Does science support the existence of God?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Does science support the existence of God?

Some people believe that science and religion are incompatible. That may be so, but religion is not the issue I'm defending. Organized religion is man-made and subject to corruption. I am generally not fond of it. Nevertheless, God is real and that data supports it. I am about to demonstrate this with a brief, scientific explanation for those of you who don't know God. The time is close when you will have to make an eternal choice. I never push my beliefs on anybody, but consider the logic and think about it for yourselves. The reconciliation of science and God is fairly simple...

The Second Law: Life violates entropy and supports the idea of providence.

The psalmist says, "Great are the works of the Lord, pondered by all those who delight in them." Basically, every scientist seeks to understand the mind of God. Even the most hard-core agnostic or dietistic scientist (as I use to be) accepts on faith that the universe is ordered. There is a rational basis to existence that is evident in this order. This is shown in the laws of science and math. These things are very predicable. So I think many scientists will agree that there is a God. How else can you explain order and design? The Second Law of thermodynamics states that entropy (or disorder) always increases with time, so we basically live in a decaying universe. All you have to do is stop making repairs around the house to see that principle at work! Eventually, the entire universe will "burn out" as it continues to expand and be reduced to nothing more that low level, background radiation, mostly in the form of microwaves. How then does life develop and thrive when the whole universe is in a state of decay? How is it that there are sophisticated, self-replicating organisms in the universe, known as life, that develop in spite of the Second Law? It is know as the Anthropic Principle and it shows divine providence without a doubt. If there was not a God that favored mankind, it simply could not have developed. Life shows an extremely high level of order and complexity that must have been created because order is not the natural state of the universe, disorder is. In other words, there is design and you can’t have design without a designer! Therefore, it stands to scientific reason that there should be a God.

Darwinian Evolution VS Divine Evolution...

Atheistic scientists are a different story. They believe that life resulted from random combinations of simple molecules in a spontaneous fashion and that the universe just happened without cause or that it always existed in a static state, but that's not mathematically legitimate and does not agree with common observation. Even Darwin said of the human eye that the odds that it "could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Darwinian evolution is simply not possible. It requires transitional life forms that do not exist in the fossil record. They are known as the "missing links". Why are there well-defined species in the fossil record with no intermediate forms? There are gigantic gaps in the record that can't be explained. I can sympathize with the rational of an agnostic scientist, but the atheistic scientist cannot be taken seriously. There's just too much evidence against the spontaneous appearance and progression of life or "naturalism" as some call it. Creation is the best explanation, and that is obviously precluded if there if no creator. Besides, if law and order are really the products of a mindless natural process, the human mind must be viewed as an accident too, in a series of many accidents. If that's so, how can we have any confidence that our mind could even recognize the truth anyway? How could a concept like truth even be possible? It just doesn't make logical sense without a God. There would be no need and no reason for any of this observed order, plus the observation itself would necessarily be questionable.

The First Law: Conservation necessitates creation to explain existence.

The First Law of thermodynamics is a fundamental, scientific property of the universe that also strongly supports the existence of God. It states that energy can change forms, but cannot be created or destroyed. That means that the overall energy of a finite system remains constant. Man can only refashion existing materials, but can't actually create anything new. The First Law shows that the universe must have had a finite beginning, and that it could not have just created itself. Just like naturalism can't explain the development of life, there isn’t any known natural process that can account for it's own origin. This scientific law is directly oppositional to a godless beginning. The reason energy can not be destroyed is stated in the Bible: God "upholds all things by the word of his power" Heb.1:3 and "preserves and keeps in store his creation." Peter 3:7 So basically, the Second Law shows that the universe must have had a beginning and the First Law proves it could not have just begun by itself. The total energy of the universe is constant, but the amount of available (or ordered) energy is steadily decreasing over time into a disordered form. If you could go back in time, this would reverse itself and order would increase. You would reach a point where total energy was equal to available energy. That was the beginning of time, and time can't go back any farther than that point. That point is known as a singularity and is part of the mystery of a singular God. Since energy can't just create itself, and there was no other imperative for it to exist, there is only one logical scientific conclusion: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Really, there are no other satisfactory explanations that match the known facts.

The Cosmological Argument demonstrates there must be some God out there.

There are only 4 possibilities as to the origin of the universe and thus the existence of life. This is an argument of universal causation and can be summaries like this:

The universe has no creator/cause.

1) The universe has never existed so it has no beginning or end. This model requires no creator, but it’s also rather absurd. We are here! We can all agree that we do exist and something is going on here, right? If this universe is all just an illusion, then the argument can stop here because the question is just an illusion too.

2) The universe has always existed in a steady state and has no beginning or end. This model requires no creator, but is also disproved by the First Law and not supported by the Second Law. Mathematically, a static, infinite universe just can't work and doesn't match scientific observations. This is like saying you've always been alive, and will also never die. Once again, we all know better than that.

The universe has a creator/cause.

3) The universe has a beginning and created itself. This is a formal contradiction because how can something create itself before it even exists? Nothing finite can cause itself, because it is connected to another, prior cause. Sorry Darwin, self-creation is scientifically disproved and lacks the imperative that this cause and effect universe requires. That's like saying you created yourself, and did it before you were even born!

