can get started below. Once you believe, do the experiment and test the promises. You won't regret it.

Finally, to get at the heart of the matter, even if we are to concede that there is a Creator, which has as decent a probability as there not being one, considering the extreme unlikelihood of both, why should one turn to Christianity instead of simply acknowledging there is a Creator? Yes, of course, the Bible says that one must in order to get into Heaven, but Heaven is a Biblical concept, and most certainly does not come into a scientific discussion of all this unless one already takes it as truth.

Besides that, there is certainly more than one Holy Text which states that people must choose its faith and practice it strictly, or else they will go to that religion's Hell. It seems that no matter what faith one chooses, they're going to someone's Hell So how is it that you know your religion is the right one, logically? The Bible says so, yes, but I believe I've made clear my stance on the use of the Bible to prove what's said in the Bible. So, to sum everything up:

1. Could someone help me come to terms with the fact that the existence of God, capable of creating the universe, is just as unlikely as the universe itself.

and

2. How does one know, without first taking the Bible as absolute truth, that Christianity is right? Certainly I'm not saying it's not, but there are a few billion people out there in the world that do, and not all of them are athiests. Quite a lot of them are convinced that you are going to Hell. And as to having faith "experimentally" to test the claims of the Bible, what do you say to all those billions of people who have found fulfilling, personal relationships with the deities of their choice? Are all those billions somehow deluded, and if so, how do you know?

Avoiding the use of Bible quotations would be much appreciated, for reasons previously mentioned. And let me say again that I do not mean to attack or discount the validity of your faith. Uncountable good deeds have been done in the name of Christianity, or at least by any Christians who actually listened to the teachings of Jesus Christ. True Christians are dear friends to have, and wonderful people. I just don't know how it's logical to assume, based on so little, that everything put down about Him and God must be true, even if one is to acknowledge the existence of a creator. Thank you so much for bearing through what must have amounted to a very large amount of rambling (I do take a lot of unnecessary wording to make my points, I realize), and I hope very much to receive answers soon.

culdraug wrote:Please excuse my intrusion here, and let me make it clear that I am most certainly not decided that the Christian faith is the wrong one. Far from it, I give all faiths equal credibility because, let's face it, no one can ever truly know anything. Believing in one's own existence is a matter of faith, in my experience, much more believing in the Divine Still, I admire this website tremendously because it attempts to use science and logic, the most reliable tools we have available, to support itself, rather than completely unfounded pronouncements of unquestioned correctness (which can be seen all too often and accomplish nothing).

I read the introduction to the website for non believers, and it seems generally well thought out. However, there seem to be some logical fallacies there, and I was hoping to address them so that we can come to a better understanding. I have an open mind, so please do not take these as attacks on your faith, just questions directed at people who know better than I do. That said, here are some of the sections that I must take issue with logically, and hope someone can help me to demystify. I do not seek a debate here, just resolutions to concerns involving logic.

An agnostic/athiest with an open mind. I think you have just restored my faith.

culdraug wrote: Now I don't profess to know anything about anything, literally, but what makes the presence of a Designer more logical than the lack of one? If we are to believe that the universe was designed by God, a being so complex and intelligent that He could design the entire universe in all its glory, then was there a creator even more infinitely complex and intelligent who designed God? Causality, if we are to take it as absolute truth, demands a God to have created the universe, but it would also demand a Creator for the Creator. If God spontaneously came into existence or existed eternally as a being so complex and intelligent as to have designed our universe, then we are no further along than where we started from, as the universe itself could just as easily have spontaneously come into existence, just as complex as it is now. If either is just as likely to happen, then would not adding God into the mix be more, not less unrealistic than imagining the universe to have originated on its own?

Granted, I fully accept the fact that it's still unbelievably unlikely for the universe to have come out the way it did. My point here is that, by the logic of causality, does not the existence of God require the belief in not only the unlikely occurrence of this vastly complex universe, but also in a Supreme Being infinitely more complex than that, also with no known origins?

I think the main agreement in cosmology is that the universe did have a beginning. I don't think there is any serious claim against this theory now. I think it is correct in saying also that we are mostly in agreement that you need something that transcends time (i.e. in the eternal) that is the cause of the universe. If we can both agree on these concepts then we can conceed that we can no longer go back to the argument "if God is eternal why can't the universe be eternal".

