| 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 three. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 19 2009, 04:31 AM (284 Views) | |
| the breeze | May 19 2009, 04:31 AM Post #1 |
the breeze
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Evidence for God from Science: Christian ApologeticsGeneral Introduction for Non-Believers, Part 3: Why Christianity? by Rich Deem IntroductionWhy Christianity? Many people think that religious truth claims are beyond our ability to test for truthfulness. Although many claims cannot be directly tested (such as claims about morality), nearly all religions make claims about the nature of our world (the creation). Don't throw your hands up in the air in defeat. Test the claims! Rich Deem Part 2 of the introduction for non-believers provided a survey of the evidence suggesting that the universe was designed by an intelligent agent. I came to that conclusion in 1973 as a result of my studies as an undergraduate at the University of Southern California (not exactly a bastion of religious fervor). However, it took another 15 years before I identified the Designer. Like many other skeptics, I assumed that one could not determine which god (if any) were correctly described by any of the world's religious traditions. Looking back, the primary reason for my failure to identify the Designer was due to a lack of diligent research on my part. The intent of this page is to get you started on your research. How does one test religious claims?When I was a young adult, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos specials on PBS. Sagan had a way to make cosmology interesting even to biologists. I waited all week to watch his program. Later, in his Gifford lectures, Carl Sagan talked about how to test religious truth claims: "Now, what happened before that [Big-Bang]? There are two views. One is 'Don’t ask that question,' which is very close to saying that God did it. And the other is that we live in an oscillating universe in which there is an infinite number of expansions and contractions. The former of these views happens, by chance, to be close to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view, the latter, close to the standard Hindu views. And so, if you like, you can think of the varying contentions of these two major religious views being fought out in the field of contemporary satellite astronomy. Because that’s where the answer to this question will very likely be decided. This is an experimental question. And it is very likely that in our lifetime we will have the answer to it. And I stress that this is very different from the usual theological approach, where there is never an experiment that can be performed to test out any contentious issue. Here there is one. So we don’t have to make judgments now. All we have to do is maintain some tolerance for ambiguity until the data are in, which may happen in a decade or less." (Carl Sagan, 1985 Gifford Lectures). Guess what? Sagan was right (although it took a little more than a decade). Sagan's second alternative, the oscillating universe model has been discredited by a lack of sufficient matter to cause a contraction.1 It was further discredited by the discovery of dark energy, which shows that the universe is actually expanding at an ever increasing rate.2 So, Sagan's first alternative is the one that turned out to be true. My guess is that he was betting on the second. Of course, the atheists haven't lined up to become Christians, but instead have invented their own form of metaphysics (i.e., religion). The multiverse sounds scientific, but it is really philosophical wishful thinking, since there is no evidence supporting the idea. If one really thinks about it, the multiverse is impossible over the entire period of eternity (which is what atheists would propose for the age of the "invisible" part of our universe - if such a thing exists at all). The problem is that our part of the multiverse has managed to make itself completely inaccessible to contraction and future expansion. If it were possible for one part of the multiverse to become thermodynamically dead, it would be expected to be possible for others. Even if entry into such a state is extremely unlikely, eternity is a very, very long time. Certainly by now (over all eternity), the entire multiverse would have entered into one of these thermodynamically dead zones. So, one would expect the entire multiverse to have suffered thermodynamic death by now. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense that the universe is eternal with the characteristics that we observe. We are left with Sagan's first alternative - God did it. Atheists like to say that there is no evidence for God's existence and pretend it doesn't exist. However, Sagan realized that science could judge between religious claims. More religious claimsThe example of distinguishing between Hinduism versus the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation account is just one of many ways to examine the truth claims of the world's religions. Since most of the world's religions developed hundreds to thousands of years ago, it is a fairly trivial matter to examine their material for scientific and other errors. It would not be expected that ancient peoples would be able to accurately describe all modern scientific principles. Only those individuals who were given divine revelation would be expected to give an accurate account of our world. Science and the QuranFor example, the Quran3 says that the heavens and the earth were once joined together as one unit before it was split into two parts.4 Obviously, this creation model could never be applied to any kind of Big Bang theory. However, the Bible clearly presents the creation of the universe as an expanding universe model in which God spreads out the stars.5 The Quran says that Allah created seven heavens6 and that the stars are found in the lowest heaven.7 In addition, the Quran says that earth is like a carpet8 that is held in place by the heavy mountains, described as being like tent pegs,9 so that it won't move or shake.10 In contrast, the Bible associates the mountains with shaking11 and says that, instead of placing the mountains on the earth, God caused the mountains to rise up.12 So, the Bible accurately describes the mountains as being associated with tectonic activity and volcanism whereas the Quran says that the mountains were placed on the earth to prevent shaking. The Quran says that the Sun "sets in a spring of murky water."13 In contrast to the Bible14 the Quran presents a flat earth model for the earth and universe, which is clearly at odds with