4) The universe has a beginning and God created it. By a process of elimination, if we exist in a finite universe that had a beginning that could not have caused itself, then God is the only other explanation. In other words, God is the uncaused cause. The universe exists because of a first cause, there cannot be an infinite series of causes. Therefore, the first cause had to be God.

Statistical odds of random, advanced life (does God play dice?)

Let's look at the math involved in universal considerations. Consider a very simple microorganism consisting of 200 cells. Let's not even consider the math on where the cells came from (that's too much math and I'm not that smart) but just think of the combination of those cells to form a primitive organism. The probability of forming that ordered cell system by chance is 1 in 200 factorial. That factorial (expressed as 200!) can be calculated by multiplying all the numbers together from 1 to 200 and yields a result of 1 chance in 10E_375. I will not bother to type out 375 zeros, you get the point. You actually have much better odds of jumping out of a plane with no parachute and surviving the impact every single day for the rest of your life even if you lived to be 100 years old. Would you really gamble your life on odds like that? If you deny the likelihood of God, that’s what you’re doing. As the complexity of a system increases, the odds of an ordered outcome occurring by chance become exponentially dismal, even for the random existence of a simple 200 celled organism, much less a human being. It's safe to say that it takes much more "faith" to be an unbeliever than it does to believe in God.

Which God specifically?

So maybe you're starting to take the reality of God a bit more seriously, but why Christianity? Many of the great scientists were Christian, like Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Faraday, Flemming, etc.. Biblical creationism correlates with the known scientific facts extremely well. Naturalism doesn't, and neither do any other religions I’ve studies. I have studied this in depth, applied many branches of science and analyzed the facts. I have tested it in my own life to see if it holds scientific truth. No other religion in the world has a god that claimed he could provide what Christ did. No other religious leader even made the claim that they would return from the dead. Only the one, true God of the universe has the power over life and death. Only the God of the Bible even made that claim. So, either Christ is who he said he was (the sovereign God of all) or he was a total lunatic, but he can’t be both.

What is faith and can it be justified?

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, so once you see the manifestations of your faith becoming reality, that proof in turn substantiates your faith. Don't just believe blindly, faith demonstrates and justifies itself over time. God cannot be seen (at least I have not seen him) but can be clearly detected by indirect means, just like the position and velocity of sub-atomic particles are measured. It’s scientifically explainable by the Exclusion Principle. You can never know the exact position and velocity of a particle at the same time because one is necessarily modified while observing the other, thus one of those measures can be directly observed and the other must be determined by indirect means. It does not mean that the particle lacks either property of position or velocity, only that they cannot be directly measured together. It's the same with God. You may never observe his existence directly, but when you see the effect God has in your life, it becomes possible to validate the cause.

The Third Law (angels and demons)

Newton’s Third Law states that there can be no force without an opposing force to balance it. That means that good cannot even be defined unless there is evil as a reference. In other words, forces come in pairs, so the Third Law would validate that some force should exist in opposition to God. Looking at our world today, the presence of a strong evil force has a scientific explanation that fits this observation. Why would somebody support evil and not side with God? Maybe because they have been deceived since childhood. People have been conditioned to believe that God makes a bunch of restrictive rules, or that they have to work their way to heaven by some church doctrine. Has God ever asked you for anything, or is it really some organization with their rulebooks and their hands in your pocket? God made you free! God is not looking down from heaven shaking his finger, waiting for you to screw up so he can strike you down. That's what some churches and religious establishments want you to think, and that's definitely what your demonic enemies (some people call them Aliens) want you to believe, but it’s a huge lie. You don't need anyone else in order to have a relationship with God. All you have to do is seek truth in prayer, and he does the rest. If you accept what he is, he’ll accept you too, and I can personally testify to this truth. Think about it and consider that the existence of God is more scientifically probably than not.
 
Last edited:
mmowry

mmowry

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
Bumpidy Bump :D
 
peece

peece

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Best thing I read all day!!

It's simple, just take a few minutes and go some place private and ask God for the truth and he will reveal it to you.

I agree DR., what is cool about God is if you really are sincere concerning Truth He wil reveal it to you. Just be honest and tell Him exactly what you think and feel-He can take it

Then watch what happens

Strobel rocks
 
neoborn

neoborn

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
1. All depends of what your concept of what "God" is, personally I don't go for the Dood with the long white robe and the beard :D. Most of the things we read are but a reflection, a snapshot of someone who has glimpsed the truth / love, what we call "God" and tries to relay that truth to the masses. The thing is it's not something that conveys well, you have to experience the truth and love for yourself. "It" is real "God" is real.

2. It will support it in time when the two meet each other. But then again I'm sure they will try to downplay it into it's most basic form and fail.

When you try to view "God" "it" it will change form. You can truly see it in the face of a child, you can feel it when in love etc etc.

<3
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
1. All depends of what your concept of what "God" is, personally I don't go for the Dood with the long white robe and the beard :D.
That's more like Santa Clause. Don't tell me he's not real too! I want presents and lots of candieeee! j/k :p
 
anabolicrhino

anabolicrhino

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
God and religion can be useful tools, if used properly when we need them!

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods.

