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

[stovebolts]

Clizby
You said,
What happened to make me doubt was I actually started to study the scriptures, where they came from and evidences from science. All that lead me to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to believe that god exists. I wanted to be the best christian I could and it ultimately led me to disbelief.

I would be very interested in going over one of your studies. Personally, i have a copy of Ancient Near Eastern texts by Pritchard and i find the correlation fascinating.

I don't anticipate i would change your mind, and i wouldn't try. But it would be interesting to share our studies and if you're open, learn from one another.

One thing i would like to clear up, is that being the best Christian you could be really speaks to discipleship, not religion or denomination. It's about sharing in the Faith of Jesus and following His teachings.

 

[Clizby]

To Clizby.

Regarding proof of design. It takes real study in any field to appreaciate the big things and the small things of that field. To find designs, patterns, or other phenomenon that really would point to God instead of other explanations. Nonetheless, here are some things to consider.

On earth there is rich abundant diversity in life and living creatures. We have searched even the most hostile environments on earth and still found something that surprisingly is alive. Yet in space we have found nothing like that. We are an oasis of life in the desert landscape of space that though beautiful, is a desert when it comes to life. Life finds a way is not something that exists except here on earth.

This just shows that there is life in earth but not anywhere else that we know of. Also, why should we ignore the overwhelming evidence that biodiversity came by the means of evolution and go with a designer? We also have substantiated models that explain how our universe came into being from 1x10^-43 seconds from the start of the universe. Why throw these out and go with a god did it explanation?

Move on from there and you have wild creativity run rampant in different creatures. Birds, plants, animals, on land and underwater. The scope of complexity is not something to appreciate from the standard of trying to find the best design and move on from there, but is a mixture of artist, and engineer. And at least from our perspective a bit of discovery and awe as well. Not only do ecosystems fit together in a way to remain stable, so also do vastly different creatures manage to survive one generation after another without falling apart. Study the anatomy of man, beast, or plant and it should be awe inspiring. Study the ecosystem of any area and you'll likely find more surprises that again the world is not falling apart.

The best evidences we have point to evolution as the cause of this. We know how to categorize life forms on the planet and how we are related to each other through evolution.

Then you have the great question. Where did it all come from? The question of beginnings and the question of the journey to make the world in the state it currently is in. From here you step away from science because you can't demonstrate history. Nor can you recreate it. Our best explanations are guesses based on the available information that we have. But the theories without God in them have too many holes to explain our beginnings or explain much of the history of the world. Or the theories have too much assumed and taken for granted that is outside the data in order to support the conclusions of a theory of the past.

Science is honest when they say we don;t know how the universe cam into being. But Theists can not demonstrate they what they stay they know. Just because we don't know does not automatically indicate a god.

The problem from here is that without allowing God to be part of the explanation, the answers are always going to come up short. Something is missing that the explanations take for granted, or ignore completely. On the other hand explanations that have God in them can take advantage of God as an explanation instead of continuing to seek out the how and why of things.

Every time in history that we have attributed something to a god we found a natural explanation. From thunder to viruses. We should believe something with good evidence not because of a lack of evidence. Where is the good evidence that a god exists?

Simply put every study about the past isn't science, it's philosophy. Including evolution. It's about conclusions which is a philosophical nature more then it is about being able to recreate an observation or an experiment which is the bedrock of science. Just something to consider when studying.

This is simply not true. Evolution is observable, testable, can predict and is falsifiable. It is science and well founded and supported. God as a creator is unfalsifiable, that is not science. Evolution is tested everyday and every time a new species is found, which is daily, it has the potential to falsify the theory and none ever has.

For example evolution predicts that no organism can have a vestigial organ that was not previously functional in an ancestor. So if we find a vestigial organ in an organism that has no previous function then the part of the theory would be falsified and thrown out. There are thousands of ways to falsify evolution and it never has been wholy falsified.

The question of God in the world is both a philosophical question and an observational one. Considering the conclusions of someone else's philosophy (or our own), along with the limited amount of our own observations and others observations. However you are not alone, nor are your observations alone. Scientific communities embrace this, by basing some of their reasoning on the conclusions and experiments of others that they did not recreate or peer review. They also embrace the aspect of other people's observations through the peer review process. To see if a theory or it's conclusions hold merit by the standard of our peers looking at the matter.