Now the question obviously is - what is in the eternal that created the universe. The Bible says it is God. The Athiestic Scientist looks at other theories like Strings and Quantum fluctuations etc...

The question of what created these possible creators becomes a moot point really as they are in the eternal. It is only when you bring in the forth dimension then you must have the Causality rule IMO - because events and causes have to preceed each other. The creator in the eternal is a cause indeed - but can never be classed as an effect because it doesn't need one.

Now comes to the question what is the creator.

On God's side of the fence we have the fine tuning argument. More and more evidence shows that it really does take an entire universe to produce life on one planet. And the laws in effect in this universe allows us to live in relative saftey. On the Athiestic side of the fence they do not deny these facts. Instead they look at possibility of infinite universes.

So here we are at a wall - From our frame of reference I believe we are unlikely to see any evidence for the Athiestic viewpoint as we cannot transcend our dimensions. I don't deny the possibility of them being right however. But unfortunately all we have is a frame of reference and until something else comes along we have to go where the evidence points us. IMO towards an intelligent creator.

culdraug wrote: This would all appear to be an answer to my previous point, but, in fact, it merely extends the problem. This reasoning, that God is transcendent and exists in more than just the dimensions we know and love, is flawed for two reasons. The first is that it comes from the Bible, which, although a most fascinating book, cannot be used as a source of absolute truth unless one is already faithful to it. I am not saying that anything in the Bible is necessarily untrue, but to simply quote it for the purposes of scientific explanation rather defeats the point of science, doesn't it?

The second flaw is that, even if the Bible is correct in saying that God exists in more than our dimensions of space and time, it still does not explain His origins. Once again, if God can have existed and will exist eternally, in all His complexity, without a Creator, why cannot the universe? We know the origins of neither, so believeing in God only compounds the unlikelihood of it all.

This all depends on whether you agree whether you need something that Transcends this universe that has created this universe. I think both the Thiests and the Athiests are in agreement with that. All the Bible does is mention one such possibility that mentions all the prerequisites for this creator. Not bad for a 2000-4000 year old book.

culdraug wrote: Indeed they should question how they exist. The fact that we're here is quite a marvelous unlikelihood. But again, if we apply this same logic to the existence of God, it is unlikely a thousand times over. The odds against this universe forming are ludicrous, undoubtedly, but think of the odds of a being intelligent enough to form that universe? They're astounding. Once again, I'm not discounting the possibility, but it still seems to me that believing in God is just an unnecessary extra step in explaining an inexplicable universe.

I obviously disagree with that believing in God is an unnessary step. The logical person would conclude that God is certainly a possibility just as much as any other theory as you yourself have conceeded. IMO I actually think it is more likely that a Intelligent Being created an Unlikely universe. Take the Mount Rushmore analogy. Isn't it more likely that an intelligence creator had a hand in this unlikely mountain formation? (i.e. man)

culdraug wrote: There is, by the way, a lot of this work that I am leaving out, and if any of it applies in attempting to answer my questions, then by all means use it, but my response to most of the omitted material is the same that I have been using: belief in God is no more - though no less - unfounded than the crazy theories that scientists have been putting out. Essentially, we don't know anything with any certainty, but rounding the probability of God's existence to 1 rather than 0 or just leaving it a probability is a stretch that is the only issue standing between me and having religious faith. God is, by necessity, so much more complex and intelligent than the universe, so He must be that more unlikely to have existed in the first place, and so the human observer must either believe...

1. The universe somehow, at tremendous improbability, popped into existence or eternally existed as it is, fine tuning and all.

2. God must somehow, at even more tremendous improbability, have popped into existence or eternally existed as He is, omnipotence and all.

3. That we can only know anything for certain about the universe after we've died, so we might as well stop arguing about it as if we're all experts while we're here.

Well I think we both can agree that 1 is very very unlilely.
As for 2 if we both conceed that we need something eternal to create a finite universe then God certainly could be one of those options. As for 3 well - you are absolutley right.

As for your question of which is the right religion. Well to be honest that is even harder to argue. I can only go on the claims of Christianity - the authenticity of the witness accounts, the bizaare circumstances in which this religion started and overtook the greatest Empire on earth. The fact that people were willing to die at the beginning - not for their faith - because they didn't need faith - but for the fact that they actually saw something that put away any doubts whatsoever. Again it is a question of reading the evidence and making conclusions from that. "The Case for Christ" is a good book to read by Lee Strobel on this subject.