"What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.
He turned to look and saw a 7 foot grizzly bear charge towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him.
He looked over his shoulder again and the bear was even closer.
He tripped and fell on the ground.
He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the Atheist cried out to the Lord.
Time stopped, the bear froze, the forest was silent. A bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all of these years, teach others I don't exist, and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"
The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps could you make the BEAR a Christian?"
"Very well," said the voice.
The light went out.
The sounds of the forest resumed. And then the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together and bowed his head and spoke:
"Lord, bless this food, which I am about to receive through Christ our Lord, Amen."
 

bert4332

New member
Awards
0
This book changed my life. It's a very hard read, I had to have my laptop with dictionary.com being used at least every 5 minutes. But with your background you should breeze through it.

Recommended reading: The Pagan Christ
 

AFOX

Member
Awards
0
What a great article. It reconfirms everything I know in my heart and mind to be true.
 
poison

poison

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Uh-oh.


























:p I'm Jewish, guys, I'll sit this one out. I will say that no man, nor method known to man, can prove the existance of God....NOR disprove it.
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
All these arguments have been refuted.

Read, "God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" by Victor J Stenger

"When people start using science to argue for their specific beliefs and delusions, to try to claim that they're supported by science, then scientists at least have to speak up and say, "You're welcome to your delusions, but don't say that they're supported by science."

"The argument from design rests on the notion that everything, but God, must come from something. However, once you agree that it is logically possible for an entity to exist that was not itself created, namely God, then that entity can just as well be the universe itself. Indeed, this is a more economical possibility, not requiring the additional hypothesis of a supernatural power outside the universe....
... To [creationists], it is not a matter of logic anyway, but common sense. They see no way that the universe could have just happened, without intent. "How can something come from nothing?" they continue to ask, never wondering how God came from nothing."
-- Vic Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001), ch. 3

"The argument from design stands or falls on whether it can be demonstrated that some aspect of the universe such as its origin or biological life could not have come about naturally. The burden of proof is ... on the supernaturalist to demonstrate that something from outside nature must be introduced to explain the data."
Victor Stenger:
Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii
Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado
Research Fellow, Center for Inquiry - Transnational CFI
Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry CSI
 
Jayhawkk

Jayhawkk

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Just keep it civil please fellas and ladies(if you enter in the thread). Respect each other's opinion while disagreeing :)
 
peece

peece

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
The burden of proof is ... on the supernaturalist to demonstrate that something from outside nature must be introduced to explain the data."

I think that Scientist name was Jesus

The Word shall become human and live here on earth among us. (He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness) John 1.
 
neoborn

neoborn

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
F'n lol 10/10.
God and religion can be useful tools, if used properly when we need them!

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods.

"What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.
He turned to look and saw a 7 foot grizzly bear charge towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him.
He looked over his shoulder again and the bear was even closer.
He tripped and fell on the ground.
He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the Atheist cried out to the Lord.
Time stopped, the bear froze, the forest was silent. A bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all of these years, teach others I don't exist, and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"
The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps could you make the BEAR a Christian?"
"Very well," said the voice.
The light went out.
The sounds of the forest resumed. And then the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together and bowed his head and spoke:
"Lord, bless this food, which I am about to receive through Christ our Lord, Amen."
 
neoborn

neoborn

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
The burden of proof is ... on the supernaturalist to demonstrate that something from outside nature must be introduced to explain the data."
I must admit I didn't read the whole thing but I thought it was sciences job to provide unrelenting proof that "x" is true or to disprove "x"...maybe I'm incorrect....:blink:
 
friction515

friction515

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
The universe has no creator/cause.

1) It has never existed so it has no beginning or end. This model requires no creator, but is also rather absurd. We are here! I mean, we can all agree that we do exist and something is going on here, right? If this is all just an illusion, then the argument can stop here because the question is just an illusion too.

2) It has always existed in a steady state and has no beginning or end. This requires no creator, but is also disproved by the First Law and not supported by the Second Law. Mathematically, a static, infinite universe just can't work and doesn't match observations either. This is like saying you've always been alive and will also never die, and we all know better than that.

The universe has a creator/cause.

3) It has a beginning and created itself. This is a formal contradiction because how can something create itself before it even exists? Nothing finite can cause itself because it is connected to another, prior cause. Sorry Darwin, self-creation just can't explain reality and lacks the imperative that this cause and effect universe requires. That's like saying you created yourself and did it before you were even born!

4) It has a beginning and God created it. By a process of elimination, we can say that if we do indeed exist in a finite universe that had a beginning that it could not have caused itself then God is the only other explanation that works! In other words, God is the uncaused cause. The universe exists because of a first cause, there can not be an infinite series of causes. Therefore, the first cause had to be God.

To act as if this is the only way of viewing these issues is not entirely accurate. Especially because the last inferrs that it is unintelligent not to believe in god. Why are so many great scientists athiests? Einstein believed in god however he did not believe in a personal god such as the one you are implying. I personally believe in god yet I dont necissarily think it is a belief that i have reached through my higher education.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
The universe has no creator/cause.

1) It has never existed so it has no beginning or end. This model requires no creator, but is also rather absurd. We are here! I mean, we can all agree that we do exist and something is going on here, right? If this is all just an illusion, then the argument can stop here because the question is just an illusion too.

