Scientific Evidence for God?

[MorningGlory]

It's a victimless crime

except for personal holiness/integrity, which sadly you care nothing about

and I don't believe in hell, so can't be threatened with it.

actually, you are threatened with it, and the reality is the truly horrifying part...where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched, the comparison was made to a garbage dump outside Jerusalem that burned continuously, with a putrifying odor

you don't want to go there! your false bravado is tragic

It may not be false bravado, yzf, it may be quite real. Either way, it's very misguided. Those who don't believe in hell now will change their views during the orientation tour.

[ohnomelon]

1. Do you believe that any moral obligation exists apart from our obligation to abide by society's laws?

2. What do you believe to be the basis of moral law/virtues, if not God's commands or character traits?

Since I am the original 'lost soul' in this thread, I'll answer. . .Thou shalt do unto others that which you would like done unto you. . .It's really that easy. I intrinsically knew number one at a very young age. There was absolutely no need to look it up in a book. Where does it come from? I've really no idea, I just know it's natural amongst all humans, unless they have been mistreated as a child.

So you believe that the supreme, humanist ethic is rooted in human nature? This brings up several other questions: what makes Homo sapiens anything special? How would you defend yourself against the claim that this is nothing more than "speciesism?" After all, what makes us instrinsically more valuable as a race of animals than fruit flies or porpoises, which were produced by the same, impersonal process (for the record, I also believe in evolution by natural selection)? Why do other aspects of human nature stand out as immoral character traits (e.g., selfishness)? I highlighted the above section because that is where you answered my question. The nontheist, while he might lead a very moral life, has no (coherent) naturalistic answer for the origin of his code of ethics - as amoral evolution seems to imply the opposite of the golden rule. To me, this is an indicator that man's nature is not entirely taken from natural processes. The nontheist has no reason beyond self-preservation to adhere to any system of morality. But a transcendent source of moral law along with a sinful nature which resulted from the Fall, I believe, best explains man's knowledge of good and evil (you've heard of the tree, I'm sure), as well as, his tendency toward moral corruption. If I understand correctly, you believe in the objectivity and universality of moral law; I don't see why it would be such a leap for you to admit its transcendence, which is actually easier to prove.

Most society's laws are just reflections and extensions of this law. Theft, murder, etc are covered. Society also passes laws like the speeding laws, to protect members of that society. The bible doesn't cover that sort of stuff. The sort of stuff it does cover, eg worshipping God and only him, covetting my neighbours ox, don't really affect my life. Societies where religious law is followed seem pretty awful to me, eg Saudi Arabia. I don't believe in capital punishment of any sort, and doing it in public is beyond contempt.

I don't believe in capital punishment either. Of course, I believe that the relationship between God and Man is more at ease than it was in the days of Mosaic covenant. The Jews had a better system of capital punishment than we do in America, though. Two eyewitnesses to the crime were absolutely necessary for a death sentence to be carried out (so not as many people were executed under the law of Moses as one might think). Please don't associate the philosophical and Judeo-Christian understandings of moral law with the Sharia law of Islam because, if you couldn't tell, we don't exactly believe the same things they do about right and wrong. lol

I've never considered covetting my neighbour's wife, or his car, a sin, as long as I stick to covetting, and leave off actually stealing them.

As it has already been noted, while "thought crimes" may not be illegal in this country, they are nevertheless wrong according to God's perfect moral standards. The whole point of the Gospel (or good news) is to let us know that we are totally incapable of escaping our carnal nature and inevitable tendency to sin. But perfection is what God demands, so He made a way for us to be legally justified and perfect in His sight without being perfect in practice or held spiritually accountable for our wrongdoings. There are, of course, many natural consequences that serve as as moral "indicators."

As to God's character traits, I hope that they're never the basis of law. His commandment number 5 looks pretty vile to me, inflicting as it does, punishment upon innocents. There are other passages involving God murdering, and condoning rape. I seriously don't want to be like him at all.

I do not believe that there is such a thing as a "crime of ignorance" in God's moral law. They are still sins (as Jesus explained in Matthew ch. 5), and sin separates us from the perfection of God, but He is merciful enough to not hold us accountable for transgressions we made without knowing. And the fifth commandment is "Honor your father and your mother." How is that so vile, davem? I'll have to get back to you on the "condoned murder," because I'm aware of what you're referring to, though I must admit that ordained rape is a new one on me. Any Jew or Christian educated in the Scriptures will insist that rape is a serious sin and God would never condone such a heinous act. I hope you didn't get that impression from a skeptical website or a piece of antireligious literature because a lot of charges made by detractors of the Bible leave scholars either scratching their heads or rolling their eyes. I do believe there are some legitimate ethical questions to be raised (that can most likely be cleared up with additional context), but most accusations are based on sketchy and shallow interpretations.

Edited August 24, 2007 by ohnomelon

[Guest The DLK]

It's no secret that the past couple of centuries have given birth to the greatest theological dualities in history, those obviously being religious faith vs. deterministic science; however, in the not-so-distant future drawing nigh, we may experience one of the most drastic paradigm shifts - THE most momentous revolution - in the histories of both religion and science.

