Thank you for the information, I will look at it because my information is outdated. However, I can google a site supporting God (including scientific evidence) for every site you can google to disprove it. The matter is controversial because there is evidence to support both sides.Godless said:
Who created God?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
I've been reading some introductions to scientific study. I have a question, before I dive into it. There is a claim that scientists are increasingly (in number) becoming more skeptical of Darwinism. I'd like to see the survey on that.
Anyway, my question to you all is:
Who knows if what we observe was not designed so that we can see what we observe? If I see it rain, I can scientifically explain the rain's occurence as condensation carried from the surface and dumped elsewhere when conditions were right. Therefore it is not God, but only a natural occurrence. Who is to say that God doesn't exist just because we can scientifically prove it? Who is to say that God didn't make the Earth to function that way, in so doing erasing his own thumbprints? Who is to say that God did not choose evolution as a means to populate the Earth? (I am not saying it is God's design, but who can say?) At one time, I believed that this was the case, but when evolution was pulled from under me, I had nothing left but Christianity.
So, all the evidence that proves anything (even if against the existence of a creator) could still be of design. The possibility is there, even if it is more likely that it is not there.
Anyway, just a thought while I am fueling up. I am surprised I didn't refresh my Earthly knowledge before, I've been so busy trying to figure out God from a Biblical perspective, I haven't paid much attention as I did when I thought there was no God.
Anyway, my question to you all is:
Who knows if what we observe was not designed so that we can see what we observe? If I see it rain, I can scientifically explain the rain's occurence as condensation carried from the surface and dumped elsewhere when conditions were right. Therefore it is not God, but only a natural occurrence. Who is to say that God doesn't exist just because we can scientifically prove it? Who is to say that God didn't make the Earth to function that way, in so doing erasing his own thumbprints? Who is to say that God did not choose evolution as a means to populate the Earth? (I am not saying it is God's design, but who can say?) At one time, I believed that this was the case, but when evolution was pulled from under me, I had nothing left but Christianity.
So, all the evidence that proves anything (even if against the existence of a creator) could still be of design. The possibility is there, even if it is more likely that it is not there.
Anyway, just a thought while I am fueling up. I am surprised I didn't refresh my Earthly knowledge before, I've been so busy trying to figure out God from a Biblical perspective, I haven't paid much attention as I did when I thought there was no God.
Right. Here goes.jayleew said:
God can not be disproven. Most of us are in agreement with that, even most of us atheists.
God, and his clever designs for this Universe, even the way we see the Universe, is just one of an INFINITE number of possibilities (there are an infinite number of unprovable things). As such, the likelihood of any of them being correct is ZERO %.
God, in any form, of any religion, is a possibility. No one denies that (unless you actively believe in the non-existence of god). But it is, mathematically, a possibility with ZERO % chance.
That is why I am an atheist. Not because I don't think it's a possibility, but because it is as much a possibility as all the other infinite unprovable "things" you care to come up with for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
psycho-sth-african said:
i don't talk about the science of today, or the things you read in books, i talk about the science of future, which is in my mind.
psycho-sth-african said:
yeah, i know... at least, that's what you hear if you read books, but not everything is true in books. as a matter of fact... i'm a little unsure about the existence of black holes. physicists seem kind of lost today.
I've never have had to prove it before because I've been around Christians for the last 10 years, but many scholarly people say there is (most of them used to be atheist), so I will do my own research. THey claim that there is overwhelming evidence that is making scientific athiests believe in God because of the evidence. I have a buddy of mine who studies this sort of thing and the things he reads I wouldn't touch because is ethics that I am against, and I'm trying to convince him to get on here. I am glad I came across this forum, that I am motivated to learn more why I believe in God scientifically.Sarkus said:
Public opinion does not determine what it true... it doesn't even determine what is science. If there is evidence for ID I'd like to see it. I've ready many articles, several books, listened to lectures and debates. ID fails to be a science on several levels. The primary problem is that there is no testable hypothesis; the entire conjecture rests upon a false dilemma.jayleew said:
Hope has nothing to do with it. It's all about the evidence. Frankly, I would be thrilled to find out that there was some evidence of a creator. It's just not there. Nor is there any evidence that modern organisms appeared on earth all at once.
No more than your belief in gravity is.
Evolution is a fact and a set of theories and hypotheses. There is the observable, verified, fact of Evolution, "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population across generations". Then there are the theories about how Evolution works in a population and theories about how it occurred historically.