2) It has always existed in a steady state and has no beginning or end. This requires no creator, but is also disproved by the First Law and not supported by the Second Law. Mathematically, a static, infinite universe just can't work and doesn't match observations either. This is like saying you've always been alive and will also never die, and we all know better than that.

The universe has a creator/cause.

3) It has a beginning and created itself. This is a formal contradiction because how can something create itself before it even exists? Nothing finite can cause itself because it is connected to another, prior cause. Sorry Darwin, self-creation just can't explain reality and lacks the imperative that this cause and effect universe requires. That's like saying you created yourself and did it before you were even born!

4) It has a beginning and God created it. By a process of elimination, we can say that if we do indeed exist in a finite universe that had a beginning that it could not have caused itself then God is the only other explanation that works! In other words, God is the uncaused cause. The universe exists because of a first cause, there can not be an infinite series of causes. Therefore, the first cause had to be God.

To act as if this is the only way of viewing these issues is not entirely accurate. Especially because the last inferrs that it is unintelligent not to believe in god. Why are so many great scientists athiests? Einstein believed in god however he did not believe in a personal god such as the one you are implying. I personally believe in god yet I dont necissarily think it is a belief that i have reached through my higher education.
OK, well that's why I asked to point it out if you can think of another way? What else would you like to suggest as a possibility? There was either a beginning (thus an end) or it's static, it's either real or an illusion, it's either finite or infinite. Once you answer those questions with the current evidence, my conclusion still stands on the best odds that it was created.
 
mmowry

mmowry

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
I Agree DR D :D
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Uh-oh.


























:p I'm Jewish, guys, I'll sit this one out. I will say that no man, nor method known to man, can prove the existance of God....NOR disprove it.
well said. I know it is nice for everyone here to have faith, but it is just that.... faith, not proof
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
All these arguments have been refuted.

"The argument from design rests on the notion that everything, but God, must come from something. However, once you agree that it is logically possible for an entity to exist that was not itself created, namely God, then that entity can just as well be the universe itself. Indeed, this is a more economical possibility, not requiring the additional hypothesis of a supernatural power outside the universe....

... To [creationists], it is not a matter of logic anyway, but common sense. They see no way that the universe could have just happened, without intent. "How can something come from nothing?" they continue to ask, never wondering how God came from nothing."
-- Vic Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001), ch. 3 ...
I have not heard you refute anything actually. I asked many question and you have not addressed or attempted to answer any of them. If you can not dismiss them with any substantial argument, you necessarily can not legitimately refute them.

As for Vic's quote, it makes sense on the surface, but as I already mentioned, God is the uncaused cause. It doesn't require an explanation because it is an intrinsic property of sovereignty!

The question here is not the origin of the creator, but only the creation. Besides, God already answers this question in the Bible, he has always existed, even before time. I already pointed out that any question you pose before time is impossible to answer anyway because that's where the laws of physics break down. I am only demonstrating why science supports God in our known universe. Your additional arguments are a smoke screen to confuse that fact and should be confined to the realms of metaphysic, not true science like I discuss here.
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
OK, well that's why I asked to point it out if you can think of another way? What else would you like to suggest as a possibility? There was either a beginning (thus an end) or it's static, it's either real or an illusion, it's either finite or infinite. Once you answer those questions with the current evidence, my conclusion still stands on the best odds that it was created.
by that argument what created the creator?
I love the first creation argument
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I have not heard you refute anything actually. I asked many question and you have not addressed or attempted to answer any of them. If you can not dismiss them with any substantial argument, you necessarily can not legitimately refute them.

As for Vic's quote, it makes sense on the surface, but as I already mentioned, God is the uncaused cause. It doesn't require an explanation because it is an intrinsic property of sovereignty!

The question here is not the origin of the creator, but only the creation. Besides, God already answers this question in the Bible, he has always existed, even before time. I already pointed out that any question you pose before time is impossible to answer anyway because that's where the laws of physics break down. I am only demonstrating why science supports God in our known universe. Your additional arguments are a smoke screen to confuse that fact and should be confined to the realms of metaphysic, not true science like I discuss here.
so in essence you take your proof from a book created by man, and retranslated countless times? Hmmm..........:blink:
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
by that argument what created the creator?
I love the first creation argument
I answered that in the post above, it's beyond the scope of this discussion, though that would make another great thread! I have some ideas alright, but who knows. The two issues should not be confused though and do not require a common explanation.
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I answered that in the post above, it's beyond the scope of this discussion, though that would make another great thread! I have some ideas alright, but who knows. The two issues should not be confused though and do not require a common explanation.
I dont disagree that it would certainly be a great thread, but you are making the assumption that a "god" had to create this because it must have a beginning, yet why does that not apply to this "god"?
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
so in essence you take your proof from a book created by man, and retranslated countless times? Hmmm..........:blink:
No, I take my proof from science and apply it to that book! You got it exactly backwards. Besides, the Bible is written by man yes, but the inspired word of God nonetheless.
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
No, I take my proof from science and apply it to that book! You got it exactly backwards. Besides, the Bible is written by man yes, but the inspired word of God nonetheless.
that is a statement based on faith not based on factual evidence.

