INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[metis]

You have said you are unconcerned about Heaven, Hell, Etc.... and I find that inconsistent with a person who has adopted theological positions. If you did not care how did you study them in order to agree or disagree with them.

I was brought up theistically and probably have read several hundred books in the theology area. What I don't worry about are those things that simply cannot be determined.

If Christianity is correct then you must decide that issue in the few years we have this side of he dirt. One common argument among thousands is that it appears almost all reliable evidence points to a finite universe which is just another peg in the board of Christianity. That one aspect alone is not al that meaningful but if you have a wait and see attitude you may not like what you see.

IF your version of Christianity is correct.

It is not an assumption it is a evidenced reasoned faith. I have evidence (though it is personal) that there is a transcendent reality and billions also have that same evidence...

Name one thing that doesn't change over time. Experience tell us that things change, thus there is really no reason to believe otherwise. The concept that our universe must have had a theistic cause is simply not shared by most cosmologists and physicists, according to polls I've seen.

Doing good does not get anyone to Heaven. Establishing a relationship with Christ through faith and being born again does...

That's your belief, and that's fine-- for you.

That's a description formed through opinion and ignorance (not knowing) and does not describe the Christian doctrine.

I think that again our conversation is coming to a halt because you can't seem to refrain from getting your digs in, which I find morally deplorable.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church and had thoughts about going into the ministry. But even when I was finishing off high school, the church's stance of virtually ignoring parts of science really seemed totally nonsensical, plus the racism I found in the church I felt was totally immoral.

During my 40's and early 50's, I taught Christian theology to adults for 14 years and comparative religions for an additional two years. This October and November I'm teaching a two-part seminar on Christianity at my synagogue, which I've done before. I've also made presentations to a local church dealing with Passover.

For you to describe my leanings as coming from "ignorance" is just way too pathetic, both in terms of being insulting and also prejudicial. You simply don't know me well enough to make such absurd and dishonest accusation.

We all commit sins of such magnitude that we are not fit for heaven. God paid the price (in blood and pain) to rectify what we created if only we admit the facts.

What you are doing is elevating your opinions to the level of slam-dunk facts, and that's nonsense.

Anyhow, I'm done with your judgmentalism. It's really truly a shame that you have to resort to such disingenuous tactics. Let me recommend you think carefully about the approach you're using here, and if your brand of Christianity encourages you to do this, let me suggest you try another.

 

[1robin]

Nothing ever gets resolved with you though, so I lol'd at your comment because of the irony I saw in it, be that accurate or not.

You have a problem with it? Ignore it, otherwise I will continue to Lol at every comment you make because I simply have the Free Will to do so. Call it my God Given Right.
:clap

If you feel that is the best you can do then waist your time all you wish.

 

[metis]

These stats are a bit different than I've seen from another poll which went subject by subject within science, but the end result is at least similar:

Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 of scientists are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example). This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States. Belief also varies slightly by field. Two surveys on physicists, geoscientists, biologists, mathematicians, and chemists have noted that, from those specializing in these fields, physicists had lowest percentage of belief in God (29%) while chemists had highest (41%).


In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists were randomly chosen from American Men of Science and 41.8% believed God existed, 41.5% disbelieved, and 16.7% had doubts/did not know; however when the study was replicated 80 years later using American Men and Women of Science in 1996, results were very much the same with 39.3% believing God exists, 45.3% disbelieved, and 14.5% had doubts/did not know. In the same 1996 survey, scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%). In total, in terms of belief toward a personal god and personal immortality, about 60% of United States scientists in these fields expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and about 40% expressed belief. This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933.


Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, only 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.

A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York on 1,646 natural and social science professors at 21 elite US research universities found that, in terms of belief in God or a higher power, more than 60% expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and more than 30% expressed belief. More specifically, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answered "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out." In the same study, 28% said they believed in God and 8% believed in a higher power that was not God. Ecklund stated that scientists were often able to consider themselves spiritual without religion or belief in god. Ecklund and Scheitle concluded, from their study, that the individuals from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately had self-selected into scientific professions and that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable since the study did not strongly support the idea that scientists had dropped religious identities due to their scientific training. Instead, factors such as upbringing, age, and family size were significant influences on religious identification since those who had religious upbringing were more likely to be religious and those who had a non-religious upbringing were more likely to not be religious. The authors also found little difference in religiosity between social and natural scientists.

Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, noted in a study that doctors tend to be science-minded religious people. He helped author a study that "found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife." and "90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults." He reasoned, "The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions."