There are other arguments as well to be considered of this whole post - the concept of consciousness and morals we haven't even scratched upon yet.

I hope this is goog enough for starters - but I am sure there are better writers out there on this forum that will help you more.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

culdraug wrote:If we are to believe that the universe was designed by God, a being so complex and intelligent that He could design the entire universe in all its glory, then was there a creator even more infinitely complex and intelligent who designed God? Causality, if we are to take it as absolute truth, demands a God to have created the universe, but it would also demand a Creator for the Creator. If God spontaneously came into existence or existed eternally as a being so complex and intelligent as to have designed our universe, then we are no further along than where we started from, as the universe itself could just as easily have spontaneously come into existence, just as complex as it is now.

I think the main mistake you're making here is assuming that causality holds everywhere, when in fact it only holds for our universe. We only have casuality because God created it. I think Silvertusk addresses this issue pretty well; if something is eternal (in the sense that God is eternal) then the concept of causality does not hold... In fact, the very concept of time does not even hold.

If we look carefully, we can see that the Bible does support the notion that causality does not hold to God.

Exodus 3:13-14
Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

God is not defined by what has happenned; He simply IS. I AM is the nature of God. There's a footnote in the NIV translation that "I am who I am" can also be transalated as "I will be who I will be." Nothing defines God, and nothing causes God to do anything, or be anything... He just IS.

And that same message is reinforced in the New Testament as well.

Hebrews 13:7-8
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Jesus does not change because He is eternal. To me, this also speaks to the type of sacrifice that God made to become human. Suddenly He was human, bound by time, affected by His own creation, and ultimately killed by it. And all that, only to save that very same creation - such is the holy and merciful nature of God.

I think silvertusk did a good job with the post as a whole; I just wanted to demonstrate the timeless nature of God presented in the Bible. Welcome to the forum culdraug. (Cool name btw, I've used Draug as a name quite extensively myself)

Ah, wonderful! Thank you for getting bakc to me so quickly about this.

So, now, let's establish for an absolute truth that there is some sort of Transcendent force that exists outside our natural observation of the universe. That's fine by me, because nothing else seems to fit the bill. The universe could not have had a beginning on its own because it breaks its own laws of physics, and any special laws thought up by scientists are much more fantasy than anything the Bible has to say.

Silvertusk wrote:This all depends on whether you agree whether you need something that Transcends this universe that has created this universe. I think both the Thiests and the Athiests are in agreement with that. All the Bible does is mention one such possibility that mentions all the prerequisites for this creator. Not bad for a 2000-4000 year old book.

You do have a point there. If we are all in agreement that there's an extradimensional Transcendent being in play here, the fact that the Bible got it right some thousands of years ago, before people had ever thought up the word "quantum" is some serious evidence to its credit.

Silvertusk wrote:I obviously disagree with that believing in God is an unnessary step. The logical person would conclude that God is certainly a possibility just as much as any other theory as you yourself have conceeded. IMO I actually think it is more likely that a Intelligent Being created an Unlikely universe. Take the Mount Rushmore analogy. Isn't it more likely that an intelligence creator had a hand in this unlikely mountain formation? (i.e. man)

Now I quite agree that common sense dictates that there was some sort of intelligent design of Mount Rushmore. But I'm thinking a step further: the men who created Mount Rushmore are obviously much more complex than their work. They had to have an intelligence far-reaching enough as to understand symbol, understand art, understand the means to create art, and then have the will and the power to get the job done. So instead of looking at the mountain and wondering how it ever could have existed without a creative force, I look at the sculptor and wonder, "how could something like this have existed just on its own?" Even without a necessary cause for God, the fact that He exists makes something so comparatively simple as the universe existing, randomly, fine tuning and all, much easier to believe than a being on the order of magnitude of God having existed the same way. Transcendent or not, by saying God exists, one has to admit that He is just... there. And if you can say something so simple about something so profound, then why cannot the universe itself have simply just been... there?

You're right, of course, that human commom sense evidence points to the idea of intelligent design, and the possibility is sufficient as to, for example, teach the possibility of it in public schools alongside the naturalist theory (I wish the athiests weren't so uptight about their children getting "corrupted" by religion; of course we shouldn't have the schools be exclusive about it, but exposure to a variety of things allows children to choose what makes the most sense to them) but human common sense would see intelligence because it just can't comprehend the universe having settled like this, on its own, without one. I'm just thinking, shouldn't God have to answer to the same concerns about how the universe got so fine tuned? So when I say He's an unnecessary extra step, I don't mean that the universe doesn't show signs of intelligent design, but rather that God shows those very same signs of intelligent design, you know? So, as the Bible explicitly states that God is the one God and the only God, He seems just as unlikely as the universe.