Present them.
~Raithere
I gave you examples of where Christians must face the consequences. Moses, Adam, and Isrealites. These are all examples of where God said, I forgive you, but you still have to face the consequences of your actions.Raithere said:
Raithere said:
No, scripture says the Spirit is invited. God knocks, but there is no handle on the outside. You ask, and it will be given....but you have to believe in him first. THe ball is in our court to give permission to enter.
You have a better chance with your scientific arguments, Raithere.
It most certainly does. Your assertion was "97% of an eye wont help at all". It is simply a fact that there are animals who have far less than 97% of what constitutes a human eye and that these eyes are extremely helpful. With that fact alone your assertion is completely refuted.psycho-sth-african said:
Just so that you know, Michael Behe is in no way secular. He is a Biblical Literalist with an agenda.
The ICR is a Christian organization that also supports Biblical Literalism. It is not about science, it's not even related to science except that they often attempt to frame their arguments so that they sound scientific. Here is their agenda, straight from their web-site:
"The programs and curricula of the Graduate School, as well as the activities of other ICR divisions, while similar in factual content to those of other graduate colleges, are distinctive in one major respect. The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."
This is not science. It's not even good logic. When your premise is your conclusion all you're doing is circular reasoning. You cannot prove the Bible is true when your premise is that the Bible is true.
AIG is even more straigforward, "Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively."
Again, nothing about science here.
~Raithere
Sarkus said:
Good logic. It sounds good, but it therre is a little problem with it.
To that effect, they said that to Columbus: You can't prove the Earth is round, so the likelihood if zero.
Is there a cure for cancer? You can't prove it, so the liklihood that it exists is zero.
These were before the NT. God seemed to be a bit more direct back then. Is your assertion that God punishes us in life for our sins? Sounds more like karma.jayleew said:
Ahh... I love this one. "You have to believe it to believe it." Utter nonsense. Particularly since I started out believing... then I started asking questions. God is welcome to come down to my place any time.
A better chance at what?
~Raithere
When is something true? When I say it is true? When there is indisputible facts that say the Earth is round and I say it is true. No, the Earth is not round until everyone says it is round. Like it or not, society says what is true.Raithere said:
If you were the only one who believed in something, and everyone else disagreed (even if you were right), who is right? If you say you are, then try telling that to everyone else.
Truth is not truth until it is widely accepted, so if there are Christians who say there is scientific fact to prove God, then there very well could be. Keep an open mind.
No one said you can't keep trying.jayleew said:
1. There Earth is flat; but you can try to prove us wrong.
2. There is no cure for cancer; but you can keep looking for one.
3. There is no God; but you can keep trying to prove there is.
1. Has been disproven.
2. We're making progress but it's still true.
3. Is bouncing along happily, no advances here in what 5000-10000 years, maybe more?
~Raithere
So why didn't Columbus fall off the edge of the Earth?jayleew said:
Oh that's right, because the popular opinion that the world was flat was FALSE.
Something is true when it is agreement with reality. No one's opinion or belief makes a shit of a difference.
Always. But I don't believe it until I have good evidence, a solid logical argument, or no other option. For the Christian God, I see none of these.
~Raithere
Raithere said:
God is the same God as he was before the NT. It is man who has changed the laws and traditions. Jesus came to perfect the law.
God punishes us in life, but does not judge us. Correct.
You misquote me. I said you have to believe to receive, quite different that you to have to believe to believe.Raithere said:
Is God welcome? You say he is. Do you want him to come down? From your mouth comes nothing but disbelief and distaste. If you said those things to me, I wouldn't want to come either. Besides, you ask for a sign first to believe. When did that ever work with God? You are tempting God. Get off your high horse and go to him first, then he will show you himself.
How well did the Pharisees do with Jesus? They knew the scriptures, and so does Satan, but they did not follow it. So you have a better chance of not sounding foolish with science, than with law of God, who lives in me.Raithere said:
"He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today. He walks with me and talks with me, along lifes golden way." - Hymn Book, Southern Baptist. I wish I could see him walking beside me or here him talking with me, but all I hear or see is what I want to see or hear. I don't want a God who allows his children to suffer so much. So, if he does exist, I'll go to hell by choice just to show my displeasure with HIM!!!
Burning already, CT3000
Burning already, CT3000