[__ Science __ ] Scientific argument for God's existence

[Boaz]

Well you can believe me or call me a liar, Your choice.

Have you considered what I said? Do you consider actions that god did to be moral as I pointed out? You never responded to that.

According to you they are immoral. According to me if God did them then they aren't immoral because immorality can't exist in perfection. I know that won't in any way satisfy you because you don't believe in God, or at least not right now. And if He is real, and is the God of the Bible, then you have passed judgements on Him. I have said this before but I'll say it again. Adam sinned against God. Now we all sin against Him. The whole of creation had to change so that we could not live forever. We had to have an expiration date or be wiped out together. All of the Bible including the OT is the history of our redemption and some very unpleasant and evil things had to happen along the way. Things we don't like, things even Christians don't like to read about. But the necessary means used by God to advance redemption were because of us, mankind, not because evil exists in God. Could He have done it a different way? Sure. He can do anything in anyway He wants but He always does things in the best way to achieve His purpose because He KNOWS all things. Something we cannot say about ourselves. I personally hate the animal sacrifices, and I am grateful for the arrivel of who they pointed to, Jesus, so they are no longer in effect. Did it ever occur to you that humans are so thick headed, so fallen we cannot reason into a love of God, cannot see truth, or right from wrong, that we can only recognize good by seeing it along side evil. That it means nothing to us until we loose it?

 

[Boaz]

Do you even want to know why you are wrong here?

What slander? I gave scripture to back up my claims. You gave no evidence to back up yours.

Where did I slander creation scientists? Maybe you should stop slandering anyone because it is the right thing to do.

That is what I am asking.

What slander? I thought scripture wasn't valid evidence. Only when you use it I guess.

 

[Clizby]

Hosea 13:4 and Hosea 13:9 says God is their Savior and their Help - they knew from God's words that if they turned to Him He would save them - Zechariah 1:3 - Jeremiah 29:12-14 - Deuteronomy 30 - Deuteronomy 8 - Deuteronomy 6 - Deuteronomy 31

where is the word "punishment"? - or "punishment from God"?

if you are living in a safe house and the guardians tell you not to go outside their protection and you do and you get killed then what happens to you is a result of you wandering into unsafe territory

It says the people must bear their guilt the it says what will happen to them. Verse 16. That seems like a punishment to me.

 

[Clizby]

According to you they are immoral. According to me if God did them then they aren't immoral because immorality can't exist in perfection.

Ok, I am not sure that I believe you because do you think it is moral to own another person as property? I bet you don't, God did.

I know that won't in any way satisfy you because you don't believe in God, or at least not right now. And if He is real, and is the God of the Bible, then you have passed judgements on Him.

Yes I have. Unless he convinces me that those actions I posted are actually moral in some way.

I have said this before but I'll say it again. Adam sinned against God. Now we all sin against Him. The whole of creation had to change so that we could not live forever. We had to have an expiration date or be wiped out together. All of the Bible including the OT is the history of our redemption and some very unpleasant and evil things had to happen along the way. Things we don't like, things even Christians don't like to read about. But the necessary means used by God to advance redemption were because of us, mankind, not because evil exists in God.

It is not mans fault that God wiped out everyone on the earth with a flood. That was Gods decision. That is like saying it is a child's fault that their dad beat them because they lied to him. When my children were disobedient to me I have never wanted to kill them or torture them forever because of the offense against me.

Could He have done it a different way? Sure. He can do anything in anyway He wants but He always does things in the best way to achieve His purpose because He KNOWS all things. Something we cannot say about ourselves.

I don't know everything that is why I need to use reason to live my life with. But I do know that slavery is always wrong and torturing people for disobedience is wrong.

I personally hate the animal sacrifices, and I am grateful for the arrivel of who they pointed to, Jesus, so they are no longer in effect. Did it ever occur to you that humans are so thick headed, so fallen we cannot reason into a love of God, cannot see truth, or right from wrong, that we can only recognize good by seeing it along side evil. That it means nothing to us until we loose it?

I disagree. We can reason right from wrong, the world would be better if we actually taught people how to determine morals.

 

[Boaz]

Ok, I am not sure that I believe you because do you think it is moral to own another person as property? I bet you don't, God did.

Yes I have. Unless he convinces me that those actions I posted are actually moral in some way.