Quantum fluctuations and string theories make a sort of sense, but they've never been proven and never will be. Neither will God. So, outside this universe there are either extra dimensions where particles bang into one another and create universes, or God waves His hand and creates universe(s). But it just seems at least as likely to me that, in these extra dimensions, there is a sea of chaos from which order randomly sprang, rather than an unfathomable intelligence which didn't have a cause, and is just there. God is what we might call the very pinnacle of order, so starting with that is akin to saying that man, the pinnacle of order in our earthly scale model of the cosmos, the creators of that infamous Mount Rushmore, somehow always existed as they did. While I can't say they didn't, just as I can't say God didn't, everyone here seems to agree that something created man because our perfect balance and complexity is unaccountable otherwise. So this leaves us with God in the same boat.

Moving on to the quandary as to which faith is right, yes, it's true that the early Christians had what one might call a fanatical devotion. But we see today the very same fanatical devotion in, for example, Islam. Now that religion has bizarre oddities that I'm just not going to touch on, but it does command more than a billion followers, which is no small amount. True enough, Christianity is the leading world religion, but go to the Middle East or Asia, and you'll quickly find that there are places in the world where it is quite a minority.

Now I'll be the first to say that numbers mean nothing, cause people, completely regardless of religion, are generally stupid But I'm wary to immediately discount their faith, just as I am about Christianity. Once again, we have the problem of finding one's way into someone's Hell, and though we'd all be more lucky, actually, if the Moslems are right on this one (did you know their Hell is only temporary, and once you've atoned for your sins there, everyone can get into Heaven, compared to the slightly more eternal damnation of the Christian Hell?) picking and choosing is playing Russian roulette with eternity. For all we agnostics or undecideds know, only the faithful of M'tock the Flying Space Turtle get into Heaven. So you can see why it's extremely difficult to commit to anything.

Anyway, I'm glad that we've got some dialogue going here, and I think we've established a few useful conclusions.

1. Something outside the scope of our understanding exists, and is responsible for the formation of our universe. Whether this is God or the aforementioned sea of chaos, possibly in the form of infinite universes, remains to be seen.

2. The Bible has some evidence in accordance with the previous conclusion. Admittedly, this evidence is eerily accurate for people back then.

3. We have indeed barely scratched the surface of the debate over which religion is right. But that sort of argument gives me a headache

4. Someone finally recognized my name. Wow. I hope you'll take it as no offense that many ostensible Christians I know would quite literally burn the works of Tolkien. I'm pleasantly surprised that the first person ever to actually get it would be on this board. This comforts me

(And sorry I didn't take more from your fine post, Felgar, but it popped up just as I was finished typing this, and I didn't feel like redoing everything. But I do agree that that part of the Bible is internally and externally consistent. It is indeed worthy evidence.)

culdraug wrote:So, as the Bible explicitly states that God is the one God and the only God, He seems just as unlikely as the universe.

Tis a quandray... Though slightly amusing, that statement does succinctly reveal the questions you are facing. And honestly, there's nothing we can say that will convince anyone; we can only share the reasoning behind our own conviction, and the rest is up to you.

But if you can accept that there must be something more than we can see, then you're at least starting on the journey. So now the question is to consider other factors that point to the validity of a creator vs a physical means of universe creation. For that, my suggestion is to look beyond the physical... Our closest bond to God is not the rocks we stand on, nor the sun, nor the stars. Rather, it is the part of us by which we are created in his likeness - it is that which is non-physical. It is love, compassion, conscience, and consciousness. The universe is one thing, but we are a whole other thing. The Bible's explanation is that we share God's nature in being self-aware and capable of love. Does it fit? Does it lend credence to God's Word?

And then beyond that, the next step is Jesus. Even most atheists agree that a man named Jesus existed at that time. Even extra-biblical accounts attribute 'miracles' to Him. Now, were His claims true, or was He crazy or just lying? Did He actually rise from the dead? Did His apostles all get together and form a huge conspiracy that has persisted to this day, despite the fact that they would have been humiliated having seen their leader crucified?