So you think that every scientist needs to do every experiment to actually believe something? Do you need to do experiments to believe that planes can fly?

Yet though this quality of taking in other people's observations is part of science, it seems to be rejected and ignored when it comes to searching a faith and searching for God. Why not take into account the information of other people from their lives? There are many people who say they know God is real, because of what He's done in their lives. Myself included. Some are some very awesome stories. (Mine not as much). Others have less impressive experiences but they are enough to recognize that God is real and active in the world. It's enough to listen to others lives with an open ear to at least accept it as a possibility. Even to consider it reliable when there's nothing to gain from their telling it.

Because the conclusions of science have been supported by evidence and repeated by many other scientists. The reports of theists are not supported by anything, they are just stories. Peer reviewed evidence is not the same thing as a story told by someone. Should scientist believe another scientist because they just say so? No one should. Science has a track record that faith does not. Scientists find how things work and engineers use those findings to create things, or everything we have. What do we have from vaccines to cars did we create using faith?

That could be part of your search for God if you let it. Ask those you meet how they found God, or ask what God has done in their lives. Some are some very awesome experiences, that won't be able to be recreated, so you have only that person's testimony and the question of whether they are reliable or if there is something they will gain by telling that story.

I am not saying that people experiences did not happen, I am saying that there is no reason to believe they did. If I just believed what people told me I would believe anything and it does not lead to a better knowledge of what is true or false.

 

[Clizby]

Hi Clizby
Where to start.. How about people misrepresenting you. That bothers me as well and it occurs everywhere and is not isolated to discussions with Christians etc. Seems its a human trait and not just isolated to any subset of the human race. What bothers me more is when people have more to say than their ability to listen because if we can't take the time to listen, we often fail to understand the other.

I agree, something that I do as well but we need to be more aware of this tendency.

In summary, in the pursuit of how things work, science will shift as new information becomes available.

This is a sticking point for me. The fact that science changes with new information is the strength of science not a fault. When flight started we understood something fundamental about flight. Over the years of investigation and experimentation we have more efficient and reliable planes than we did as we gained information. Do you think that we will discover anything in the future that will overturn our theory of flight? We will find things we did not know about flight but we will never disprove our theory of flight because it has overwhelming evidence that supports it. This is the same with evolution, atoms, germ or gravity.

Gods word does not shift. It is the same. However, and to your point there are indeed divisions and fractures on the meaning of Gods word and for a non-thiest, this can be very confusing. Heck, its confusing enough for most Christians.

This isn't anything new, and Scripture even states this as truth.
1 Cor 11:18. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and I partly believe it.

But it gets worse...
Jude 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

You see, you actually agree with scripture as you have so adeptly pointed out and is plain to see.

What system does Christianity have to resolve these differences? Science has a process through demonstration and evidence to figure out what hypothesis is true.

Let's see... Feelings. We all have feelings and feelings are a part of who we are. But can we trust our feelings? I think that's the biggest question, right?

Our feelings and our intellect must be in harmony or we restrict and oppress who we are in unhealthy ways. I don't but into the idea that if it feels good, it can't be wrong. But i also don't buy into the idea that reason is above feelings because we can reason to a fault.

If i see somebody hurt, it is good to feel compassion for them. But i can reason why its a bad idea to actually help them. However, if my compassion overrides my ability to reason, i can actually give away everything i have to help others and end up needing help myself.

My basis for moral actions is well being. So reasoning that helping them would be an action toward well being. However, I am not saying that I don;t use my feelings to make decisions. I do. But to base life or death or important decisions on feelings only is dangerous. People actually have dies because they felt that they could fly, reason has a place as well as feelings.

So we see that both feelings and the ability to reason must be in harmony.

I am in general in agreement.

When i was young, i felt the presence of something larger than myself. My reasoning confirms what i felt as a young child and still feel to this day.

My father in law was raised to oppress his feelings. He had all the right answers but in the end, he didn't know if he was saved. You see, he had the knowledge that he was saved, but he did not "feel" that he was saved.

How could he have the knowledge he was saved?

I love my wife, and i feel my wife's love toward me. Likewise, she feels my love toward her. Our marriage isn't an intellectual agreement with mutual understandings. It's much, much deeper than that. When my day comes to die, i will be comfortable on that day knowing within the deepest depths of my being that i am loved by my creator and death is simply a picture that shows us pain and suffering isn't eternal. It has an expiration date.