Another study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) were "much less religious than the general public," with 51% believing in some form of deity or higher power. Specifically, 33% of those polled believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power." 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. The survey also found younger scientists to be "substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God". Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they believe in God.

Physicians in the United States, by contrast, are much more religious than scientists, with 76% stating a belief in God.

Religious beliefs of US professors were recently examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1400 professors. They found that in the social sciences: 23.4% did not believe in God, 16% did not know if God existed, 42.5% believed God existed, and 16% believed in a higher power. Out of the natural sciences: 19.5% did not believe in God, 32.9% did not know if God existed, 43.9% believed God existed, and 3.7% believed in a higher power.

In terms of perceptions, most social and natural scientists from 21 American elite universities did not perceive conflict between science and religion, while 36.6% did. However, in the study, scientists who had experienced limited exposure to religion tended to perceive conflict. -- Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[1robin]

I was brought up theistically and probably have read several hundred books in the theology area. What I don't worry about are those things that simply cannot be determined.

I can of course sympathize but I feel I have resolved them but it is a paradoxical thing. I got 90% of the way to salvation through study but that last ten percent was all God. Once I gave in I suddenly knew those concepts were real but it revealed spiritually and not mentally in the same way most things are confirmed. I can only say resolution is possible.

IF your version of Christianity is correct.

My version of Christianity led me to experience Christ. So I have to think it worked. There is very little that is exclusive to my faith. It is I later found out through study simply orthodox Protestantism and is in common in 95% of its contents with 95% of classic Christianity. If I am wrong I have a lot of company including Christ.

Name one thing that doesn't change over time. Experience tell us that things change, thus there is really no reason to believe otherwise. The concept that our universe must have had a theistic cause is simply not shared by most cosmologists and physicists, according to polls I've seen.

Cosmologists have no expertise to allow that and secular institutions usually can't posit theological answers. I use them only to show that the universe is almost certainly finite. That is consistent with God. I had not one scientific thing in mind when I was looking into faith. I do find them confirming not inspiring. All of reliable science is consistent with the Bible. Only the most theoretical, fantastic, and evidence less science is used to contend with him.

That's your belief, and that's fine-- for you.

That is what the Bible makes as clear as anything it ever states. It and I may be wrong but that is Christianity according to Christ.

I think that again our conversation is coming to a halt because you can't seem to refrain from getting your digs in, which I find morally deplorable.

What moral foundations are meaningful without God? I went through the trouble of specifically saying that ignorance simply means you do not know. Unless you think there is nothing you do not know I have no idea what the complaint is. I am ignorant about far more than I am knowledgeable in. I do not find that fact offensive. I know military history, some practical math and science, and theology and a little philosophy. The rest is a blur.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church and had thoughts about going into the ministry. But even when I was finishing off high school, the church's stance of virtually ignoring parts of science really seemed totally nonsensical, plus the racism I found in the church I felt was totally immoral.

I am surprised that still occurs especially outside Catholicism. but it is regrettable however Christians have contributed to science in more ways than probably any other group. Did you know a monk first proposed evolution?

During my 40's and early 50's, I taught Christian theology to adults for 14 years and comparative religions for an additional two years. This October and November I'm teaching a two-part seminar on Christianity at my synagogue, which I've done before. I've also made presentations to a local church dealing with Passover.

Again you confuse me. If you are a Judaism/Buddhist and have not claimed to be born again why are you teaching Christianity?

For you to describe my leanings as coming from "ignorance" is just way too pathetic, both in terms of being insulting and also prejudicial. You simply don't know me well enough to make such absurd and dishonest accusation.

I grant none of those, especially the offensive motivation. There have been countless book smart people who have absolutely no experience with God personally. Just like Christ told Nicodemus, who was very educated in theology and was a very moral person. Until he was born again he had not even began. I do not know your status but you have indicated it in many ways. If I am wrong you may convince me or ignore me but I have been at this a long time and have learned to trust me instincts and what I learn through dialogue. You may of course not answer this but have you been born again?

What you are doing is elevating your opinions to the level of slam-dunk facts, and that's nonsense.

The only facts I claim to know are personal and limited. They do include the Bible's plan of salvation, Christ and God's existence. Little else I claim to know concerning theology as fact.

Anyhow, I'm done with your judgmentalism. It's really truly a shame that you have to resort to such disingenuous tactics. Let me recommend you think carefully about the approach you're using here, and if your brand of Christianity encourages you to do this, let me suggest you try another.

That is amazing. One mention of ignorance which is a fact unless your omniscient and you fall apart. Ok that is certainly your right. Christ said let the dead bury the dead and that his revelations would turn a son against father but I guess suggesting ignorance of anything is a bridge too far. So be it. Selah,

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If you feel that is the best you can do then waist your time all you wish.