lets move forward a few thousand years after the creation of the OT, take a couple of truly "inspired" men and leave them alone in conditions where they feel they are persecuted and could in fact not be of the right mind, and give them a pen and paper, they might also write some interesting things. Also, the modern thoought regarding them would be to send them to bellvue (NYC mental institution)

My point being, that even if (big if) anything was inspired, man is inherently flawed thus making the text flawed as well
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I dont disagree that it would certainly be a great thread, but you are making the assumption that a "god" had to create this because it must have a beginning, yet why does that not apply to this "god"?
That's what the word sovereignty means. Who knows?! It is independent of this topic. The laws of physics only explain the universe, not what came before it or what is present in it's absence. You keep making an assumption that there should be a connection, why?
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
that is a statement based on faith not based on factual evidence.

lets move forward a few thousand years after the creation of the OT, take a couple of truly "inspired" men and leave them alone in conditions where they feel they are persecuted and could in fact not be of the right mind, and give them a pen and paper, they might also write some interesting things. Also, the modern thoought regarding them would be to send them to bellvue (NYC mental institution)

My point being, that even if (big if) anything was inspired, man is inherently flawed thus making the text flawed as well
Have you ever even read the Bible? This argument can just end now if not. :)
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
That's what the word sovereignty means. Who knows?! It is independent of this topic. The laws of physics only explain the universe, not what came before it or what is present in it's absence. You keep making an assumption that there should be a connection, why?

I think the issue here is that we are both making assumptions. At the end of the day neither of us know an answer...sadly


However, rereading your first post, it is filled with faith based assumptions which also make it inherently flawed.

I am not saying there is no god (my belief system is nontheistic in nature), but the evidence does not support the existence of a supreme being
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Have you ever even read the Bible? This argument can just end now if not. :)
Would you like a list of texts I have read? I have a masters degree in religious studies and have taught religion for many years.

So to answer the question I have read the OT, NT, Qu'ran, Vedas, Tao, Dhamapada and many others. I hope this helps
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I think the issue here is that we are both making assumptions. At the end of the day neither of us know an answer...sadly


However, rereading your first post, it is filled with faith based assumptions which also make it inherently flawed.

I am not saying there is no god (my belief system is nontheistic in nature), but the evidence does not support the existence of a supreme being
Perhaps you just can't understand the science or the implications of it. Maybe your current views restrain you from even considering it? Or maybe I just don't communicate it well, but I gave LOTS of support that you can not seriously dismiss with a sentence or two, sorry.
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Perhaps you just can't understand the science or the implications of it. Maybe your current views restrain you from even considering it? Or maybe I just don't communicate it well, but I gave LOTS of support that you can not seriously dismiss with a sentence or two, sorry.

Opinions vary, however in the first post and from what I have read of the thread the evidence is not convincing in the least. In fact, it leaves holes available as I mentioned previously.

Also, in reference to your comment about me being restrained, have you applied that theory to your own views and stand point? Just curious
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Would you like a list of texts I have read? I have a masters degree in religious studies and have taught religion for many years.

So to answer the question I have read the OT, NT, Qu'ran, Vedas, Tao, Dhamapada and many others. I hope this helps
Then please, be specific in your objections. Your arguments are vague.
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Then please, be specific in your objections. Your arguments are vague.
not vague at all. Based on the 1st post of this thread, in the argument of the "creator and the finite universe" it is wholly based on assumptions. The mention of mathematics is fine, but no proof or statistical information is given. All in all, there is no proof, just faith
 
Jayhawkk

Jayhawkk

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I believe in God but I do not believe the bible to be the word of God because of the heavy influence of Man and their inherant ability to **** up anything they touch.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Opinions vary, however in the first post and from what I have read of the thread the evidence is not convincing in the least. In fact, it leaves holes available as I mentioned previously.

Also, in reference to your comment about me being restrained, have you applied that theory to your own views and stand point? Just curious
Yes, I have applied it to myself. If you had read my first post thoroughly, you would have seen that I had no Christian or religious background of any kind to bias me, and in fact was a serious agnostic! I though God may exist, but it was absurd to think he would concern himself with the petty affairs of mankind. My whole world had to change literally and I had to rethink everything. So I understand where you're coming from if that's the case for you. I was there myself, and it was tough.

As for holes, please be more specific as to your actually objections please.
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I believe in God but I do not believe the bible to be the word of God because of the heavy influence of Man and their inherant ability to **** up anything they touch.
well said
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Yes, I have applied it to myself. If you had read my first post thoroughly, you would have seen that I had no Christian or religious background of any kind to bias me, and in fact was a serious agnostic! I though God may exist, but it was absurd to think he would concern himself with the petty affairs of mankind. My whole world had to change literally and I have to rethink everything. So I understand where you're coming from if that's the case for you. I was there myself, and it was tough.

As for holes, please be more specific as to your actually objections please.
First, I am glad to hear of your conversion as if it gives you answers I am all for it. However please dont tell me that 1 book led you there, as that is very disconcerting.

Additionally, I am begining to think you arent reading my posts. I stated a specific objection yet you ignore it and are asking for more. Hmmmmmm........
 