It is not mans fault that God wiped out everyone

on the earth with a flood. That was Gods decision. That is like saying it is a child's fault that their dad beat them because they lied to him. When my children were disobedient to me I have never wanted to kill them or torture them forever because of the offense against me.

I don't know everything that is why I need to use reason to live my life with. But I do know that slavery is always wrong and torturing people for disobedience is wrong.

I disagree. We can reason right from wrong, the world would be better if we actually taught people how to determine morals.

Yes slavery is wrong. Yes torturing people is wrong. Slaverr existse in a culture of PEOPLE not a culture of God. Yes it was the people's fault that God had destroy them in the flood. They were too perverted and evil and they also considered His existence unimportant to them. What if they were still alive?
I TOLD you why all this bad stuff happened in my last post. Remember? My opinion. Which you ASKED for.
And my gosh! Who do you think you are that you can decide what God, IF He exists, which He does by the way, should and shouldn't do?! The arrogance is off the charts! God, IF He exists, which He does by the way, despises arrogance. Could you at least tone down the arrogance please?

 

[Michael74]

...consensual intimate sex between consenting adults was good...Please stop misrepresenting me.

Okay. You think anyone sub 18 should not have sex. You think sex outside of a consensual intimate relationship should be avoided. Sorry about that. I didn't understand what you were saying.

I still think marriage is necessary, but I apologize for misrepresenting your position.

 

[Edward]

No one thinks a puddle turned into anything.

That's what they taught us in public school. Amoebas in a primordial soup somewhere evolved into life and kept evolving until one day a fish walked out onto the dry land. We were kids and I was giving him the business like friends do.

You said earlier that evolution has been demonstrated. What where and how? You should elaborate on that because it seems like it is important to your views and beliefs. So uh, how was it demonstrated?

 

[stovebolts]

All right guys and gals, let's all be adults and lower the temperature just a tad. We will all treat one another with respect and dignity, regardless what each of us believes or chooses to disbelieve.

As a Christian, my faith and belief is in God and God does not need to be proven to a none believer let alone defended.

 

[Clizby]

Yes slavery is wrong. Yes torturing people is wrong. Slaverr existse in a culture of PEOPLE not a culture of God.

I know you think that slavery and torture is wrong, decent people do. God set rules for slavery, called people property, allowed for beating of slaves in the Bible etc. No where in the Bible does it condemn slavery. God tortures non believers when they die. These are the things that I object to. You do too except if God does them for some reason. Why?

Yes it was the people's fault that God had destroy them in the flood. They were too perverted and evil and they also considered His existence unimportant to them.

So a good God will kill them for disobedience? God of the Bible asks us to forgive each other without any retribution why can't he do the same for us?

What if they were still alive?

I am not sure your point.

I TOLD you why all this bad stuff happened in my last post. Remember? My opinion. Which you ASKED for.

Ok, and I disagree with it, that's all.

And my gosh! Who do you think you are that you can decide what God, IF He exists, which He does by the way, should and shouldn't do?!

Do you care what kind of a God you follow? Could God do anything you think is wrong? You think slavery is wrong but are OK if God condones it. Is this right?

The arrogance is off the charts! God, IF He exists, which He does by the way, despises arrogance. Could you at least tone down the arrogance please?

I admit when I am wrong, I admit I don't know many things, I can back up my beliefs with sufficient evidence. Many Christians claim to know things that cannot be demonstrated to be true. I don't know why the universe exists or how life started or if there is a life after death but many Christian say they know the answer to these things without evidence. Call me arrogant that's fine.

 

[Boaz]

I know you think that slavery and torture is wrong, decent people do. God set rules for slavery, called people property, allowed for beating of slaves in the Bible etc. No where in the Bible does it condemn slavery. God tortures non believers when they die. These are the things that I object to. You do too except if God does them for some reason. Why?

So a good God will kill them for disobedience? God of the Bible asks us to forgive each other without any retribution why can't he do the same for us?

I am not sure your point.

Ok, and I disagree with it, that's all.

Do you care what kind of a God you follow? Could God do anything you think is wrong? You think slavery is wrong but are OK if God condones it. Is this right?

I admit when I am wrong, I admit I don't know many things, I can back up my beliefs with sufficient evidence. Many Christians claim to know things that cannot be demonstrated to be true. I don't know why the universe exists or how life started or if there is a life after death but many Christian say they know the answer to these things without evidence. Call me arrogant that's fine.