What I'm getting at is that there's no one thing to point to that will prove God exists, and that He's the loving Christian God. Rather, there's a big picture (detailed in a 2000 year-old book) in which everything fits and that's what needs to be considered... And finally, true conviction can only come from personal experience with God, which works together with faith to provide assurance.

culdraug wrote:Someone finally recognized my name. Wow. I hope you'll take it as no offense that many ostensible Christians I know would quite literally burn the works of Tolkien.

Most on this board would assert that Tolkien was also a man of Christian faith...

culdraug wrote:(And sorry I didn't take more from your fine post, Felgar, but it popped up just as I was finished typing this, and I didn't feel like redoing everything. But I do agree that that part of the Bible is internally and externally consistent. It is indeed worthy evidence.)

No worries. Have a good one!

Hmm, hmm... hmmmm...

Love is a tricky thing. I had been going on for years about how evolution explains the presence of love, a means by which to cement family bonds which helps to perpetuate the species, all as a result of natural selection and mutation by which those who did or could not love were weeded out; it still fits with that explanation. Although, that was all before I had ever really encountered love personally. Things tend to change after that, don't they? Though I still know it's all chemical responses in the brain, and I also know I'm an impartial observer, it does indeed feel like it has to be something more than neurons.

I'll admit just as readily as you that there are no proofs for anything, Christianity and atheism alike. I'm not looking for someone to tell me, "the Christian God exists because XYZ and that's absolutely irrefutable." It just gets frustrating to see holy wars and other atrocities committed in the name of any number of religions, and realizing that either one of them has to be right, or else when we die there is just a void. No existence at all is as scary a thought as existence in Hell, so I'm trying as hard as I can to make one of these religions plausible enough to start believing in.

I might never come to terms with the idea that one can only know God by having faith, which is all very circular and goes against everything logic tells me. "I believe in X because I believe in X," just doesn't fit with science. But it's comforting, at least, to know that there are people out there who have thought all this through to this point, and don't have any gaping holes in their reasoning. No more than the rest of us, anyway.

So thank you all for going over this. I think I've reconsidered the probability of all this at a higher level, maybe. Probably. I guess the next step is to really read the Bible, which I've tried before, but with all the begetting and the begotting, well, I'm sure no one will disagree with me that certain stretches, though by no means all of it, are just plain boring. Or maybe I'll just try going to a church and getting the highlights. Anyway, thanks again.

Felgar wrote:Most on this board would assert that Tolkien was also a man of Christian faith...

Well yeah, of course he was, but so is J. K. Rowling, and look at all the fuss over her! It's people, you know. No matter what religion they are, they're just unreasonable.

Hi Caldraug.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

It is great that we can see some common ground with regards to the existence of the universe. What you said is perfectly valid. The problem with all of this though is that when you get to the transcendal realms of existence outside of the universe into infinity logic and physics are stretched to say the least. Like I said before, for me at least it is all about a frame of reference. To me this universe seems abundantly personal, filled with purpose. It seems to have a point. Our existence seems to have a point. The beauty of the creation is abundant whether you believe in God or not. The exquisite complexity and beauty is outstanding. Things as simple as sound awes me - the ability to make beautiful music by manipulating air waves based on a set of physical laws that have been set for us - it seems as if we were meant to find these things. God wants to reveal his creation to us. Infact the header of this website says it all really - The heavens declare the glory of God!

When I consider all that beauty I can only think that could be made by a God of pure love. And the only God that fits that description is the one in the Christian Bible. I go where the evidence leads me. I am like you I guess - I started off an agnostic I suppose and my very nature means I cannot accept blind faith - I need at least some logical reasoning before I commit myself to something. This journey has taken me a while and I am still on it but its conclusions are quite comforting and outstanding.

Felgar was right in saying that with some people it takes a personal experience. Fortunately this comes when that person needs it the most. I think God shows himself to people in different ways. If you are a logical scientific person then God will show himself in Science and Logic. If you are a dreamer then God will show himself in dreams. Just as all paths used to lead to Rome - I think all paths certainly lead to God.

You point about the fanatics is also very valid. Belief is indeed a strong motivator - we only have to look at 9/11 and our own Bombings in London last week to realise that. But the point I was making is that these people who started Christianity had the evidence first hand to tell them whether it was a lie or not. It wasn't "Belief" with them. They had the facts if you were and were very lucky in that repsect. We have to rely on faith and belief in our time - The apostles who started the church didn't. They knew - Black or white - whether what they were preaching was true because they had been witnesses. This was the point I was trying to make. All but one of the original 12 was martyred. If they knew it was a lie - and they were certainly in a position to know this - I don't think they would have willingly gone to their deaths.