MrTotality

MrTotality

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I must run now, but will check back to see the progress of the debate. Bye bye for now
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
God already answers this question in the Bible, he has always existed, even before time.
This is so conveinient.

So how do you know Allah doesn't exist? More people believe in what the Koran says...
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Yes, I have applied it to myself. If you had read my first post thoroughly, you would have seen that I had no Christian or religious background of any kind to bias me, and in fact was a serious agnostic! I though God may exist, but it was absurd to think he would concern himself with the petty affairs of mankind. My whole world had to change literally and I had to rethink everything. So I understand where you're coming from if that's the case for you. I was there myself, and it was tough.

As for holes, please be more specific as to your actually objections please.
And what caused this?
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
First, I am glad to hear of your conversion as if it gives you answers I am all for it. However please dont tell me that 1 book led you there, as that is very disconcerting.

Additionally, I am begining to think you arent reading my posts. I stated a specific objection yet you ignore it and are asking for more. Hmmmmmm........
No, I'm really not ignoring you, I just don't think we're communicating well. I keep having to repeat myself with you. No, 1 book didn't lead me to anything! By background (science) and personal observation led me to my insights. I actually found hell before heaven. I realized that something was going on in my life, something intangible and sublime but nonetheless quite apparent and I could not descride it with any other word aside from "evil", which was a foreign word to me at the time. I wondered why I could not describe it any other way if I did not previously recognize good and evil? But long story short, I reconed if there was actually evil as I had ebcountered, that made it necessary for good to exist too since a force requires an opposing, balancing component to satisfy equilibrium. I discovered hell before I accepted heaven.

Reading the Bible was hard! For about 2 wks I was very confused. The Bible seemed so bloody and barbaric to me. All the animal sacrifices and stuff seemed weird and made me very reluctant to keep reading! Believe me, I'm not one of those guys that "got saved" in an alter call and threw myself on the floor like some stereotypical, overly emotional Christian you see on TV. It was not hyper-suggestion that convinced me to consider it. I forced myself to read the Bible because as a scientist, I have to run assays and conduct tests whether I like it or not. Only the truth matters and what I wish was true is totally irrelevant. I am not basing my beliefs on any 1 book. I am saying once you decide to investigate it, it does add up and is supportable. That's how it happened with me at least.

Some do get instant revelation and know the same day they are saved. It took me weeks of fear and hesitation to accept though. It simply came to the point I could no longer deny it. Once I had really started to integrate it all, the evidence was too strong and could see proof in my own life too. Maybe you should clear you preconceptions as best you can and give it another chance? I know you haven't, because if you did the truth would find you too. Don't be scared to face it.
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
sorry this is kinda long...
Darwinian Evolution VS Divine Evolution...
“As already noted, Dr. Wells claims that the archaeopteryx couldn't be a "missing link." Most scientists abhor this misleading term, as it erroneously implies that there should always be intermediates between modern species. But there is no "missing link," for instance, between man and apes because man did not evolve from apes. Moreover, while there are innumerable intermediate species between human beings and the common ancestor we share with apes, we couldn't possibly enumerate all of them, and thus in this sense there will always be "missing links" even if evolution is true. Thus the term "missing link" can only reasonably describe a rather large gap in the evolutionary tree of a particular modern species.”

“Wells argues that transitional life forms never existed at all, which makes his discussion of the Cambrian Explosion all the more ironic: The Cambrian Explosion was nothing but the introduction of transitional life forms! For example, trilobites appeared in the Cambrian Explosion, and are now extinct, but are the ancestors of some modern arthropods.”
The Cosmological Argument demonstrates there must be some god out there.
“Of course, Dr. Craig is aware of one of the more obvious objections to the cosmological argument: If the universe requires a Creator, why doesn't God require a Creator as well? Craig argues that only things that begin to exist require a cause (i.e., a creator), and since God has always existed, he does not require a cause. Since the universe began with a Big Bang, however, it must have had a cause. Is this argument sound?
“…note that it is quite convenient for Craig that the universe "happens" to require a cause on his account, while at the same time God is exempt from this requirement. This certainly smacks of an ad hoc argument designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.”

“Perhaps more importantly, Craig's argument is unfalsifiable: there is no practical way to test his hypothesis. Because it fails to make testable predictions, the argument reduces to mere philosophical speculation. If it were presented as a philosophical argument, this would not be an issue; but Craig presents the argument as if it were a scientific one.

But fundamentally, the cosmological argument is motivated by the question: "Why is there something instead of nothing?" This is, indeed, the most imponderable of imponderables. But the cosmological argument, even if sound, cannot answer it. For even if God did create the universe, God is still a very big something, and we are still left with the question: "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Craig's argument that a something without beginning (God) requires no cause is a tacit admission that there is no answer for why something exists instead of nothing.”

“Similarly, Craig depicts God as being outside of time, or "timeless." Yet he depicts God's creation in a stepwise, time-based fashion: there is a "time" before the universe exists, then God "decides" to create the universe, and then the universe pops into existence. This series of events appears to be inconsistent with God being "timeless." Although these sorts of philosophical arguments are not conclusive, they certainly are no less compelling than those offered by Dr. Craig.

