Evidence for God from Science

SoccerfreakAB2 wrote:I do not assume religion is correct, I have no religion. Religion is based on beliefs of the unknown. I know my beliefs are real because I can see them.

What about your belief that you know your beliefs are true?

Kurieuo

This slightly off topic, however in line with your response. I think it's safe to say that the main difference between Christians and Jews and Muslims is their idea of what jesus was. But the bible says that you have to accept christ as the savior in order to be forgiven of sins and go do heaven. I...

I added a bit more to my post before you posted, but to respond to a further comment in your reply... The main reason for my question is that so many Christians are certain that their religion is right and all other religions are completely wrong. I wouldn't say this is true. When a Christian claims...

I believe the underlying claim behind your question is invalid. Can you please show us that your underlying premise is valid, that is, a Christian must know all religions in order to be justified that their Christian beliefs are true? As for why I believe. Well why do people believe anything their e...

Was God dead for three days when Jesus was crucified? I The answer is Christ's humanity was dead for three days and as Christ is also divine, thus God experienced this death also. This issue was briefly touched upon within the thread at http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=802 . As ...

Im a Catholic, but sometimes I feel like I deserve to be in hell or something. Whether this is something significant or not, I've noticed within my observations of certain Catholics that a lot of emphasis tends to be placed on feeling guilty, and that such is the right feeling to have. I do not kno...

In any case the science of physics assumes that natural laws remain constant, even in the fantastic conditions just after the big bang. Some (such as Lee Smolin) would disagree, speculating some many-universe theories (particularly his own) may be able to account for restricted differences in physi...

The accepted definition is in this thread. http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=1219 The definition provided was: " Irreducible complexity means single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any o...

I just want to work out how someone can come to the conclusion of irreducible complexity. I may have missed it somewhere, but perhaps you should define what "you" think "irreducible complexity" means, maybe provide some examples, and what implications you see it has on evolution...

I also found some stuff to be found on Moses at http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/7.3D.htm also, which also goes into details on the Exodus.

Kurieuo

Btw I meant "blob" not "blog" (obviously) in may last post.

Kurieuo

I had a tooth pulled recently! It's usually more of a crack than a "blog" sound, although I'm not really sure what a blob sounds like? I think more of Slimer from Ghost Busters or something...

So I'm not quite sure what your reasons are for assuming such people would, or have to believe, such laws evolved rather than just are? When Copleston asserted to Bertrand Russel (in their much popularised 1948 debate) that the universe is gratitous if God does not exist. Russel responded, "I ...

I don't believe that God created us flawed, perhaps that is what I meant by perfect. God's image must be a perfect image. In any event we are fearsome made and in his image. No need to split hairs here. True, I only made that point because I thought you were leading to somewhere else (i.e., why we ...

I have a few comments and then a question that I would really like to hear some views on. Since I believe that God created man in his image, I believe that man was created perfect. What does being created perfect mean, that is, what is "perfect"? I see that while Genesis says we were crea...