the facts of science. Science and LDS scripturesWhen dealing with more modern religious traditions, tests of scientific accuracy are more difficult to deploy, since those religions have the advantage of scientific revelation since the Enlightenment. Surprisingly, even some of the more modern religious traditions make claims that can be disproved through the discoveries of modern science. A prime example of this principle can be found in the religious writings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Although calling themselves "Christians," LDS theology is radically different from historic Christianity15 and contains its own set of religious writings (in addition to the Bible). Even though written in the 19th century, LDS religious writings make numerous scientific errors, including astronomical errors,16 archeological and historical errors,17 and genetic/hereditary errors for people groups.18 Because of these problems, the LDS religion can be safely discarded from accurately representing the true nature of God, having been shown to not be divinely inspired. Christian truth claimsFor the age in which it was written, the Bible makes some rather surprising claims regarding the nature of the universe and how it was created. For example, the Bible says that time was created by God when He created the universe.19 Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, demonstrating that time began at the formation of the universe.20 Of course, the biggest coup of the Bible was to declare that the universe had a beginning21 through an expanding universe model.22 The New Testament even declares that the visible creation was made from what was not visible and that dimensions of length, width and height were created by God.23 In addition, the Bible refuted steady-state theory (saying that the creation of matter and energy has ended)24 long before science made that determination. The Bible also states that the universe is subject to decay and will wear out.25 The existence of the second law of thermodynamics, coupled with recent discoveries indicating that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, with an insufficient amount of matter to stop that contraction, guarantees that the Bible is correct on this claim, also. Besides these stunning revelations about the nature of the universe, the Bible describes several properties of the earth that were not confirmed by science until hundreds of years after the Bible first made the claim. Examples include the claim that air has weight,26 the existence of valleys27 and vents28 on the bottom of the sea, ocean currents,29 and the fact that winds blow in circular paths.30 These are remarkable claims that could not have been directly observed by a bunch on nomadic sheep herders. Where did this information come from? Christian worldviewA worldview is a set of constructs by which we interpret how the world operates. The Christian worldview operates on the basis of the theology presented in the Bible. Below is an example comparison between a purely naturalistic worldview and the Christian worldview. Christian vs. Naturalistic Worldview Premise Christianity Naturalistic Materialism31 Purpose of the universe The purpose of the universe is to provide a temporary habitation for human beings to choose to love or reject God.32 The universe has no purpose. It began as some random quantum variation and will likely end in thermodynamic heat death. Value of the human species Human beings are more valuable than any other species of life, since they were created in the image of God.33 Human beings evolved from other species, so they have no more intrinsic value than any other species of life on earth. Purpose of human life The purpose of human life is to bring glory to God34 through loving Him35 and our fellow human beings.36 There is no ultimate purpose to human life. We live and we die and it doesn't matter what we do with our life. Value of individuals All human beings are valuable to God37 and none has any more value than any other.38 Those who contribute more to society are more valuable than those who contribute less. The work of individuals The most valuable work a person can do are spiritual service to God (worship)39 and to humans (good works).40 "He who dies with the most things wins." Wealth and fame will bring you happiness. Rich celebrities win! Morality Moral laws are given by God, and like the laws of physics, do not change.41 Immoral behavior is not justified by circumstances.42 Morality is determined by society and can be changed at any time to reflect current practices. Immoral behavior can be justified to bring about a "greater good." Worldviews can be tested using the following criteria43: 1.Logical consistency 2.Balanced (not too simple or complex) 3.Explanatory power and scope 4.Correspondence to well-established facts 5.Verifiable (truth claims can be verified or falsified) 6.Applicable to real life 7.Fills existential needs Using the above criteria, it can be seen that Christianity and naturalism exhibit different strengths. 1.Although both Christianity and naturalism are logically consistent within their own spheres, they come to radically different conclusions. 2.Both worldviews are reasonably balanced, although naturalism must resort to extremely complex hypotheses to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of life. 3.The explanatory power and scope of Christianity and naturalism tend to lie in different areas. Naturalism's strength lies in its explanation of the history of the earth and how living organisms function on a physical basis. It has failed to adequately explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, and the development of human consciousness, altruism and morality. Christianity fails to explain the details involved in much of how the physical world works (although it was never intended to do so). However, much of this information was unavailable to naturalism until the last 50 years. Christianity does address the big questions of origins (the origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, and the development of human consciousness, altruism and morality), which naturalism inadequately addresses. 4.As demonstrated above, Christianity provides some surprisingly accurate explanations of our physical world, even though it was written thousands of years before actual proof of those claims could be experimentally verified. In addition, it is historically accurate, and its prophecies go far beyond what would be expected by chance. 