I love people by feelings as well. But lets say that I feel like my wife loves me but her actions do not coincide with love. I would need reason to enter to realize that she probably does not love me.

As far as God showing himself to us, i believe he does through His very creation and can be felt through every breath that we take if we but simply slow down to take it in.

Why can't he show himself like he did to Paul or Thomas? Looking at nature is not convincing to me.

As far as my ability to reason, i have found the words of Scripture to be reliable and truth just as the passages i posted earlier are truth that even you agree with.

I do admit that the bible has truth in it, but it has a lot of false and unsubstantiated things as well.

Sorry for the ramble and i hope I've touched on your points. If you want to narrow the conversation, i would much enjoy our conversation

Thanks for the conversation, These do expand as it goes on.

 

[Clizby]

Funny ,because how is it if all western nations ,and i have been, trained to hear and accept islam despite its atrocities as equal and will downplay the evil of it .

The army even says the culture of afghabistan and Iraq are equal but different .
Those cultures where woman are chattel and slavery is allowed .

Why is this pertinent?

Why waste money on studying apes if we already know we managed to build a morality but simply chance .we can't test how nor observe and no one teaches that a child on his own devices will be moral and need instruction and despite that obvious flaw we assume that apes became man and learned morality .

Wow, no scientists believe we came from apes living today. We are apes just like our ancestors and we will always be apes. We need to teach children morality using reason.

Animals can be brutal.well so can man
You are saying that it's the scientist job to also define why that's scientism.morality is outside of that field.

I never said science defines morality. Each person decides what morality is. I base mine on well being and I us that goal to objectively decide what actions are moral. You have decided to use the bible as your subjective source.

Nor do i share your faith that humans will,ever eliminate war,famine,poverty etc.unless we reprogram our soul,good luck we can't even get gmos right .

Where did I say that I think we can eliminate war famine etc?

 

[Clizby]

Clizby
You said,
What happened to make me doubt was I actually started to study the scriptures, where they came from and evidences from science. All that lead me to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to believe that god exists. I wanted to be the best christian I could and it ultimately led me to disbelief.

I would be very interested in going over one of your studies. Personally, i have a copy of Ancient Near Eastern texts by Pritchard and i find the correlation fascinating.

I don't anticipate i would change your mind, and i wouldn't try. But it would be interesting to share our studies and if you're open, learn from one another.

One thing i would like to clear up, is that being the best Christian you could be really speaks to discipleship, not religion or denomination. It's about sharing in the Faith of Jesus and following His teachings.

We can talk about the bible and what it says and you can try to convince me that god exists. Part of my study was to really know why 97% of biological scientists think evolution is a fact. This lead to realizing that the bible and evolution cannot be compatible and I believed that the stories were allegorical. Then I realized that my reasons to believe were flawed and unreasonable. Basically I kept having to modify my god belief with new evidence until it was obvious there was no reason to believe.

Also part of that is coming to grips with the fact that if god does exist and the gospel is true then I would have a dire choice. Follow and worship a god that I think is immoral or go to hell forever.

 

[jasonc]

Why is this pertinent?

Wow, no scientists believe we came from apes living today. We are apes just like our ancestors and we will always be apes. We need to teach children morality using reason.

I never said science defines morality. Each person decides what morality is. I base mine on well being and I us that goal to objectively decide what actions are moral. You have decided to use the bible as your subjective source.

Where did I say that I think we can eliminate war famine etc?

You,implied that by we man can build better,organs .

I'm,into photography no camera ever gets what i truly want to photo.in fact cameras today sense thermal spectrum and can be thrown off by stray heat.our brain while it can be tricked doesn't do that. I have a few odd photos of leaning towers,railings and upside down stacks from my,camera . not visible to me .

So human genetic predisposition to chrons,shouldn't be explored to eliminate and cure just removed from the population ,that it exposed already via aborting the defective genes in utero via abortion ,usually autistic etc.

Never heard too many atheists here against transhumanism.

Note not all value human life the same .no,man will,agree to morality as the same.

I know atheists,other theists who do think,being lgbt is abnormal .

 

[jasonc]

You,implied that by we man can build better,organs .