Again of course there is always the possibility that they were mistaken - Hallucinating etc... but there are arguements against that as well - written by better writers than me and probably somewhere on this website.

I am always comforted by the line in the Bible where Jesus says to Thomas. "You believe because you see. Blessed are the ones that believe and do not see". We are those people today that believe and do not see what Thomas did when Jesus rose from the dead.

The growth of Christianity is also another factor I look at when considering it to be the right religion for me. Islam was spread by the sword. Christianity in the first few hundred years was spread very peacefully and took over as the main religion in Rome. Even if none of this is divinely motivated - it certainly make s fascinating reading.

Moving on to Love and Consciousness. Love might have been an element of Evolution that allowed a species to survive indeed. But also consider that it can be a hinderence to survivial. In most case - certainly with Humans we are at our most irrational when it comes to Love. For all these chemicals in the body to get together - from all parts of the body mind and produce something as apparent and strong as Love seems unbelievable to me. Love goes beyond instinct. Our instinct is to survive - yet we are willing to die for Love.

Our consciousness as well is another mindboggling concept to me as well. Athiests claim that it is simply an emmergent property from the complexity of the Brain. If that is the case then that is an incredibly ordered emmergence with vastness of purpose. Again for me anyway that stretches credibilty. I do realise that we haven't begin to fully understand the workings of the Brain yet - but as I said it is where the current evidence is pointing me. But even then - to carry our souls and spirit I think God would design us something as marvellous as the Brain anyway.

When I think about it, and especially from a scientific point of view it is all about being humbled by the creation and this is exactly what God wants from us - to be humbled, whether from science or from other means.

Good luck in your journey - I hope you find the answers you need.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

P.S. I love Lord of the Rings!!!!
P.S.S. I love Harry Potter (Getting the sixth book tomorrow in fact)
P.S.S.S Christians should remember that even Jesus liked stories.

Silvertusk wrote:Our instinct is to survive - yet we are willing to die for Love.

I think that about sums it up. Now you can stretch theory all you like to explain that one, but even moreso the idea that we regard willingness to die fighting for love as one of its most glorified traits is something... more than neurons.

I still don't know, though. I see "The Life of Brian" and think, for all its silliness, a lot of it is entirely plausible. You could imagine people doing those kinds of things, even back when their leader was alive and with them. Of course, I'm not saying Christianity really began with some random guy getting thrown into it just trying to fight for the People's Front of Judea (or was it the Judean People's Front?), and certainly Jesus said enough things of major note as to rank him up with the great philosophers, but people, for all their amazing powers of reason, were as unreasonable then as they are now.

And then again we come to the beauty inherent in the cosmos, the kind that strikes the human soul on its most basic level, and there's nothing in evolution to explain why we would see the night sky, a majestic mountain, the sea, a forest, what have you, as beautiful. But I can't help feeling a little egotistical feeling that it was all created for us. Now, maybe if humanity is but one of God's creations, and there are aliens out in this enormous expanse of universe (a radius of about 14 billion light years is the sphere of just what we can see, meaning there could be hundreds, thousands more times that!), that would be a better explanation for it. If we can allow for a little flexibility in the Bible, considering its origins, then yeah, it could work.

But so much of believing any of this logically is contingent on believing certain parts of the Bible and not others. And I would really prefer that a book, intended to be the guidebook to living life, be consistent. This universe would fit snugly with a God of pure love, yes, but is pure love consistent with the concept of an eternal Hell? Now, if Hell were meant to show people the error of their ways, then it would make sense, just as a parent would punish a child for misdeeds. But when people, even good people who were never exposed to God, or the unbaptised babies, along with the minor but unforgiven sinners, if all of these people are doomed to eternal punishment, what purpose does that serve? One punishes a child to correct the behavior, but leaving them stranded, without even the hope of redemption, that is not pure love. In fact, most people are not cruel enough to doom one another to eternal torture.

