| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| evidence for God. part one | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 19 2009, 03:48 AM (761 Views) | |
| the breeze | May 19 2009, 03:48 AM Post #1 |
the breeze
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Evidence for God from Science: Christian ApologeticsGeneral Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview? by Rich Deem Introduction Does everything have a natural cause? Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause. However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism. Rich Deem This is the first part of a three part introduction to the evidence for belief in the God of Christianity. This first part considers what people believe and why. The main point is that we must consider the possibility that our beliefs are wrong, in order to realistically examine the evidence that contradicts our beliefs. This principle applies to both believers and skeptics alike. For myself, having grown up as an agnostic atheist (one who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim that no god exists), I have undergone a couple paradigm shifts as an adult. The first occurred as an undergraduate at USC in the early 1970's, when I went from atheism to deism (a belief that a god created the universe), as a result of my perception that science had failed miserably in its explanation of the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth. My second, more difficult paradigm shift occurred in the late 1980's, when I determined that Jesus Christ was the God who created the universe and life in it. If you are ready to consider the possibility that your beliefs might be wrong, and look directly at the evidence, feel free to skip ahead to part 2. However, I feel it is important for skeptics to recognize that not all their beliefs are based upon physical evidence, and are even consistent with their own worldview. Do skeptics have beliefs?Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no "beliefs." However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work. A good introduction to this field can be found in Andrew Newberg's book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth. Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all. Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments. The skeptical worldviewBefore we can get started, we need to agree on some principles that govern (or should govern) a skeptical worldview. The first and foremost principle is that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. Unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings, skeptics must rely completely upon physical evidence. The second principle is that skeptics must be logically consistent at all times. In other words, a skeptic may not believe something to be true if it is contradicted by observational evidence. Most skeptics who are atheists believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. This belief is based upon the observation of our world, in which cause and effect are observed on a daily basis, with rare exception, if at all. One must ask the question, "Just because cause and effect overwhelmingly operate in our universe, does this mean that supernatural events never occur?" Even in the Bible, which claims to be a record of God's supernatural actions, over 90% of what is described is purely naturalistic. So, even the Bible recognizes that the vast majority of events that occur in the universe have a natural cause. However, one who insists that supernatural events never occur is expressing a belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur. Problem with the skeptical worldviewLet me point out one major problem with the skeptical worldview in order to get you to the point of recognizing that not all the data really fits your worldview. The data we are going to examine is the origin of the universe. Before the 20th century, atheists assumed that the universe was eternal. However, beginning with Einstein's theory of general relativity,1 and early observational evidence,2 it became apparent that the universe was expanding. Extrapolating back in time revealed that the universe was merely billions of years old. The data eventually led to the "Big Bang" theory, which is virtually universally accepted by modern day cosmologist.3 Attempts to get around the idea4 that the universe had a beginning3 have all met with observational difficulties.5 The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang.6 So, we have come to realize that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct observational evidence for either belief. Those who are "strong atheists" (not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview. The problem actually gets worse for the atheist. The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting some level of design (the evidence supporting this statement will be presented in part 2). If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe. Part 2: Is there any evidence to support this possible existence of God? Conclusion A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. Continued in part 2... Part 2: Evidence for Belief in God | Part 3: Why Christianity? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Related Pages •Evidence for God's Existence from Cosmology •The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning •General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 2 Evidence for Belief in God •God of the Gaps - Do All Christian Apologetics Fall Into This Kind of Argument? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1.General Relativity - Einstein Discovers God 2.Origins of the Big Bang Theory 3.The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning 4.Infinite/Eternal Universe Problems 5.Alternate Models for the Origin of the Universe ◦Infinite/Eternal Universe Problems ◦Steady State Universe Problems ◦Oscillating Universe: Observational Problems ◦The Universe as an Engine: Oscillating Universe Observational Problems ◦The Hartle-Hawking Model: Observational Problems ◦Quantum Cosmology: Observational Problems 6.Guth, A.H. and M. Sher. 1983. The impossibility of a bouncing universe. Nature 302: 505-506. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html Last Modified September 14, 2007 |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 19 2009, 04:30 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just the same old blather in a different format.