I'm,into photography no camera ever gets what i truly want to photo.in fact cameras today sense thermal spectrum and can be thrown off by stray heat.our brain while it can be tricked doesn't do that. I have a few odd photos of leaning towers,railings and upside down stacks from my,camera . not visible to me .

So human genetic predisposition to chrons,shouldn't be explored to eliminate and cure just removed from the population ,that it exposed already via aborting the defective genes in utero via abortion ,usually autistic etc.

Never heard too many atheists here against transhumanism.

Note not all value human life the same .no,man will,agree to morality as the same.

I know atheists,other theists who do think,being lgbt is abnormal .

My case on protohuman culture being studied and falsifiable,your words we have to teach morals yet by,luck apes didn't die off.

Four Fallacies of Pop Evolutionary Psychology

Some evolutionary psychologists have trumpeted claims about how the human mind evolved that other scholars take issue with. Here is how the evidence shapes up

www.scientificamerican.com

Speculative science is testable ?

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Clizby
I'm not sure why you thought you had to defend Science just because as new data comes in, things shift. That is the very nature of Science and we should all be thankful. For instance, science once thought that bleeding a sick person would make them well. Science once said smoking was harmless. These are not faults. Instead, they are honorable attributes within science. It takes humility to say something you believed in was wrong. After claiming to be a Christian for so many years, I'm sure it took courage to tell those that care about you that you no longer had faith.

Faith can be an odd thing. When you think about it, faith is simply believing in things hoped for. Hebrews 11:1. This i find to be true and universal and applies to anything one places their faith in.

Year's ago tragedy hit our home and my wife and i separated. Most thought our marriage was hopeless and divorce inevitable. But there was a sliver of hope which kindled our faith and our marriage has never been better. You see, my hope was not in my wife, but it was kindled by what I read in scripture, and i believed it enough to act on it. My faith was in God and because my faith wasn't in my wife, my hope could never be snuffed out. This may not make since to you, and that's ok. But if it does, then may God bless you.

You said,
I do admit that the bible has truth in it, but it has a lot of false and unsubstantiated things as well.

First, i think the best you can say is that during the course of your studies, you have concluded there are falsehoods within scripture. Your conclusions are not above my conclusions nor anyone elses regardless if you agree or disagree. At the minimal, i would appreciate you showing some respect in this area on my forum since you are our guests. I will do my best to make sure you are treated respectfully but please be sensitive to others while on my site.

I degrees, you asked how scripture could be reliable when there are so many denominations and divisions within Christianity. The answer is simple, not all who call themselves Christians are Christians which is stated in Scripture as well as maturity in Christ. The Apostle James tells us why there are divisions and fighting among us, and its our own desires, not the desires of God. Lastly, its about maturing in Christ. God is in the business of transforming lives, and that's on His time, not ours. All of this is in Scripture, and i have found it all to be true.

If you would like, tell me what falsehood you have found, and we can compare notes. But only if you are open to being humble as i will do the same.

 

[stovebolts]

We can talk about the bible and what it says and you can try to convince me that god exists. Part of my study was to really know why 97% of biological scientists think evolution is a fact. This lead to realizing that the bible and evolution cannot be compatible and I believed that the stories were allegorical. Then I realized that my reasons to believe were flawed and unreasonable. Basically I kept having to modify my god belief with new evidence until it was obvious there was no reason to believe.

Also part of that is coming to grips with the fact that if god does exist and the gospel is true then I would have a dire choice. Follow and worship a god that I think is immoral or go to hell forever.

Ohh, i don't think i could persuade you that God is real. Honestly, i don't feel compelled to do so either so relax.

Evolution is an interesting field, and according to AIG science can be broken into two fields.

1. Historical Science
2. Observational Science

I'm sure neither of us would disagree on Observational Science any more than regular Scientists debate their findings. However, Historical Science cannot be observed in its entirety, so we have to run on assumptions as more data is found.

I believe in natural selection and science confirms this. However, to say a monkey was once a single cell organism that evolved goes against observational science.

 

[Clizby]

My case on protohuman culture being studied and falsifiable,your words we have to teach morals yet by,luck apes didn't die off.

What do you mean here?

Four Fallacies of Pop Evolutionary Psychology

Some evolutionary psychologists have trumpeted claims about how the human mind evolved that other scholars take issue with. Here is how the evidence shapes up

www.scientificamerican.com

Speculative science is testable ?

