Evidence for God from Science

A long time ago a friend once said, "If a question or answer is not understood, then the question or answer wasn't put right. Rephrase the question or answer." With other words, don't blame the 'receiver' for not understanding (unless he willingly is doing so).

Justhuman wrote:A long time ago a friend once said, "If a question or answer is not understood, then the question or answer wasn't put right. Rephrase the question or answer." With other words, don't blame the 'receiver' for not understanding (unless he willingly is doing so).

A privation is not a thing in and of itself. It is the absence of something, a lack. Just as darkness is not a thing but a lack of light, or absolute zero temperature is lack of any heat, so evil is a lack of pure goodness, and lying is a lack of pure truth. Humans (actually this applies to all of the material creation) are contingent beings by nature, and so are lacking. God cannot lie, not because he can't, but because he lacks nothing. This, by the way, is why the so-called problem of evil in the world is not a problem at all for it is the product of a contingent world.

Byblos,

I've never heard why God doesn't lie, explained like that before.

It makes a lot of sense.

Great explanation!

Justhuman wrote:A long time ago a friend once said, "If a question or answer is not understood, then the question or answer wasn't put right. Rephrase the question or answer." With other words, don't blame the 'receiver' for not understanding (unless he willingly is doing so).

I meant that in respect to myself, for some here get a little impatient I still do not fully grasp (or doubt) what they explain. Don't despair! I've learned a lot.

And for now I think I'll leave it at that. I'll keep pondering over it...

So... on to the next!

Though... the real issue was me being irrational, which I still think I'm not. I' ll try and write some lenghty text about why...

Justhuman wrote:Though... the real issue was me being irrational, which I still think I'm not. I' ll try and write some lenghty text about why...

Maybe you can try to rationalize why you're not being irrational.

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:Though... the real issue was me being irrational, which I still think I'm not. I' ll try and write some lenghty text about why...

Maybe you can try to rationalize why you're not being irrational.

Gonna work on this contradictio. Might take some time...

Justhuman wrote:

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:Though... the real issue was me being irrational, which I still think I'm not. I' ll try and write some lenghty text about why...

Maybe you can try to rationalize why you're not being irrational.

Gonna work on this contradictio. Might take some time...

Actually rationalizing not being irrational is perfectly rational, it's trying to rationalize being irrational where you get into oxymoronic irrationality. Confused yet? I am.

Justhuman wrote:Though... the real issue was me being irrational, which I still think I'm not. I' ll try and write some lenghty text about why...

I mentioned previously, either the Christian is correct and the Atheist irrational, or the Atheist is correct and the Christian is irrational. Both can't be rational, and by rational, I mean seeing the truth clearly via reason (rationality). As a Christian then, my hands are logically tied to the position that Atheists are irrational.

As I hope you've seen in our discussion, it's not that I disrespect you, or your opinions. It's not that I don't believe you're a rational human being. Rather it's that your rational faculties are being affected in a manner so far as your inability to perceive God is concerned.

Understand, the lyrics in Amazing Grace, particularly the "was blind, but now I see." What does Newton mean here? What did he see? What happened that allowed him to see? Something about amazing grace I'm guessing, but what is this grace of which he sings?

Here the Christian believes that we are all in darkness, all of us. We all begin life with a veil over our eyes which hides the truth and knowledge of God. Sin is seen as the primary reason, our hearts desire to seek after ourselves and turn away from God. None of us truly want to even seek God. If true, then those who don't believe God exist, their ability to see is clouded. Their minds are made up, their reasoning leads them to non-God conclusions. Such can't reason to God for their hearts cloud their rational faculties from correctly working to perceive what is so obvious to many believers, namely God exists.