Finally, Craig and Strobel discuss naturalistic theories of the origin of the universe, including the theory that universes are generated in a great "quantum vacuum" outside of our universe. On this theory, Craig says, "we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself. Where does it come from?" (p. 101).
But Craig has already said that things that don't have a beginning don't require a cause. And if the existence of God doesn't require a cause or explanation, who is Craig to say that a quantum vacuum does? Of course, the quantum vacuum theory may or may not be true--but Dr. Craig can't justifiably demand an origin for a quantum vacuum while exempting God from one.”
Why Christianity specifically?
Dr.D:
Christ is the only god of any religion that actually died and rose again! The resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith and what really separates Christianity from the rest. There where many witnesses and it is well documented and accounted even by secular historians such as Josephus that Christ was seen post-crucifixion many many times.”

“Josephus was known as "Flavius Josephus" from his patrons the Flavian emperors, Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian. Testimonium Flavianum means literally "Testimony of Flavius" and refers to Antiquities 18.3.3 §63-64:
Unlike Josephus' shorter reference to Jesus, this passage is extremely controversial. Indeed, even McDowell admits this when he writes that the Testimonium Flavianum is "a hotly-contested quotation."[26] Most scholars suspect there has been at least some tampering with the text on the basis of some or all of the italicized sections. Thus scholarly opinion can be divided into three camps: those who accept the entire passage as authentic; those who reject the entire passage as a Christian interpolation into the text (perhaps authored by the fourth-century church historian Eusebius); and those who believe that the original text contained an authentic reference to Jesus but was later embellished by Christian copyists.
I wouldn’t call that proof…

Dr. D:
He's gracious and loving and he takes good care of his kids.”
Accept when he’s not preventing/causing(?) tsunamis and other natural disasters, allowing horrible atrocities to occur (oh wait, free will…) birthdefects, etc, etc.
If a human treated their kid like he/she does, they would be in prison....


Basically, imagine a world not created/run by god…what would it be like? Hmmm…probably like it is now.
Those who are religious have to come up with numerous “excuses” why there is so much evil and suffering in the world despite there being a wonderful god…
“why did 250,000 people die in a tsunami?”
“um…it was god’s will”
“why did my 2 year old die?” “why did that bus of Christians crash, killing a preacher and everyone else?”
“umm… god had another plan for them.”
“Hey, I’m cured of this terminal disease! God saved me!”
“But what about Joe Schmoe lying next to you who prayed to live, but died?”
“Umm…it was his time to go.”


I look at it as, “what happens, happens.”
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
This is so conveinient.

So how do you know Allah doesn't exist? More people believe in what the Koran says...
I have studied the Qur'an. It is not scientifically sound and loaded with tons of contradiction. Muhammad was a shape shifting politician IMO. He never made the claims of Christ either. Can you name one other religion that actually jibes with it's own predictions and phophesies? Christ never appoligies for changing his mind later, he never had to because he was always shown true! He is the same today, yesterday annd tomorrow.

You guys are taking me all wrong. If you don't believe in Christ, that's fine. Let's deal with first things first then! I still challenge you to refute the evidence that indicates the extremely high probability that some god must exist to explain what we observe. At least acknowledge that, even if I have failed to influence you as to what your first choice of investigation should be. That's what this is really about, I'm not pushing Christianity as much as showing scientific evidence for the existence of god, look at the title of my post again please. :) I'm just reaching out to the "innocent" atheist that may really want the truth but doesn't know where to start. This is meant to stimulate your interest to pursue it further, though I am always personally available to any of you should you desire my private input.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
... I look at it as, “what happens, happens.”
EE, I'm sorry if you had a child that died. I can not offer anything more that my condolences for your 2 year old. I just have reason to believe He knows what he's doing even if he chooses not to let us in on it. It's his prerogative and I won't make excuses for him or pretend to understand all the reasons why. It's a fallen world and crap happens, I just know he's holding the cards and has it totally covered in a way only an alpha would be able to understand anyway.

I sure wish you would take my advice and pray about it. If God is bull****, then what have you lost, 2 minutes of your life max? But if he is as I've told you, and you sincerely seek truth, he will fill you in. That's all I know for certain my friend. Wouldn't you want in on that if it turned out to be true? I am sorry again if I struck a painful chord within you. That was not my intent.
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
I have studied the Qur'an. It is not scientifically sound and loaded with tons of contradiction. Muhammad was a shape shifting politician IMO. He never made the claims of Christ either. Can you name one other religion that actually jibes with it's own predictions and phophesies? Christ never appoligies for changing his mind later, he never had to because he was always shown true! He is the same today, yesterday annd tomorrow.

You guys are taking me all wrong. If you don't believe in Christ, that's fine. Let's deal with first things first then! I still challenge you to refute the evidence that indicates the extremely high probability that some god must exist to explain what we observe. At least acknowledge that, even if I have failed to influence you as to what your first choice of investigation should be. That's what this is really about, I'm not pushing Christianity as much as showing scientific evidence for the existence of god, look at the title of my post again please. :) I'm just reaching out to the "innocent" atheist that may really want the truth but doesn't know where to start. This is meant to stimulate your interest to pursue it further, though I am always personally available to any of you should you desire my private input.
The Bible is full of contradictions itself...