Here is what the article says:

Biologists are often able to reconstruct the selection pressures that drove a species' evolution by using the comparative method to study a clade, or group of species descended from a common ancestor. Because all the species in the group are descended from a common form, differences among them may be the result of variations in the environmental demands they faced. When a trait is shared by two or more species in a clade, but not by the others, it is sometimes possible to identify environmental demands common to those species but absent among the species without the trait. Correlating trait differences with specific environmental variations, in this way, can indicate the environmental demands to which a trait is adapted.

But the comparative method offers little help for Pop EP's aspiration to reveal the adaptive history of the psychological traits—including language and forms of higher cognition—that putatively constitute human nature.

This is saying that EP is speculative not the theory of evolution. This is saying that evolution is testable and not speculative but I guess evolutionary psychology is.

 

[jasonc]

What do you mean here?

Here is what the article says:

Biologists are often able to reconstruct the selection pressures that drove a species' evolution by using the comparative method to study a clade, or group of species descended from a common ancestor. Because all the species in the group are descended from a common form, differences among them may be the result of variations in the environmental demands they faced. When a trait is shared by two or more species in a clade, but not by the others, it is sometimes possible to identify environmental demands common to those species but absent among the species without the trait. Correlating trait differences with specific environmental variations, in this way, can indicate the environmental demands to which a trait is adapted.

But the comparative method offers little help for Pop EP's aspiration to reveal the adaptive history of the psychological traits—including language and forms of higher cognition—that putatively constitute human nature.

This is saying that EP is speculative not the theory of evolution. This is saying that evolution is testable and not speculative but I guess evolutionary psychology is.

Basically we know it happened but can never prove or deny that behavior which isn't linked all to DNA is in fact taught .

Basically in short that proto man didn't somehow with just a handful of them kill,themselves off or evolve far away .

Evolution is in populations not persons .that's the problem.a new groyp formed and somehow by sheer chance grew morals .man isn't more moral since h.Neanderthalis.we just like think,in,the West abortion aka genocide of the weak ,slavery as sexual slavery isn't,around .yes those are wrong but yeah its larger then you think ,had a few sex slave rings busted in my county ,labor as well.

I know you wouldn't change .not trying and normally I woukdnt bother. I posted because I perceive arrogance in assumption that fallable doctors as im old enoigh to,remember the experts push the tounsil to be removed,lobotomy for mental,retardation,and also the push to,remove the appendix.that's no longer the case.

We learned,I could add the mistakes over autism ,what actually is alzeheimers.many had other dementias.up,to,recently there was no,test.

I'm hardly anti vaxxer nor science but I,know and distrust human nature .we aren't able to be unbiased.


I bow out

 

[Clizby]

Hi Clizby
I'm not sure why you thought you had to defend Science just because as new data comes in, things shift. That is the very nature of Science and we should all be thankful. For instance, science once thought that bleeding a sick person would make them well. Science once said smoking was harmless. These are not faults. Instead, they are honorable attributes within science. It takes humility to say something you believed in was wrong. After claiming to be a Christian for so many years, I'm sure it took courage to tell those that care about you that you no longer had faith.

It seemed like you were saying that you cannot trust science because its conclusions shift. I have run into Christians that have. If you were not saying that I apologize.

Faith can be an odd thing. When you think about it, faith is simply believing in things hoped for. Hebrews 11:1. This i find to be true and universal and applies to anything one places their faith in.

My question is does this lead to truth? With this definition you can believe in anything.

Year's ago tragedy hit our home and my wife and i separated. Most thought our marriage was hopeless and divorce inevitable. But there was a sliver of hope which kindled our faith and our marriage has never been better. You see, my hope was not in my wife, but it was kindled by what I read in scripture, and i believed it enough to act on it. My faith was in God and because my faith wasn't in my wife, my hope could never be snuffed out. This may not make since to you, and that's ok. But if it does, then may God bless you.

I understand, my wife and I have had issues as well, I agree that putting hope or faith in a person can lead to problems. But did you hope lead you back together or was it the work I imagine that you had to do bring you back together? I am glad you are back together.

You said,
I do admit that the bible has truth in it, but it has a lot of false and unsubstantiated things as well.

First, i think the best you can say is that during the course of your studies, you have concluded there are falsehoods within scripture. Your conclusions are not above my conclusions nor anyone elses regardless if you agree or disagree.