I've written in the past on this board that I believe God chooses to remove this darkened veil to those He chooses to reveal Himself clearly to. As a Christian, coming to Christ is seen as key to this. Many of the Christian posters here I dare say have had an immediate awareness to God in their life and His existence in the world around them. This may not necessarily be a strong spiritual experience of a mystical kind, but rather a spiritual perception. Upon conversion, the world looks different, makes more sense, God becomes evident. Something like this is often what is reported by many new Christians upon coming to Christ.

This explains why when Christians look at the world they see evidence for God all the way through it, whereas when a non-Christian/Atheist looks at the world they see absolutely no evidence, perhaps mainly a cold, cruel and even chaotic world. A well known theologian Jonathan Edwards believed certain moral and spiritual qualifications were required to appreciate the force of evidence for religious truths. Another theologian, William Wainwright, building on top of Edwards puts it down the "properly disposed heart" required to rationally appreciate God in the world.

Consider the following so far as human "reason" is concerned. 1) Many theologians and philosophers believe the evidence for God proves His existence. On the opposite end we have 2) many secular philosophers believe there is no significant evidence to warrant or justify belief in God's existence. Both sides are equally rational and intelligent, many have a deep understanding with the various arguments. Yet, both sides reach diametrically opposed conclusions. Why is this? Shouldn't reason allow us to know?

The only conclusion is that one's side reasoning ability is impaired. So, as a Christian, there seems to me much merit to Wainwright's ideas of a "properly disposed heart" being required that allows one's rational faculties to be correctly aligned to see the truth. Thus, Atheists are irrational because their rational faculties are impaired from seeing the truth due to the condition of their hearts.

On the other hand, the story from the Atheist side through the likes of Freud and Kant, is that Christians experience an illusion or delusion of sorts. They believe in their "religious experience" because they really want it to be true because of psychological factors. Therefore, the argument is that Christians' rational faculties are "tainted" if you will. They're irrational as such, believing in what is "rationally" not there.

You see, the two only honest positions are as follows:

1. If you're Atheist to believe Christians are irrational so far as God is concerned.
2. If you're Christian to believe Atheists are irrational so far as God is concerned.

There's no politically correct answer that allows us to say both sides are rational. One side is clearly being irrational. The question is, which side? And, I dare say if no belief in God leads us to reject much of what we perceive is real, for example, that we have a free will, and as such a belief in "goodness", "justice", "fairness", "love" and the like... that it isn't me who is being irrational.

Furthermore, I have had spiritual experiences, a new-found perception, which I dare say the majority of Atheists haven't had. Imagine if everyone around you saw the world in black and white, yet you saw colour. You point at the rainbow and exclaim, "Wow, doesn't that look colourful!" Others might look at you oddly, and if you tried to explain it to them, think you're pulling their leg or delusional. But, how can you now deny what you see so clearly? No one would be able to convince you that the rainbow is truly just black and white. Given the people around you haven't experienced both "black and white" and "colour", it also seems to me they are speaking from a lesser vantage point about that which they do not understand making you more justified in your knowledge of colour.

The only conclusion is that one's side reasoning ability is impaired.

But it is not that one's reasoning ability is impaired by GOD - it's impaired by peoples' resistant hearts and minds. God gives all people sufficient evidence that He exists, per what is made, how it is so extraordinarily designed and functions - it's simply not rational to believe a material universe "popped" into existence uncaused. Or that things like DNA can be explained, etc. But that people deliberately resist, avoid and reject God, per their own selfish, narcissistic motivations - THOSE are why God doesn't reveal things MORE clearly - because He knows that evidence and rational thought are not their true problems. It is to those God knows that opening their eyes FURTHER will be effective and embraced, that He does so. So, before having their eyes opened, people CAN know plenty enough to want to know more about God - but THEY DON'T WANT TO! That's the issue, with many - so they refuse to form a committed belief - even if they may already have a mere intellectual one.