5.Scientific naturalism has always claimed to provide explanations that are verifiable and can be falsified experimentally. However, there has been a recent change in the explanations of those espousing the naturalism-only worldview. As atheists attempt to answer the "big questions," explanations have become more metaphysical and complicated in nature. Explanations such as the multiverse are probably not even falsifiable. 6.One of naturalism's big failures is in its ability to provide application to real life issues for human beings. Explanations of human romantic love and need for interpersonal relationships, our need to create beautiful works of art and music, and our desire to help others (altruism) seem to defy naturalistic explanation. Attempts to fit these realities into the Darwinian evolutionary box have failed miserably. Even the evil side of our natures seems extreme from an evolutionary standpoint. Christianity provides a far superior explanation for why we behave the way we do. 7.The largest problem for naturalism is a failure to provide for the existential needs of human beings. People have a need for meaning, a purpose for living, and a hope for the future. Naturalism provides for none of this. In fact, naturalism destroys the idea that humans have a purpose, and leaves individuals only with the prospect of aging, suffering and eventual death and non-existence. In addition, naturalism says that there is no hope for the human species, since we will be eventually destroyed by an asteroid collision, a nearby supernova event, global warming, or solar expansion. Even if we manage to escape from our solar system to another, the eventual collision of our galaxy with the much larger Andromeda galaxy will cause chaos throughout most of the galaxy. After this time, we can expect that the accelerating expansion of the universe will eventually rip apart the entire universe into its elementary particles as the universe suffers permanent heat death - the end of all life. So much for the "hope" from naturalism. The human need for a spiritual connection causes even most naturalists to go into meditation, study Buddhism, etc. to attempt to fulfill this need. When I was an agnostic, the lack of purpose in my life was eventually disturbing, as my life settled from the franticness of college into the complacency of a steady job. Even though the science in my job was exciting, there was something missing - ultimate purpose. As a person who originally followed a naturalistic-only worldview, I have found the Christian worldview to be a far superior explanation for human life. This doesn't mean that I have completely rejected the science behind naturalism. As a fulltime research scientist, I still find the biological sciences fascinating and captivating. However, unlike those who follow a naturalism-only worldview, I have not rejected a priori the possibility of supernatural phenomena. For more information on testing the Christian worldview, please see A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test. Worldviews and moral choicesThree recently published studies show that worldview beliefs influence moral behavior. The first study showed that atheists were less likely to consider certain moral choices as being "very important", especially patience, forgiveness, and generosity. A second study showed that teens who were not exposed to religious teaching were significantly more likely to be involved in negative behaviors than those who attend church. A third study showed that belief in the atheistic concept of determinism is correlated with an increased tendency to cheat. Even a short reading of a passage denying free produced more cheating behavior among randomly-selected subject groups. These studies show that the promotion and prevalence of atheism in society can be expected to result in negative consequences to societies. Conclusion Yes, many religious truth claims are testable. Those who are truly interested in whether a religion represents truth should test the claims to see how they stand against the evidence. Modern cosmology destroys the Hindu model for the universe, but affirms the Judeo-Christian model. Cosmology and earth sciences destroy the strange assertions of the Quran. Archeology, cosmology and molecular biology destroy the claims of the LDS Book of Mormon., but confirm many claims from the Bible. For an ancient document written thousands of years ago, the Bible makes some remarkable scientific claims - many of which were not verified until this century. However, the Bible was never written to serve as a science textbook, but was given as guide to having a relationship with God and our fellow human beings. The Bible answers the "why" and "what" questions that naturalism says are unanswerable |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 19 2009, 06:40 AM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
"Part 2 of the introduction for non-believers provided a survey of the evidence suggesting that the universe was designed by an intelligent agent." No it did not. Go back and show where this was done. "How does one test religious claims?" There he goes again. Saying he's going to show something and then wanders off on a tangent, only to later say now that I have showed it--when he never does. "And I stress that this is very different from the usual theological approach, where there is never an experiment that can be performed to test out any contentious issue. Here there is one." Well, what is it? This guy has used 1000s of words and said nothing. "it is a fairly trivial matter to examine their material for scientific and other errors" Eric has shown in detail where the Genesis myth fails on this account. "Of course, the biggest coup of the Bible was to declare that the universe had a beginning" Right, but it uses a Hebrew verb that means create something from nothing. Yet this very author has declared and accepted that the universe was transformed from a singularity (as was argued 40 years ago--just using the man's own words to reveal how illogical his argument is). So the Bible got it wrong big time. "In addition, the Bible refuted steady-state theory" Now he's getting silly. If the Bible refuted steady-state theory, then steady-state theory existed before the Bible, before the Word which is God, when the Bible claims God created it. Puzzling, nonsense. "Where did this information come from?" Man made it up. Man was wrong. "both Christianity and naturalism are logically consistent" I think I've shown Christianity logically inconsistent, logically contradictory. "The explanatory power and scope of Christianity" Explains nothing. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic » |





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




12:41 AM Jul 14