My waist is fine good sir lol.

 

[Ouroboros]

My waist is fine good sir lol.

Good for you. Personally, I'm quite "waisteful".

 

[Agnostic75]

Winning is far down the list of my priorities and you have no idea what I would or would not win anyway. I am here primarily to supply answers to new Christians that like me are very ignorant when we are first saved.

But if you debated experts, far fewer new Christians would pay any attention to you regarding scientific subjects. If I were a new Christian, I would not pay any attention to your claim that all of macro evolution has problems since it is obvious that you are only a dabbler in biology.

Vilenkin is a theological novice and not an authority outside cosmology or physics.

Theology cannot explain quantum physics. All that theology can do is claim that God created everything except himself.

Do you accept the flood story in the book of Genesis? If so, do you believe that the flood was global, regional, or an allegory?

What evidence do have that the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus occurred?

What evidence do you have that all of macro evolution has problems?

 

[Thief]

But if I were a new Christian, I would not pay any attention to your claim that all of macro evolution has problems since it is obvious that you are only a dabbler in biology.



The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God, and they are not novices. You would not even be able to have a basic conversation with them about quantum physics.



Physics Forums does a great job doing what it was designed to do, which is to discuss science. Science alone cannot validate your claim that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. Courses in theology are not prerequisites for a degree in physics, nor should they be.

Why are you so interested in physics since it cannot validate your claim that God is the best explanation of the existence of the universe?

Cause and effect....basic science.
I believe in God because of science.

The universe is the effect....God is the Cause.

 

[Agnostic75]

If it turns out that God is a God other than the God of the Bible, and he provides atheists with a comfortable eternal life, most atheists would be very pleased with that.

That is one bunch of hypotheticals you got yourself. After about 3 it gets kind of meaningless.

No, what I said is proof that most atheists want a God to exist who would provide them with a comfortable eternal life. Quite obviously, humans like comfort, and they like it no matter who, or what provides it. That is just plain old common sense.

Most atheists believe that Hitler existed, and they do not like him. Since most atheists believe that Hitler existed, and do not like him, why do they claim that the God of the Bible does not exist? Their reasons must frequently be something other than they do not like the God of the Bible. There are thousands of articles and books by skeptics scholars that dispute the existence of the God of the Bible for many reasons that do not have anything to do with God's character. However, God's character is a good reason to reject his existence since there are no known benefits for humans, or for God, for him sending Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans, or creating the AIDS virus, knowing that is would infect primates, and accidently be transferred to humans, or for God causing innocent animals to suffer. What fair, worthy, and just goals could a moral God have that would cause him to do things like that? Do you actually believe that it is reasonably possible that Adam and Eve were the first humans, with no genetics predecessors, and lived in a world where there was no disease, and no natural disasters, and animals did not kill each other?

 

[McBell]

Cause and effect....basic science.
I believe in God because of science.

The universe is the effect....God is the Cause.

Except this is nothing more than "goddidit" buttered up to look sciencey

 

[1robin]

My waist is fine good sir lol.

If there was a grammar jail I would be perpetually under it or escaping from it. I hate English and have never been good at it. I usually even misspell grammar.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If there was a grammar jail I would be perpetually under it or escaping from it. I hate English and have never been good at it. I usually even misspell grammar.

Happens to the best of us good sir.

 

[1robin]

But if you debated experts, far fewer new Christians would pay any attention to you regarding scientific subjects. If I were a new Christian, I would not pay any attention to your claim that all of macro evolution has problems since it is obvious that you are only a dabbler in biology.

I think you made a type O here. Almost every argument I make is based on an argument from a professional. Even if a person may think my credibility is low they may look up what I claimed and they will then fine many respected scholars that laid the foundations. I must do things that agree with my conscience not yours and this subject is not really your business (not that you have done anything wrong here). Why does you side feel so compelled to criticize simply debating at all. I had one insist I had no reasons to ask a Satanist why he thought it was right? Weird just weird.

Theology cannot explain quantum physics. All that theology can do is claim that God created everything except himself.

I do not recall using theology to explain quantum mechanics. However it is hard to get rationality from the irrational in the first place. The Quantum can create the Quantum, natural law can't create anything, the universe did not self create. As long as it is finite it needs a creator it does not have without God at this time anyway.

Do you accept the flood story in the book of Genesis? If so, do you believe that the flood was global, regional, or an allegory?