Remember, many sat amidst the crowds and saw Jesus perform incredible miracles. These were religious Jews, all taught the Scriptures from a young age. But many of them, nonetheless, still would not embrace Christ. Did even they, actually seeing God in the flesh before them, astounding them with remarkable things, not have enough evidence that they COULD understand and believe, that was far more than just sufficient? Of course:

Look at John 12:42: "Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue."

These "many," including ruler's of the religious establishment, "believed" who Jesus was - but they would not confess Him as God or commit to Him. This shows that they knew enough, but as further enlightenment, THEIR hard hearts prevented it. Clearly, Jesus wanted all to believe - but He would not force them to. And, as we see above, belief is more than just intellectual - it's personal, it's a confessed commitment to following and submitting to Jesus.

In the same Scriptural sequence, consider verse 46: "I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness."

What do we see above - a contingency - as WHO will not remain in darkness? "... everyone who believes in me." EVERYONE can believe! But it's clearly more than mere belief, as we see those amongst the leaders who DID believe but nevertheless would not confess Him. Remember, the devil and his minions clearly believe who Jesus is. And so we also see in Scripture that A) God wants all to believe in Christ; B) That many will refuse God; C) That God gives ENOUGH evidences of Himself, ever more revealing to those whom will not permanently resist Him; D) Those who permanently resist and reject God will not inherit eternal life, but eternal punishment. So, it is not as if God is keeping people from belief - it is they who are keeping themselves in darkness, through their own selfish wills. It is a matter or the heart and mind / the will! And, in verse 42, notice the selfish motivation of the "rulers" who believed but would not confess Jesus: Their concern is that they will no longer have their prestigious offices and they will be thrown out of the synagogue. But they aren't concerned about being kept out of God's kingdom??? How evil!

Mostly I try and choose what I write carefully, not writing something that just came to my mind, but this popped up:
If one truth leads to so different and opposite conclusions, then why can't it be a bit or a mix of both? We are not living in a binary world, with only 0's and 1's. No, there are a zillion shades of colors. I mean, we, as humans, do not and cannot, as yet, know the real truth. We might think so, feel so, told so, have been teached so, etc...

Now, for many, it is and ever will be either 'this' or 'that', with no other possibilty, but I think that every point of view is worth thinking about, as long as it can be supported by valid and rational arguments. And as long as it stays whithin the boundaries, of the discussion. But has it with these polarised views become impossible to see another sollution?
There is a saying here in NL that says, "If two dogs fight over one bone, a third will take it and run home."

This also makes whats rational and irrational (in respect to this subject) somewhat academic, because the basis of the discussion is totally different. Maybe that is why it is so polarized.

I do not ignore everything that's argumented and explained here about what's right or wrong, possible or not possible, all the illogical contradictions between theistic and atheistic worldviews (at least I do now have a much better understanding about God). It all helped to clarify the misunderstandings I had, to better understand your point of views and believes.
Thus, I've learned by now that such a 'mix of both' is not possible whithin the current pure status of God, and also not with a pure materialistic universe. But to ignore the growing scientific knowledge that indicates that at least some parts of the evolutionary principles begin to make (evidential) sense and are explainable, is like closing one's eyes for any other alternative. That goes the other way too! To ignore all theistic knowledge and evidence is like ignoring half the human world. A mix would make the theistic universe a bit more evolutionary, and the materialistic universe a bit more fuzzy. Or is there really no other alternatives than either this or that?

Some may think my 'changing' ideas and insights is like a journey down a wild river, changing and adapting to wherever the water (thoughts) takes me, 'going all over the place'. "Searching for a truth that fits into the newly found arguments." Evidence for another irrational atheist.

Nerverthelss, the above is just another possibility and maybe utter irrational nonsense. Yet, I like to ponder over that, reject it afterwards or find further support for it.

I wonder sometimes, is a theist bound more to his believes than an atheist is to his? Does an atheist has more freedom to change his mind than a theist?

To Philip, considerations for a non-pop universe...

Something cannot come from nothing.
Something does exist.
So nothing must have been something.