Now I can overlook the Crusades and the Inquisition and the witch hunts, because those people were not Christians. They used the name, yes, but ignored the message. But the God of the Bible, though He does have moments of divine compassion, is vengeful and petty. So here's a major question: can one be a Christian, enjoying all the rights and privileges thereof, and just ignore much of what the Bible says? Of course, a good deal of it is historically accurate, and that much is undeniable. But, from what I can see, the God of the Bible is one who not only allows evil to happen, which is perfectly explicable, but does evil Himself, which is... less so. Couldn't 100,000 years or so be acceptable for possibility of parole?

Of course, God must, if He was able to create not only the universe, but the very concept of the universe, have an intelligence on the level of infinite. So maybe the plan is just something we can't understand. But if we were created in His image, then our intelligence should be sufficient to, if not comprehend the entirety of the grand universal plan, at least understand something so humanesque as punishing a wayward child. But I guess it's all something no one today can know.

culdraug wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:Our instinct is to survive - yet we are willing to die for Love.

But when people, even good people who were never exposed to God, or the unbaptised babies, along with the minor but unforgiven sinners, if all of these people are doomed to eternal punishment, what purpose does that serve? One punishes a child to correct the behavior, but leaving them stranded, without even the hope of redemption, that is not pure love. In fact, most people are not cruel enough to doom one another to eternal torture.

If one is never exposed to God are they abandoned by God? Not Exactly! It does tell us in Scripture that one can know God through Nature and what is around him. Another Thought to remember EVERYONE is due to Eternal Punishment. However God has made the Escape and that is through Belief in Christ. There is always a Choice and I believe God gives that Choice to a Person MANY MANY TIMES!! If we believe that God is infinitively wise would he not Judge also that was as well? If one is judged by God they would have a Just Trial. That reminds me of a Song by Carmen "The Courtroom"

culdraug wrote: But, from what I can see, the God of the Bible is one who not only allows evil to happen, which is perfectly explicable, but does evil Himself, which is... less so. Couldn't 100,000 years or so be acceptable for possibility of parole?

Ever watch the Matrix? Remember Morpheus offers Neo the Choice of Blue or Red. God gave that Choice, Live in Paradise or Eat the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Can you provide some Scriptures for that Evil *Reminder* Remember if God is a JUST Judge and we are imperfect humans then our Judgement is wrong.

100,000 years is like the thought of Purgatory. Not Completely Supported in Scripture at least from all my research but possibility!

bizzt wrote:It does tell us in Scripture that one can know God through Nature and what is around him.

Ok, so is that enough to get into Heaven, then? If someone like myself were just to feel supremely humbled by the beauty of nature and understand that some force greater than myself was responsible, would that be enough? Those guys knocking at my door don't seem to think so...

culdraug wrote:

bizzt wrote:It does tell us in Scripture that one can know God through Nature and what is around him.

Ok, so is that enough to get into Heaven, then? If someone like myself were just to feel supremely humbled by the beauty of nature and understand that some force greater than myself was responsible, would that be enough? Those guys knocking at my door don't seem to think so...

Unfortunately no - it wouldn't be enough. Not according to Christian Doctrine. This is a point I had a lot of problems with but I am starting to have a better understanding of it.

God is pure and by his very nature cannot be in the prescence of sin. All sin under God carries equal weight. Whether it be murder or stealing or lying etc.. They all has to be judged equally. A sinless man can go to heaven but you only have to listen to the sermon on the mount to realise that is an impossible state to achieve - hence in old testament times the Jews make their sin sacrifices at the temple to appease God.

What God in Jesus offered us was a way past all that and a peace of mind that you will never have to worry about your sins again because of Jesus's sacrifice on your behalf. That is the atonement for now and ever more. All God is asking you is to accept Jesus did die for your sins. It is a free gift that really doesn't take too much effort on the receiver. (Obviously by accepting Jesus and his teachings you tend to lead a less sinful live anyway)

I think because we do not fully understand what sin is like to God we cannot fully comprehend it.

The main factors here though is God's Love, and the limits he sets on himself. Some people say that why can't God just make us sinless and make us love him (as ultimately this is what God wants). However the problem with this and this is where God deliberately limits himself is that he gives us freewill. Love given freely is the most powerful love of all and God knows that. He wants us to go to him of his own freewill. Can you imagine how much God has to hold back because he has given us freewill. It must be unbelievably frustrating for him when we choose to ignore his love and free gift of salvation - yet he gives us chance after chance after chance. Yet ultimately some people refuse this and when it comes to the judgement of their sins they stand trail alone - they have to pay the price alone. God still loves these people but he has to be fair and just. People who haven't known about Jesus are also covered in the bible - they are judged on their hearts and are in sense more fortunate than the ones who know Jesus because they have no excuse.