I accept it on pure faith but do not know what its intended status is. I spend very little time thinking about the books that involve things before recorded history. There is just not much of a way to resolve them.

What evidence do have that the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus occurred?

The Exodus plenty. Hebrew place names, graves, inscriptions, etc.... I would not have any of the plagues even if they did occur.

What evidence do you have that all of macro evolution has problems?

Well the fact no one has ever observed a single case of it happening is pretty big. I have already listed many of these but that was only a small fraction of the whole. What I mean by problems is apparent inconsistency or lack of evidence. By problem I do not mean barrier. I have a sort of paradoxical view on evolution. Many things seem to suggest it could not occur or could not in certain cases, and the evidence that it has occurred is overwhelming. Let me state again my conclusion. What ever evolution did do can't account for reality as we know it alone.

 

[1robin]

Happens to the best of us good sir.

I think I hate Grammar because it is arbitrary, but it also may be because I just can't satisfy its demands. I like math and much of science because it does not change that much, is objective, and not opinion. However I screw that up quite a bit as well.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think I hate Grammar because it is arbitrary, but it also may be because I just can't satisfy its demands. I like math and much of science because it does not change that much, is objective, and not opinion. However I screw that up quite a bit as well.

Shrug, mistakes are only mistakes if others notice.

 

[1robin]

Shrug, mistakes are only mistakes if others notice.

You unfortunately noticed. Of course it isn't hard the way I type.

 

[Agnostic75]

What evidence do you have that all of macro evolution has problems?

Well the fact no one has ever observed a single case of it happening is pretty big. I have already listed many of these but that was only a small fraction of the whole. What I mean by problems is apparent inconsistency or lack of evidence. By problem I do not mean barrier. I have a sort of paradoxical view on evolution. Many things seem to suggest it could not occur or could not in certain cases, and the evidence that it has occurred is overwhelming. Let me state again my conclusion. What ever evolution did do can't account for reality as we know it alone.

But thousands of experts in macro evolution would easily be able to refute your arguments. You said that your main purpose is to support new Christians, but your amateurish arguments will only embarrass new Christians when they use them in debates, especially when they debate experts. You would do poorly against experts in almost and field of education. You are training new Christians to lose future debates.

 

[metis]

Four billion years, which is even somewhat older than I, can and did provide more than enough opportunity for significant changes to take place both with the genotypes and the phenotypes. The only real opposition nowadays comes from them who believe that their scriptures are a more reliable source of science than the huge body of evidence accumulated from scientists all over the world.

 

[Agnostic75]

If it turns out that God is a God other than the God of the Bible, and he provides atheists with a comfortable eternal life, most atheists would be very pleased with that.

That is one bunch of hypotheticals you got yourself. After about 3 it gets kind of meaningless.

No, what I said is proof that most atheists want a God to exist who would provide them with a comfortable eternal life. Quite obviously, humans like comfort, and they like it no matter who, or what provides it. That is just plain old common sense.

Most atheists believe that Hitler existed, and they do not like him. Since most atheists believe that Hitler existed, and do not like him, why do they claim that the God of the Bible does not exist? Their reasons must frequently be something other than they do not like the God of the Bible. There are thousands of articles and books by skeptic scholars that dispute the existence of the God of the Bible for many reasons that do not have anything to do with God's character.

You have said that even quantum physicists are dabblers. If you are right, that is an excellent reason why you have no business saying anything about it. If no one really knows very much about it, why have you spent so much of your time discussing it?

 

[mystic64]

If Christianity is correct then you must decide that issue in the few years we have this side of he dirt. One common argument among thousands is that it appears almost all reliable evidence points to a finite universe which is just another peg in the board of Christianity. That one aspect alone is not al that meaningful but if you have a wait and see attitude you may not like what you see.

The New Testament doesn't actually say what you are saying. First there is no real having to decide until after the first judgement and the return of Christ our Lord and Savior. All decisions have to be made before the second and final judgement, not before the first judgement. And second, if you are a true follower of Christ, then "By your works you shall be known." If you are not a true follower of Christ, then "By your works you shall be judged." Either way, works are involved. Like Lord Jesus said, "If you do not believe My words, then believe My works." Third, we are all, for the most part anyway, in a state of ignorance which is why there are two judgements. The first judgement is a reward for those that have faith in spite of being in a state of ignorance and the second judgement is for after there is no longer any ignorance because of and as a result of the second coming of Christ. No one gets condemned to the eternal fires or is punished, except for a few that are not in a state of ignorance and have sinned against the Holy Spirit, until the second judgement, which is after the thousand year reign of Christ and the little bit of time that Satan is set free.