We do have evidence. You just won't accept it.

 

[stovebolts]

Clizby
What Christians call the Old Testament can be very difficult for many Christians to understand and as shown by your recent posts, these texts can be misunderstood to be used against God and his righteousness.

First, Gods word Is not void of the culture in which it was written so if we want to understand biblical slavery, then we need to study the culture in which it applied and to whome it was written.

Also, we must be aware of our own bias in the matter and make sure that we dont inject our own cultural bias into the biblical narrative.

While not exhaustive, I have studied the culture and have read many Jewish commentaries from respected Jewish teachers who, much like Science has rules of interpretation, these Rabbi's follow rules and guidelines as well when interpreting the biblical texts.

Tell me, when studying the Bible, what do you use as a set of rules for proper interpretation of the text?

 

[Clizby]

You said earlier that evolution has been demonstrated. What where and how? You should elaborate on that because it seems like it is important to your views and beliefs. So uh, how was it demonstrated?

I can't demonstrate it in one post. I spent about 6 months on and off studying the evidence. If you want to know then I can give you resources to discuss.

The first thing to understand is how Phylogeny works, what it does and doesn't say, and how phylogenic trees are determined.

Then gain understanding of what life is and what forms of life there are. What is RNA and DNA etc.

Then understand how life is classified and what the evidence is of change. What mutations actually mean and how they work to change attributes of a species. What species are and how they have changed in to new species over time.

Learn how evolution can be tested, predictive, confirmed and falsified. For example, no organism can evolve into anything other than what its ancestors were. Meaning in a Phylogenic tree whales and crocodiles have a common ancestor far in the past. A whale has certain characteristics that crocodiles don't have. If we saw evidence of whales and crocodiles with common traits other than with the common ancestor then our tree would be falsified. Also, if we ever saw an organism that was half one animal and half of another that would completely destroy evolutionary theory.

Talk Origins has a good starting point called 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. This gives a good understanding of phylogeny and examples of how evolution is confirmed and potentially falsified.

Once you understand why scientists believe evolution is true and what evolution is you will see that many apologists are not talking about evolution at all, just what they think it is.

 

[Boaz]

We do have evidence. You just won't accept it.

Yet you accept the very faulty "evidence" for evolution. There can't possibly be accurate evidence for evolution because it didn't happen that way. If you haven't ever read a history of Darwin's life perhaps you should. He was angry at God and set out to prove He didn't exist. He started from the premise of hatred and was going to prove himself right, no matter by what means.

 

[Clizby]

We do have evidence. You just won't accept it.

Correct. I require evidence that can be substantiated.

 

[Clizby]

Yet you accept the very faulty "evidence" for evolution. There can't possibly be accurate evidence for evolution because it didn't happen that way. If you haven't ever read a history of Darwin's life perhaps you should. He was angry at God and set out to prove He didn't exist. He started from the premise of hatred and was going to prove himself right, no matter by what means.

What Darwin thought or didn't think has no bearing on the evidence for evolution. You called me arrogant but it seems you "know" evolution evidence is faulty when I am assuming you don't really know what that evidence is. Have you studied the evidence for evolution and why scientists believe it is true?

Also, whether evolution is true or not does not say anything about the existence of a god. Evolution can be false but that does not prove god did it. Or evolution could be true and god could still exist, but that would preclude viewing the Bible as literal.

 

[stovebolts]

I can't demonstrate it in one post. I spent about 6 months on and off studying the evidence. If you want to know then I can give you resources to discuss.

The first thing to understand is how Phylogeny works, what it does and doesn't say, and how phylogenic trees are determined.

Then gain understanding of what life is and what forms of life there are. What is RNA and DNA etc.

Then understand how life is classified and what the evidence is of change. What mutations actually mean and how they work to change attributes of a species. What species are and how they have changed in to new species over time.

Learn how evolution can be tested, predictive, confirmed and falsified. For example, no organism can evolve into anything other than what its ancestors were. Meaning in a Phylogenic tree whales and crocodiles have a common ancestor far in the past. A whale has certain characteristics that crocodiles don't have. If we saw evidence of whales and crocodiles with common traits other than with the common ancestor then our tree would be falsified. Also, if we ever saw an organism that was half one animal and half of another that would completely destroy evolutionary theory.