I say this because I can point to histories in the bible that are demonstrably not true. Just one example is Jericho. Archaeology confirms that the walls of Jericho were destroyed hundreds of years before the story in Joshua 8.

At the minimal, i would appreciate you showing some respect in this area on my forum since you are our guests. I will do my best to make sure you are treated respectfully but please be sensitive to others while on my site.

I will do so. Let me know if I am not playing by the rules of the site.

I degrees, you asked how scripture could be reliable when there are so many denominations and divisions within Christianity. The answer is simple, not all who call themselves Christians are Christians which is stated in Scripture as well as maturity in Christ. The Apostle James tells us why there are divisions and fighting among us, and its our own desires, not the desires of God. Lastly, its about maturing in Christ. God is in the business of transforming lives, and that's on His time, not ours. All of this is in Scripture, and i have found it all to be true.

This is a No True Scotsman Fallacy in my opinion. How does Christianity decide who is a christian and who is not. I just go by what someone identifies as including atheists or Christians and then talk about the beliefs.

If you would like, tell me what falsehood you have found, and we can compare notes. But only if you are open to being humble as i will do the same.

Sure, I will lay a case out for one tomorrow.

 

[WIP]

Then he is not revealing himself to me. If god is revealing himself to me then I would know he exists. Does god know what would convince me he exists?

I respectfully disagree. God has revealed Himself to you and does all the time. As with most of humanity, I believe you are just not opening yourself up to see it. Did you know that there are nearly 300 references in the Bible to knowing God? That is one of the primary reasons He inspired the Bible was so we can know Him. Just for fun, search the Old Testament to see how many times God did something so, "They will know I am God." People have been denying Him and His existence for eons so it is nothing new.

 

[Clizby]

Basically we know it happened but can never prove or deny that behavior which isn't linked all to DNA is in fact taught .

Ok, but you are confusing evolution and EP.

Basically in short that proto man didn't somehow with just a handful of them kill,themselves off or evolve far away .

Evolution is in populations not persons .that's the problem.a new groyp formed and somehow by sheer chance grew morals .man isn't more moral since h.Neanderthalis.we just like think,in,the West abortion aka genocide of the weak ,slavery as sexual slavery isn't,around .yes those are wrong but yeah its larger then you think ,had a few sex slave rings busted in my county ,labor as well.

I am not advocating anyone morals are correct or evolution somehow directs us to morals. I have said before my morals come from the goal of well being and I evaluate actions based on that goal.

I know you wouldn't change .not trying and normally I woukdnt bother. I posted because I perceive arrogance in assumption that fallable doctors as im old enoigh to,remember the experts push the tounsil to be removed,lobotomy for mental,retardation,and also the push to,remove the appendix.that's no longer the case.

It was more science and other doctors that caused the change not the bible or faith.

We learned,I could add the mistakes over autism ,what actually is alzeheimers.many had other dementias.up,to,recently there was no,test.

Again it was science not faith that gained the new information to make us better.

 

[stovebolts]

It seemed like you were saying that you cannot trust science because its conclusions shift. I have run into Christians that have. If you were not saying that I apologize.

My question is does this lead to truth? With this definition you can believe in anything.

I understand, my wife and I have had issues as well, I agree that putting hope or faith in a person can lead to problems. But did you hope lead you back together or was it the work I imagine that you had to do bring you back together? I am glad you are back together.

I say this because I can point to histories in the bible that are demonstrably not true. Just one example is Jericho. Archaeology confirms that the walls of Jericho were destroyed hundreds of years before the story in Joshua 8.

I will do so. Let me know if I am not playing by the rules of the site.

This is a No True Scotsman Fallacy in my opinion. How does Christianity decide who is a christian and who is not. I just go by what someone identifies as including atheists or Christians and then talk about the beliefs.

Sure, I will lay a case out for one tomorrow.

I just got a call from my wife. Our daughter is having her baby!
Please be patient, i really want to continue

 

[Clizby]

I just got a call from my wife. Our daughter is having her baby!
Please be patient, i really want to continue

Awesome! Congrats!

 

[Michael74]

Yes, congratulations.

 

[Clizby]

I respectfully disagree. God has revealed Himself to you and does all the time. As with most of humanity, I believe you are just not opening yourself up to see it.