"I still challenge you to refute the evidence that indicates the extremely high probability that some god must exist to explain what we observe

I don't see the evidence...where is the scientific evidence?
High probability?!

I like this quote:
"I've coined a phrase to describe the "fine-tuning" argument. I call it the "astonishment index." People find the universe, well, astonishing--and rightly so. It is quite amazing that it exists. And the "fine-tuning" argument seems to argue that the more astonishing the universe is, the more unlikely it is to exist without a creator. Thus, Collins seems to be saying that the probability of the universe existing without cause is inversely proportional to the astonishment index. But no matter how high the universe ranks on the astonishment index, God must rank even higher. So the probability that God has no creator must be even lower than the probability that there is no creator of the universe!"
 

EESCHMan

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
EE, I'm sorry if you had a child that died. I can not offer anything more that my condolences for your 2 year old. I just have reason to believe He knows what he's doing even if he chooses not to let us in on it. It's his prerogative and I won't make excuses for him or pretend to understand all the reasons why. It's a fallen world and crap happens, I just know he's holding the cards and has it totally covered in a way only an alpha would be able to understand anyway.

I sure wish you would take my advice and pray about it. If God is bull****, then what have you lost, 2 minutes of your life max? But if he is as I've told you, and you sincerely seek truth, he will fill you in. That's all I know for certain my friend. Wouldn't you want in on that if it turned out to be true? I am sorry again if I struck a painful chord within you. That was not my intent.
No...no...no...I'm sorry, I was just using that as a point.
I don't have any children (yet).
I've had a great life (some major accidents, but "what happens happens!") and have no use for a supernatural being.
I know people find comfort in it, and that's fine. Whatever gets you through the day.
Normally (about 4 years ago) I could care less about religion or what people believed, but like I said somewhere else...living in the south it's so "in your face" that it's unbearable, and the fact that now we seem to be establishing laws based on religion.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
No...no...no...I'm sorry, I was just using that as a point.
I don't have any children (yet).
I've had a great life (some major accidents, but "what happens happens!") and have no use for a supernatural being.
I know people find comfort in it, and that's fine. Whatever gets you through the day.
Normally (about 4 years ago) I could care less about religion or what people believed, but like I said somewhere else...living in the south it's so "in your face" that it's unbearable, and the fact that now we seem to be establishing laws based on religion.
This whole country was founded on Christianity. It's no surprise that the laws would reflect that, though I see the US moving away from it actually. I know the type of Southerners you speak of. They turn me off too most times. It almost makes me automatically oppositional, like you, just because they usually don't have a clue why they are right! But they are nonetheless right. God is real and you still don't hear what I'm saying. I didn't find "comfort" in it at all so don't lump me in with the idiots your talking about. It was not a method of escape or lack of a better explanation or family tradition or something I wanted. It was very uncomfortable for me to accept. I didn't want it to be true because it scared me and was foreign to me. You still won't open your mind. I was just like you.
 
mmowry

mmowry

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
Well people Id just like to say that I understand that there are questions that are unanswered but there will always be questions.Whether it be about God,science or why do women think like they do.:D But the bible states that "the carnal mind is at emnity with God" and its true as I was for the greater portion of my life.

Ive lived a past that Im not proud of and Ive done things that Ill probably never repeat.I didnt have a science background to evaluate Gods existence but I have had a few supernatural experiences that science will NEVER explain outside of divine intervention.My past is riddled with everything that you can imagine besides actual murder and that one almost came to pass.I was into the occult and Ive experienced "evil" which I now know as demonic presences/forces.Ive also experienced the power that is God which is love.

Ive been delivered of these presences,drug addiction,depression,hatred,fear and alcoholism among other things.I can now sleep freely,experience peace and unselfish love.Love is the reason why Im posting.Im not trying to win a bebate but rather give guidance to any that would rather live without the guilt,pain,restlessness,fear and sorrow that we experience due to sin.I know that this will draw ridicule from some and thats fine but someone may see the Truth and this shall set them free.Enough has been said to draw a conclusion so chose wisely because if theres evil theres a hell and if theres Love then there is a heaven and a God that presides over it.We only have this short amount of life to make the decision and once we draw our last breath its too late to turn back.

So in conclusion all I have to ask is if you really and honestly want to know the truth and not just the truth as you know it at this time:like Dr D said take 2 minutes and with an open mind and humble heart ask this God of creation who I now know as Christ to reveal Himself to you.You have nothing to lose by doing this and everything to gain but by not doing this you have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
 
peece

peece

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Sometimes love has to drive a nail into its own hand
Sometimes love has to drive a nail into its own hand

One pair of hands broke some bread and washed some feet
Opened eyes and soothed an angry sea
Belong to a man who could see our deepest need
And showed us love the way it has to be
‘Cause he knew the price that love requires
And he laid down his own desires
He stretched out his hands to save his friends
And said no other love is higher
Love can change us, love can make a way
Only love can change us, love can make a way

Sometimes love has to drive a nail into its own hand

The way I see it He let's us make our own desicions (free will)
And it is good to examine all the evidence

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads


Top