Talk Origins has a good starting point called 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. This gives a good understanding of phylogeny and examples of how evolution is confirmed and potentially falsified.

Once you understand why scientists believe evolution is true and what evolution is you will see that many apologists are not talking about evolution at all, just what they think it is.

As your aware, micro and macro evolution are two different topics. We see clearly that Darwin was correct in regard to natural selection which falls under the broad brush of "evolution". We can categorized natural selection under observational science.

What Edward is discussing is the idea that we were single cell organisms that mutated into what we are now. That's historical science.

 

[Clizby]

Clizby
What Christians call the Old Testament can be very difficult for many Christians to understand and as shown by your recent posts, these texts can be misunderstood to be used against God and his righteousness.

First, Gods word Is not void of the culture in which it was written so if we want to understand biblical slavery, then we need to study the culture in which it applied and to whome it was written.

Also, we must be aware of our own bias in the matter and make sure that we dont inject our own cultural bias into the biblical narrative.

While not exhaustive, I have studied the culture and have read many Jewish commentaries from respected Jewish teachers who, much like Science has rules of interpretation, these Rabbi's follow rules and guidelines as well when interpreting the biblical texts.

Tell me, when studying the Bible, what do you use as a set of rules for proper interpretation of the text?

Context, Context and Context. Who said this:

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

This clearly says slaves are money (other translations say property) and can be beaten as long as they don't die within a day or two. In verse 1 it says:

Now these are the rules that you shall set before them.

Context is that these are from God as the rules set forth were in the previous chapters. These rules were not for Hebrew slaves but for the slaves that God told them to take from surrounding nations (heathens) (Lev 25:44-46).

 

[stovebolts]

Context, Context and Context. Who said this:

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

This clearly says slaves are money (other translations say property) and can be beaten as long as they don't die within a day or two. In verse 1 it says:

Now these are the rules that you shall set before them.

Context is that these are from God as the rules set forth were in the previous chapters. These rules were not for Hebrew slaves but for the slaves that God told them to take from surrounding nations (heathens) (Lev 25:44-46).

Yes, context is important.
Let's address your first bias. In parenthesis, you use the word heathens.

How do you come to that conclusion? Also, how do you know when slaves refers to goyim ( non-jew) or when it refers to a Jewish slave?

 

[Clizby]

As your aware, micro and macro evolution are two different topics. We see clearly that Darwin was correct in regard to natural selection which falls under the broad brush of "evolution". We can categorized natural selection under observational science.

Natural selection is not the only way organisms evolve. We have witnessed speciation in nature and in the lab in our lifetime. The means of how something happened and knowing that it did happen are two different things. We can know that gravity exists and that it follow certain laws but we don't know what it is yet. We don't need to know all the means of evolution to know that it is happening.

What Edward is discussing is the idea that we were single cell organisms that mutated into what we are now. That's historical science.

Evolution is testable, observable, predictive and falsifiable. These are traits of observable science as you describe. Many different fields of study support it. Every time we find a new species or fossil, which is common, it has the potential to falsify evolution from how old it is to what its traits are. If we found a vertebrate older than an invertebrate that would falsify much of evolutionary theory. What you call historical science isn't really science but investigation.

 

[stovebolts]

Natural selection is not the only way organisms evolve. We have witnessed speciation in nature and in the lab in our lifetime. The means of how something happened and knowing that it did happen are two different things. We can know that gravity exists and that it follow certain laws but we don't know what it is yet. We don't need to know all the means of evolution to know that it is happening.

Evolution is testable, observable, predictive and falsifiable. These are traits of observable science as you describe. Many different fields of study support it. Every time we find a new species or fossil, which is common, it has the potential to falsify evolution from how old it is to what its traits are. If we found a vertebrate older than an invertebrate that would falsify much of evolutionary theory. What you call historical science isn't really science but investigation.

Then we are in agreement with the understanding that assumptions are made in science which, if later they are found false, the model is shifted to accommodate the new information which can nullify the underlying assumption.

When investigating said assumptions, we really need to take into consideration ones world view. If one is taught the earth is billions of years old, their assumptions will be in line with that. If on the other hand ones world view is that the earth is under 10,000 years old, his assumptions will be much different.

Both views have the same observational data yet both make different assumptions when investigating.