How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[Lost Witness]

Taking the Lords name in vain concers speaking his name without intention (such as in communicating about him or to him). Using his name as a cuss word is one such example of taking his name "in vain".

As a Simple Man,
With very Limited understanding,
I don't personally take such risks.
That Could be because I fear him too,
Granted Not as much as I should or I probably wouldn't even be on here truth be told

 

[YahuahSaves]

Please, back to whom Jesus prayed to. Your adding stuff that has nothing to do with the question. You said the Father, right? What IS the make up of the Father that Jesus was touching as He reached out in prayer? Jesus was in a physical form. That whom Jesus prayed is in some other form, yet His prayer was very focused as it reached beyond the physical as reality. I'm looking for something beyond the physical aspect of the word "Father". And what seems to be out there is "consciousness". Do you have any other ideas?

OK I understand what you're getting at now.
To answer your question: Jesus prayed to God the Father through his Holy Spirit.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one (1 God, 3 persons) Jesus came in the flesh to sacrifice himself on the cross for our sins, so that we may be reconciled to God through him. He was raised to life, defeating satan, sin and death, that "whoever shall believe", will not die but have eternal life with him in heaven. Those who don't believe will die in their sin (sin means to "fall short" of the glory of God). This happens when we put our human will before God's will.

P.s. (update) I forgot to mention when we turn back to God and ask of him, (by faith) he forgives us our sins (because of his grace) and then the process of salvation and sanctification begins. We repent (turn away from sin) and he gives us his Holy Spirit that transforms us through the sanctification process (which is a continual process that lasts the rest of our lives), the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth.

As an aside to address the New Age comment, the idea of God being consciousness is a very old idea for Christian mystics. Personally I deplore New Age stuff, but in my reading I get a sence that it's from the ancient Christian mystics that it those kinds of New Age ideas came from. I could be very wrong on that, but I'm not into New Age to give anything more than a guess.

If it's not in God's Word it's not the truth. New age ideology is a form of sorcery, which God hates. New age practices incorporate a lot of things that are tools used by satan to lead people away from God.

 

[Kylie]

I did nothing but try to have a genuine discussion with you, but you failed to understand your misinterpretation of my words.

I shake the proverbial dust off my feet. Mark 6:11

Rubbish, you tried to tell me I was wrong about my own beliefs.

 

[Kylie]

Ok. I don't want to speak for you or guess about your outlook on how human rationality woks, but it sounds like where science is concerned, you tend toward a view that combines both a Logical Positivist expectation (like Bertrand Russell used to be) with a posture toward Philosophical Naturalism (like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne tend to be).

But please, correct me if I'm wrong.

I have no idea. I don't think of my position in terms of labels. All I know is that I see the world a particular way. But from quickly googling those terms, it seems to be fairly close to what my position is (though I reserve the right to change my mind as I study more about them).

What I'm trying to cut into here is that you may be unconciously appropriating a position in Philosophy of Science that can be challenged, and I'm wondering how much you have done so.

And what position would that be?

It could also be that you're used to encountering only fundamentalist Christians and have yet to engage any non-WLC Christians of higher caliber. So, if you actually are motivated (on behalf of your husband) to give Christianity the benefit of the doubt on at least some level (not that of the fundamentalist), you're not encountering them because you haven't had the chance to find out who they are and, hence, read them.

I've been debating Christians online for over 20 years, and they have not all been hardcore fundamentalist YECers.

It also helps.......................to apply critical thinking to various atheist's positions of argument first before going to engage the better of the Christian thinkers that may be out there.

This is what I do. Atheistic Epistemology is hurdled FIRST, then I engage Christianity. Not the other way around, and not less that that (by "less" I mean----Christian Fundamentalism).

I'm a little confused. You seem to be saying that any argument against Christianity is equivalent to an argument for atheism, but that's not the case. If I see a Christian present an argument for God, I don't need to be well versed on arguments for atheism in order to examine the argument for God to see if there's a problem with it. If said argument for God is self contained, then I can determine its validity purely from that argument.

 

[Kylie]

No, he wasn't presenting a "solution." He was offering Princeton level analysis and attempting to call the literature what it was. Kenton L. Sparks goes even further and essentially posits that there might even be reason to remove Genesis chapter 1 from the Canon (as it's typically conceptualized).

