That is not what you said in the opening post, but let's discuss your revised claim that "using science one could come to the conclusion that a God exists."
No, no. We cannot proceed on a falsehood. I have cut and pasted my words and the only reference I made to atheists, which should have been antitheists, in retrospect, was " void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists"
My reply to that is that using science one could come to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence that God does, or does not exist, and that there are not any good reasons to currently make any scientific conclusions about the existence of God, and that that issue should be left to other disciplines, such as theology, and philosophy.
Yes.
No, the Big Bang does incorporate science, and so does Newton's third law of motion, which you said provides evidence for the existence of God. With your permission, I will start a new thread about whether or not the Big Bang incorporates science, and whether or not Newton's third law incorporates science, and I will quote your claims about those two issues.
Yes the big bang was the result of the scientific method, however, the results of that method is the big bang. The same applies with Sir Isaacs Newton's laws on gravity. We use the result that science has provided for us. I used the result of it to determine that a cause is necessary.
In the opening post, you used the Kalam Cosmological Argument as evidence for the existence of God. The KCA is a scientific argument. Wikipedia says:
So according to Craig, and surely most physicists, the Big Bang incorporates science.
Wikipedia says:
So there are two kinds of cosmology, physical cosmology, and religious cosmology. Surely the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an example of physical cosmology, which would incorporate science.
You may well be right, although I have never heard of the term religious cosmology. It is still irrelevant though as I am only using the findings of science, or, as I said in the OP, I am using the scientific knowledge that we have.
Are you referring to the Big Bang? If so, how do you wish to use the Big Bang to corroborate belief in God?
It could be any phenomenon. The big bang, on its own, cannot corroborate the existence of God, it is the cause of the big bang that does that.
You used the Big Bang, and Newton's third law as scientific evidence for the existence of God.
No, I use Newton's third law of motion as a reason for God's existence. The big bang was the result of the cause.
Well, you mentioned supernatural events as evidence. If you do not wish to discuss that issue now, that is fine, in which case, what do you want to discuss?
There are many supernatural events in the cosmos and here on earth, however, I would like to see the conclusion of this one before we move onto another, like fine tuning, or the anthropic principle.
I said:
"If God was an imposter, how would you be able to know that?"
If God was an imposter, your answer would not make any sense since God would not be who the Bible claims he is. Your answer would only make sense if God is who the Bible says he is, and you cannot provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that God is not an imposter since if he was an imposter, no mere human would be able to know that. An omnipotent evil God would be just as powerful as an omnipotent God. In addition, an omnipotent evil God would be able to deceive anyone who he wanted to deceive.
Yes, however, we would have smelt a rat by now.
There are not any doubts whatsoever that under different circumstances, many Christians would not be Christians today. Simple proof of that is that the percentages of people who are Christians who live in predominantly Christian countries is much higher than the percentages of Christians who live in predominantly Muslim countries.
Well, that is because they are taught about Divinity within their culture. But teaching does not bring a testimony of the truth that God lives. That comes via the Holy Ghost to every individual who seeks after it.
There is a landmark book that is titled "One Nation Under God," by Kosmin and Lachman. I suggest that you buy it. The book is praised by prominent Christians Billy Graham, and John Cardinal O'Connor. The book is obviously not anti-Christian, or anti-theist, but it provides a lot of documented research that shows that geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age significantly influence what people believe. For example, the book shows that women are much more likely to become theists than men are.
Well, I am not going to argue with you on that. I know that. Women, by the way, have greater humility, compassion, empathy, affection and love then men. I would expect there to be more women then men.
As for Billy Graham, don't be fooled by the title he gives himself. He is a scoundrel who has corrupted the word of God and his Commandments. Personally, I do not see him as a Christian as much as I see him as a picaroon. But let's not go there as it would take us way off course.
You will obviously counter by saying that God only holds people accountable for what they ought to know based upon the information that they have heard, and non-tangible evidence that they have experienced, but my position is that if the God of the Bible exists, he will unfairly deny eternal life to some people.
That is not true as God is a fair God.
Let's say that John Smith lived in South Korea. He grew up in a Christian home, had devout Christian parents, and attended church regularly, so he was sufficiently evangelized to be accountable. By age 18, John became a skeptic, and stayed a skeptic for the rest of his life. He lived in South Korea for his entire life. Most Christians would claim that John will not have eternal life. However, if John had been sent to the U.S. when he was a baby, and lived there for the rest of his life, it is reasonably possible that he would have become a Christian
Let me put it another way. For the sake of argument, let's say that scientists were able to duplicate John at birth, and made one million exact duplicates of him, including his soul, and spirit. The scientists placed the duplicates in a wide variety of places all over the world, with adoptive parents of all major worldviews. It is a virtual given that at least some of the duplicates would have become Christians. Let's call one of them Tom. In your opinion, will Tom have eternal life?
There are not any doubts whatsoever that if John had been placed in the home that Tom was placed in instead of Tom, John would have become a Christian.
If you claim that John should not have eternal life, you have a problem since an exact duplicate of him, Tom, became a Christian. In addition, you have another problem since Tom not have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same conditions where John was raised. My hypothetical arguments have to be valid because it is a virtual given that if one million clones were made of a skeptic named John, who was properly evangelized, at least some of the clones would become Christians under certain circumstances.
There are not any doubts whatsoever that some Christians would not have become Christians under certain other circumstances, and even if they knew enough about the Bible to be accountable.
For all practical purposes, John and Tom are the same person. Does Tom the clone deserve to have eternal life since he became a Christian? If so, why doesn’t John deserve to have eternal life since he would have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same circumstances as Tom? If Tom the clone deserves to have eternal life, why don’t all skeptics who have been sufficiently evangelized and would have become Christians under different circumstances not deserve to have eternal life? How are they any different than Tom?
Well, let me tell you that you are wrong. You forget that there will be a day of judgement where we will all have to stand accountable for our mortal probation. It will be a judgement in which we will also be a judge of ourselves, because we will have a perfect recollection of our actions in mortality, so we will be able to see exactly where we went wrong. If, after that judgement, the atonement of Jesus Christ can Bridge the gap, between perfection and imperfection, we will have place in heaven with our father in heaven, if not, then we will be given place in a lower Kingdom of God, however, not in his presence, as God cannot exists or dwell where their is imperfections. It matters not one iota whether you are a Christian or a Jew , because there will be no religions in the spirit world and we will all be individually judged for our works, not for what religion we belong to. The whole ethos that surrounds the judgement is as complex as any scientific research. It is best to not look at a heaven full of Christians or JWs, but to look at it as a heaven full of good worthy people who have lived a good life by keeping to the principles expected of each and everyone of us. Believe it or not, there will be atheists there. If a atheist live a life in keeping with the Commandments of God he cannot be kept out of those pearly gates. It is almost like a universal law. If you can reach a certain level of perfection, your in, but if not, then you are out, and that law is rigid, immovable, even by God himself.