A bit more defined:
Physicallity cannot come from nothing.
Physicallity does exist.
So nothing must have been physical too.

Justhuman wrote:Mostly I try and choose what I write carefully, not writing something that just came to my mind, but this popped up:
If one truth leads to so different and opposite conclusions, then why can't it be a bit or a mix of both? We are not living in a binary world, with only 0's and 1's. No, there are a zillion shades of colors. I mean, we, as humans, do not and cannot, as yet, know the real truth. We might think so, feel so, told so, have been teached so, etc...

Now, for many, it is and ever will be either 'this' or 'that', with no other possibilty, but I think that every point of view is worth thinking about, as long as it can be supported by valid and rational arguments. And as long as it stays whithin the boundaries, of the discussion. But has it with these polarised views become impossible to see another sollution?
There is a saying here in NL that says, "If two dogs fight over one bone, a third will take it and run home."

This also makes whats rational and irrational (in respect to this subject) somewhat academic, because the basis of the discussion is totally different. Maybe that is why it is so polarized.

I do not ignore everything that's argumented and explained here about what's right or wrong, possible or not possible, all the illogical contradictions between theistic and atheistic worldviews (at least I do now have a much better understanding about God). It all helped to clarify the misunderstandings I had, to better understand your point of views and believes.
Thus, I've learned by now that such a 'mix of both' is not possible whithin the current pure status of God, and also not with a pure materialistic universe. But to ignore the growing scientific knowledge that indicates that at least some parts of the evolutionary principles begin to make (evidential) sense and are explainable, is like closing one's eyes for any other alternative. That goes the other way too! To ignore all theistic knowledge and evidence is like ignoring half the human world. A mix would make the theistic universe a bit more evolutionary, and the materialistic universe a bit more fuzzy. Or is there really no other alternatives than either this or that?

Some may think my 'changing' ideas and insights is like a journey down a wild river, changing and adapting to wherever the water (thoughts) takes me, 'going all over the place'. "Searching for a truth that fits into the newly found arguments." Evidence for another irrational atheist.

Nerverthelss, the above is just another possibility and maybe utter irrational nonsense. Yet, I like to ponder over that, reject it afterwards or find further support for it.

I wonder sometimes, is a theist bound more to his believes than an atheist is to his? Does an atheist has more freedom to change his mind than a theist?

I'm not going to respond point by point but to the general theme of your post, hopefully that'll be sufficient to carry the conversation forward. I absolutely agree that there are differing and at times contradictory opinions. That's evident throughout human history. What I do not agree with is the implication that there are shades of truths. There can't be. If there were, scientific knowledge, heck any knowledge at all, would not be possible and we would descend into extreme skepticism. No. Logic, reason, rationality, and science demand that truth be knowable. The only way we can advance as an intelligent, rational species is if we can make sense of our reality and making sense of that reality entails discovering its truth. If there were shades of truths to our reality it would not be consistent enough to study, to conduct experiments that are repeatable and reliable. So no, there are no shades of truth, only one (ontology). There are shades of knowledge that are degrees closer are further from the truth (epistemology). But truth? There's only one.

Justhuman wrote:To Philip, considerations for a non-pop universe...

Something cannot come from nothing.
Something does exist.
So nothing must have been something.

A bit more defined:
Physicallity cannot come from nothing.
Physicallity does exist.
So nothing must have been physical too.

Your syllogism fails because your conclusion does not follow from the two premises (to say nothing of the fact that it is oxymoronic). The most you can say is:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. Something does exist.
3. Therefore something always existed

3 does follow from 1 and 2, although it says nothing as to what that something is. But your 3 (so nothing must have been something) does not follow at all from your 1 & 2. In fact it directly contradicts premise 1. A conclusion must not only follow from the set of promises, it cannot in any way contradict one of the premises.

Always find it funny when people try to define nothing as something, or something as nothing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34QjYPuiEA