That is illogical. If God has revealed himself to me I would have to recognize it or else he isn't revealing himself. Can God reveal himself to me in a way that I would understand? If he can and has not then how is this my fault?

Did you know that there are nearly 300 references in the Bible to knowing God? That is one of the primary reasons He inspired the Bible was so we can know Him.
Just for fun, search the Old Testament to see how many times God did something so, "They will know I am God."

You need to demonstrate that the Bible is the word of God and then show it is a moral book first. Then I will look to it for guidance.

People have been denying Him and His existence for eons so it is nothing new.

I do not deny his existence, I don't believe he exists.

 

[Clizby]

do a serious deep study on EACH missing link - study what scientists on both sides have discovered about the fraud being perpetuated by researchers who NEEDED GRANTS to continue their lifelong work of proving evolution via missing links

This is not how evolution is proved. You just mneed to be better educated on the theory and the supporting evidence.

if you don't want to do this indepth research which will take some time then don't talk to me about studying evolution

I have done the research on the supporting evidence for evolution. I am convinced by that evidence that it is true. Do really believe that millions of biological scientists that can see and test the evidence for evolution are frauds?

i studied both sides - creation vs evolution

I really must question this because by your comments you don;t seem to understand the theory or supporting evidence.

you call creation scientists deniers so you are already biased

Where did I say this?

this is a matter of truth in science - you need to be more careful about what materials you study and how deep you study - otherwise you are simply an indoctrinated evolutionist

It is not indoctrination to look at the actual evidence and be convinced.

who denies the existence of God based on your faulty research

Please stop saying that I deny gods existence. It is not true.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

To Clizby


Sorry for not coming back right away. There are aspects of evolution that I have grown skeptic towards. It's not just because of faith in God, but because of a few things that are outside the scope of searching for God. The world is a complex system that is still around. The complexity if looked at closely leads me to the point of a designer more often then not. The fact that life remained stable and had multiple generations of any species is a remarkable feat if it happened by chance. The other option is that things get more unstable as time goes on. Instead of species becoming more specialized to fit their environments as an act of evolution, species could just die off because the world gets unstable instead of somehow more complex and more stable. For me the natural world around us has too many instances that scream out an engineering mind to design it, and a protective force that has held it together. Going past that though the idea of how life started is so far an unanswerable question through scientific hypothesis. This goes beyond evolution of coming from a single called organism (which on it's own is quite complex anatomically), and instead is about how life can happen from non living material.

These things aren't about evolution really, but do support my observations that God can and does exist without having to have an experience with God to back them up. For a while I use to also believe in evolution either fully or later at least partially, while also believing in God. Nowadays though for other reasons I'm questioning evolution more so as a whole. You don't have to reject evolution, or question it when searching for God or searching for if God could exist. But for me the field of study started to unravel as a reliable explanation when

1) it is used as a support for fields of study outside of biology. Such as social evolution claiming their concepts are reliable because they are claiming to be part of the theory of evolution applied to people and society.

And

2) when the theory of evolution was used as an explanation to dismiss survival elements in animals. The one that got me going was the color of some mice and rats blending in with their surroundings in one location that helped them hide from predators. That environment had both black rock in one area and white rock in another. It also had mice or rats of similar color in both areas. Evolution seems to be a one size fits all explanation for too many situations that can just be as easily described that God made them that way so that some would be able to survive. Evolution doesn't have to explain everything, any more then God made it that way has to explain everything. It just put the who,e theory in question because it meant other possible answers weren't even looked for as potential explanations because evolution was an explanation. Nor was that conclusion something that could be tested to see if it was right in each situation that claims it as an explanation.

The models of the early universe are not something I accept as reliable as much either. Not to reject them as a whole, but how do you project a model of a universe as reliable when the universe could be changing in ways we couldn't have known about, and couldn't predict in our models. As a whole science that deals with historical models are just possibilities not absolutes or reliable. You can't recreate the conditions to watch it happen so you can't confirm or challenge that they are right or not. The past over all isn't repeatable to confirm the reliably of the concepts that explain it.

Sorry, I know those are outside the scope of these topics, because they have little or nothing to do with whether or not God exists. But I didn't want to continue the idea that God can't exist because of historical models of the universe, or evolutionary explanations of the world. Don't let those get in the way. They aren't reliable enough to either confirm that God exist, nor to challenge that God exists.