In the end the people who go to Hell - it is ultimately their choice to do so. God has given them the freewill to choose and they make the choices.

It does sound harsh - but when you consider that it is so simple to avoid it then I don't really see a problem.

Even if you think it is harsh, if you don't believe in God or Jesus anyway then what does it matter. Or you could always invoke pascals wager just to be sure.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

culdraug wrote:

bizzt wrote:It does tell us in Scripture that one can know God through Nature and what is around him.

Ok, so is that enough to get into Heaven, then? If someone like myself were just to feel supremely humbled by the beauty of nature and understand that some force greater than myself was responsible, would that be enough? Those guys knocking at my door don't seem to think so...

If one has never heard of Jesus then I would say it is a possibility! However after hearing of the one who saves and rejecting him as the Saviour then you have made the Choice!

bizzt wrote:

culdraug wrote:

bizzt wrote:It does tell us in Scripture that one can know God through Nature and what is around him.

Ok, so is that enough to get into Heaven, then? If someone like myself were just to feel supremely humbled by the beauty of nature and understand that some force greater than myself was responsible, would that be enough? Those guys knocking at my door don't seem to think so...

If one has never heard of Jesus then I would say it is a possibility! However after hearing of the one who saves and rejecting him as the Saviour then you have made the Choice!

That is correct. To share my own thoughts on this, I would say that it IS true, that someone who had not heard of Jesus, and who was truly humbled by the beauty of nature and recognized a higher power, certainly would go to heaven.

BUT, I would also contend that someone who was in this state, upon hearing the message of Christ, would necessarily accept Him. So that would make your hypothetical belief impossible. Why? Because ultimately we are judged on the state of our hearts. So if someone is truly humbled by nature, then upon hearing the truth they will be willing to submit to it. If you say "I love nature, and respect whatever caused it." But then at the same time say "I will not follow Jesus, because I don't believe He was God." Then ultimately, I believe that the first statement is a lie and that indeed your heart is hardenned.

Now you may claim to me, that perhaps doubt remains about the nature of that God, and about His portrayal by various religions. But if you accept "through nature I can see that there must be a loving God, and I will serve Him if I can discover who He is" then in fact you have no choice but to be a Christian. No other God fits with the concept of love and beauty that you have just proffessed to be true.

Also, Paul addressed this very issue:

Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

So the claim here is that at some level, everyone inherently knows that God exists, and even moreso, who He is. Nature reveals God's power and nature, and so anyone who will not be humbled is rejecting what they ultimately know to be true.

Finally, I also want to make clear that I strictly believe that the Bible IS 100% self-consistent. I think you're wrong in your assertion to the contrary, and perhaps that is a major hurdle for you. If the Bible DOES appear to be inconsistent, then the failing is in our understanding, not in the Bible itself.

Understand that the Bible is represented as the Word of God - in it, by definition, there cannot be falsity, and there must therefore be no inconsistencies. And I can promise that if you take the time to study it, you will come to understand that there are absolutely no inconsistencies whatsoever.

Well said, Felgar, Bizzt and Silvertusk. You have nailed it exactly. God has given us the ability to know about Him without knowing about Christianity, and therefore give the opportunity for salvation through grace to those who don't have the opportunity to hear the gospel. But once you have heard the gospel, you have to make a conscious choice to accept or not accept it.

Felgar wrote: Finally, I also want to make clear that I strictly believe that the Bible IS 100% self-consistent. I think you're wrong in your assertion to the contrary, and perhaps that is a major hurdle for you. If the Bible DOES appear to be inconsistent, then the failing is in our understanding, not in the Bible itself.

Understand that the Bible is represented as the Word of God - in it, by definition, there cannot be falsity, and there must therefore be no inconsistencies. And I can promise that if you take the time to study it, you will come to understand that there are absolutely no inconsistencies whatsoever.

I am always amazed that someone will doubt God rather than doubt himself. It is such an arrogant position to take. If I don't understand something, it is not God who has got it wrong... it can only be me. Just because I don't know how the world came into being, how does that imply there is no God... or if something in the Bible doesn't make sense to me, that God cannot be relied upon anymore? Why must people question God rather than their own puny finite minds which are so horrendously limitted by comparison?