If there is observational evidence, belief is not required. So, where is the observational evidence supporting god? Just the same old blather.... |
![]() |
|
| Mike | May 19 2009, 04:32 AM Post #3 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok. that makes sense so far. I wonder how they know with certainty just how old the universe is? Is time a constant that can be measured, or does it vary from point to point? The idea that something can't create itself from nothing would also leave one in a bit of a quandary it would seem. |
![]() |
|
| Mike | May 19 2009, 04:37 AM Post #4 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hafele and Keating Experiment "During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks." J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972) ___________________________________________________________________ Well here is one theory, or so it seems. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 19 2009, 06:10 AM Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
"Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin." Wrong. Where Chuck Barris? Where do Creationist come up with this nonsense? Atheism = lack faith in God. That says nothing about them otherwise. But I do know where you get it, it was made up back in the 1920s and 30s, by fringe, militant fundamentalists. "Do skeptics have beliefs?Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no 'beliefs.'" Gong! Wrong again. As a skeptic I believe, for example, in natural (moral) law and natural rights. "The problem actually gets worse for the atheist." The problem is the author's. Like breeze he promise "evidence for God" but spends all his time making things up about atheists. Like the little old lady in the commercial says, where's the beef? "Part 2: Is there any evidence to support this possible existence of God?" He promises again, and again fails. Where's the beef? Where's the breeze? |
|
|
| Deleted User | May 19 2009, 06:15 AM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
"Ok. that makes sense so far." It does? Please explain what makes sense? All I see are straw men deceptions. "I wonder how they know with certainty just how old the universe is?" Science doesn't claim to. Another straw man. "Is time a constant that can be measured, or does it vary from point to point?" From what I understand, some physicists consider it a variable. But what's thepoint of your question? Trying to show it's uncertain? It is. "The idea that something can't create itself from nothing would also leave one in a bit of a quandary it would seem." Why do you assume creation from nothing? Oh, yeah, it's a Christian concept. Why do Christians make that assumption? |
|
|
| Mike | May 19 2009, 06:22 AM Post #7 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Ok. that makes sense so far." It does? Please explain what makes sense? All I see are straw men deceptions. "I wonder how they know with certainty just how old the universe is?" Science doesn't claim to. Another straw man. Actually it does claim that. The figures are included in articles written by scientists. Is time a constant that can be measured, or does it vary from point to point?" From what I understand, some physicists consider it a variable. But what's thepoint of your question? Trying to show it's uncertain? It is. Yes, the point being that science stumbles around and can't be counted on for anythong other than opinions on may subjects they comment on. "The idea that something can't create itself from nothing would also leave one in a bit of a quandary it would seem." Why do you assume creation from nothing? Oh, yeah, it's a Christian concept. Why do Christians make that assumption? I don't assume it. I know for a fact that something can't create itslef out of nothing. However if you disagree, then please provide me of prove to the contrary. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 19 2009, 06:46 AM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
Mike says "Actually it does claim that. The figures are included in articles written by scientists. " Show us, Mike, don't just make claims. Any scientist worth his weight will tell you science is temporary, incomplete, probabilistic. Newton's Laws were enhanced by Einstein's General Relativity which is today being refine--temporary. Scientific models cannot model themselves--incomplete. Ever since Heisenberg introduced the uncertainty principle it's been probabilistic. "I don't assume it. I know for a fact that something can't create itslef out of nothing. However if you disagree, then please provide me of prove to the contrary." Where'd God come from then? And how do you know it for a fact? |
|
|
| Mike | May 19 2009, 07:27 AM Post #9 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Mike says "Actually it does claim that. The figures are included in articles written by scientists. " Show us, Mike, don't just make claims. Any scientist worth his weight will tell you science is temporary, incomplete, probabilistic. Newton's Laws were enhanced by Einstein's General Relativity which is today being refine--temporary. Scientific models cannot model themselves--incomplete. Ever since Heisenberg introduced the uncertainty principle it's been probabilistic. I googled up the question Chris and found quite a few articles where scientists, using models have claimed the universe to be about 13.75 billion years old. So Chris, your statement that scientists don't offer up such evidence is false. In fact, they used age of the universe to explain their big bang theory. Until it too was refuted. "I don't assume it. I know for a fact that something can't create itslef out of nothing. However if you disagree, then please provide me of prove to the contrary." Where'd God come from then? You never answered my question Chris. Show me the proof that something created itself out of nothing.. Did you miss the question or simply choose to ignore it? None the less, please answer the question or admit you can't prove it. And how do you know it for a fact? Once we have finished with my question, I will answer. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 19 2009, 07:34 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Which has what to do with either evidence for god or the age of the universe? The experiment was to test whether clocks slowed down in a gravitational field (they do) and whether they slow down as a result of velocity (they do.) It's a confirmation at the macro level of a phenomenon predicted by Relativity and seen previously at the atomic level. (Cosmic rays create showers of particles that should not survive long enough to reach the earth's surface. These particle do reach the surface because the speed of their decay slows down a fraction of a nanosecond due to the high velocity.) |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




12:41 AM Jul 14