Even though the research has been evolving for the past (at least) 50 years in this very direction, many zealots of religion and science - which obviously possess their fair shares of dogma - are going to have to "face the facts" and accept that this duality between the two has been a long, drawn-out, completely unecessary one. The time may soon be coming when religion and science can stand in line next to one another at the bottom of the slide of the world's playground, without one trying to push the other down.

This should be most comforting for believers of any kind, whether it fits into anyone's individual preferences or narrow paradigms or not. It's still reassuring for most anyone who believes in God. A little less reassuring for atheists, a little more for those poor agnostics who don't really know where they stand.

Any believer who is wants to influence anyone opposing monotheism would do good to educate themselves on these matters, to be the best witness they can be. Atheists and agnostics have trouble accepting the Bible for the whole truth of life. Holding things up in light of where they look for their answers (science) can indeed help to show non-believers that they can at least accept the possibility that God is real and who knows where that may lead?

Here is a basic layout of some current philosophies on human life, how it may have come to be, and where it's possibly headed. These philosophies, all based on scientific research and theories proposed out of relative research, represent a wide variety of beliefs, but also spread light on the idea that between all belief systems, no matter how complex or incomplete, there is a balance to be found where harmony may exist between the dualities, if we so choose for it to:

1. Neo-Darwinism

YES I AGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT YOU SAY --- for technology has proven a new understanding of this reality called Universe and or God...

SEE::: *Deleted by Moderator*

SEE::: *Deleted by Moderator*

Science and Theology --environmental understanding-- joining together as one!

Neo-Darwinism's core idea is simply this: evolution and biological complexity are the products of random mutation and natural selection at the level of genes. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection hinged on the idea that advantageous traits in an organism would enable it to better adapt to its environment and thus survive to reproduce. But he could never figure out how these traits were passed on from parent to offspring. It wasn't until twenty years after his death, when scientists unearthed Gregor Mendel's discovery of genetics, that an answer became crystal clear. Through the marriage of Darwin's theory and Mendel's, the Neo-Darwinists created what's called the "modern evolutionary synthesis," which says that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution and genes are the units on which it operates. Which we know for a fact that they do.

2. Progressive Darwinism

Core idea: genetic mechanisms are far more complex than previously thought; moreover, we now know there are several nongenetic systems of heredity that also influence the evolutionary process. This is an amazing theory based on genetic research over past 40 years, specifically, the work of Dr. Bruce Lipton. The findings of this "new" science of genetics, called epigenetics, leads us into the discovery that these nongenetic systems that influence the way our body changes throughout our life and how we trasmit our genes onto our children get their force from sentience and thought. The very act of thought, especially repetitious thoughts and ideas, influence the way our genes act and react to the signals they're recieving from the brain.

This is a truly profound discovery because we now know that it is not necessarily our genes that control us, but rather it is us that control our genes. We are no longer seen by scientific determinism as helpless and victims of our bodies. We have great influence over them via that amazing gift from God we call FAITH!

To learn more about this amazing facet of human life check out Dr. Lipton's book, The Biology of Belief.

3. Intelligent Design

The underlying foundational idea here is that certain features of the universe and earth's biological complexity are best explained by an intelligent agent or cosmic designer, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Proponents of ID invoke a version of the anthropic principle, saying that the laws of physics are so fine-tuned to give birth to life that they could not have been created by chance (in other words, random mutation during natural selection).

Naturally, the scientific community accuses ID-ers of pushing a Christian agenda under the guise of a scientific alternative to Neo-Darwinism when, in fact, ID has yet to provide any direct scientific evidence for its claims. Likewise, many theologians feel that ID's conception of a creator is limited and uninspiring.

A good primer of Intelligent Design, if one so dares to gain insight, is this book: Darwin's Black Box.

4. Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolutionists primarily believe that the evolutionary process of natural selection and random mutation are not contradictory with faith in a God who gives order to all existence. In fact, science and religion deal with different aspects of reality that compliement one another. It's just a matter of time before the two differences coalesce.

This seems to be a liberal-agenda based idea; however, it's logic, evidence, and probability (when held under the speculation of both scientific determinism and religious speculation) can't be honestly ignored.

Recent findings about evolution and our complex biology are bringing scientists to their knees in awe. A number of them, such as Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, are well-established scientists who started out agnostic (at best) but have been overwhelmed by the evidence for design and purpose in the universe. This isn't to be taken lightly. Knowing that the Human Genome Project set out to prove once and for all the central dogma of scientific determinism - that all human life and experience, subjective or objective, is the direct result of genetic factors... nothing else - this sheds light on how humbled many scientists are becoming at the thought of accepting God as a real probability in this universe.

Francis Collins started out as an atheist, involving himself in physics, chemistry, and biology in order to prove what Darwin and Mendel had long-ago proclaimed was the final truth to life. Ended up, he "proved" just the opposite to himself and now is a firm believer in God. What changed his mind? Scientific evidence based on his own genetic research.

To learn more about his amazing discoveries (and his likeness with renowned Christian writer, C.S. Lewis) I recommend his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

These are only a few very basic, yet profoundly prevalent, theories of human life and evolution.

It's simply amazing that science is nearing the point at which its materialistic determinism is going to be the very means by which it leads us right back to God.

It makes one wonder if God didn't perhaps put science in our hands to give us more reason for faith.

Blessed Be

Edited August 26, 2007 by The DLK