But that's another discussion and I won't get into that here. The point is that Conrad Hyers, and others similar to him, wasn't a fundamentalist and there are various higher caliber Christian minds out there to engage with than those you're used to engaging.

I've read this several times and this doesn't tell me what is position IS. All you've done is tell me what it isn't.

 

[Kylie]

Actually, it doesn't fit with that, but we don't need to debate that.


Where do you think I should begin in order to answer that? Do we want to lead a team off of the Enterprise into the Rabbit Hole and find out?

It's a simple question.

If there's no evidence for X, what reason would anyone have to believe in X?

 

[Kylie]

Hell is full of those who lost Pascal's wager.

So you assume. But you haven't been there to see for yourself though, have you?

 

[Kylie]

I pray one day you'll never have to find out i'm right the hard way

Imagine if I tried the same logic on you.

"If you don't embrace the light side of the Force, the Sith will be able to manipulate you and you'll suffer! I hope that you will turn to the light side and you'll never find out the danger of the dark side."

See how unconvincing that argument is when you don't believe in the position in the first place?

Do you understand how your claims to me about God are functionally the same? They are meaningless to me because you are essentially threatening me with something I don't believe in.

 

[Lost Witness]

Imagine if I tried the same logic on you.

"If you don't embrace the light side of the Force, the Sith will be able to manipulate you and you'll suffer! I hope that you will turn to the light side and you'll never find out the danger of the dark side."

See how unconvincing that argument is when you don't believe in the position in the first place?

Do you understand how your claims to me about God are functionally the same? They are meaningless to me because you are essentially threatening me with something I don't believe in.

I'll Choose Truth Over a Comforting Lie, Any day.

 

[AV1611VET]

Rubbish, you tried to tell me I was wrong about my own beliefs.

Welcome to CF.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'll Choose Truth Over a Comforting Lie, Any day.

That's what many of us thing of religions. (Anyone got any on-topic science evidence for such claims.)

 

[AV1611VET]

So you assume. But you haven't been there to see for yourself though, have you?

Praise God, no!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have no idea. I don't think of my position in terms of labels. All I know is that I see the world a particular way. But from quickly googling those terms, it seems to be fairly close to what my position is (though I reserve the right to change my mind as I study more about them).

And what position would that be?

Just that reflecting what I mentioned. Nothing more elaborate than that.

I've been debating Christians online for over 20 years, and they have not all been hardcore fundamentalist YECers.

Ok. It sounds like you've encountered Christians of all kinds, then. Were there any you found more interesting than the others?

I'm a little confused. You seem to be saying that any argument against Christianity is equivalent to an argument for atheism, but that's not the case.

My apologies for not being more clear. No, I'm not saying that any argument against Christianity is equivalent to one against atheism. I'd never make that claim. All I'd say is the same basic scrutiny that may apply to a Christian can, in similar ways, be applied to an atheist. That's all. Nothing too out of the ordinary.

If I see a Christian present an argument for God, I don't need to be well versed on arguments for atheism in order to examine the argument for God to see if there's a problem with it. If said argument for God is self contained, then I can determine its validity purely from that argument.

Well, before we go arguing this or that, folks do need to be aware of and accountable for the ways in which they think anyone has to justify their beliefs and /or arguments. Personally, I'm critical of Epistemology and I think we all fail on various counts of justifying our perceptions and beliefs. Yet, there are some folks who talk as if they're somehow infallible. I just don't "do" infallible. I'm highly provisional.

As for an argument for God being self-contained, I can imagine there may be some Christians who do that. But I don't do that. I assume that Christianity has no protective shield epistemologically and I'm not the kind to evaluate the world's furniture via perceptions or beliefs from within a safety bubble. Mainly because there is no safety bubble for any of us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've read this several times and this doesn't tell me what is position IS. All you've done is tell me what it isn't.

Sorry. I'm not clear on what you want. You originally asked for a 'brief' summary. I gave you that. And....now I guess you're wanting me to elaborate further on some point? I wasn't attempting to offer evidence by referring to Conrad Hyers, but rather scholarly elucidation about the kind of ancient literature I think Genesis 1 is, beyond simply citing its "genre." I fully realize that elucidation doesn't provide "evidence," which I'm guessing is all you're interested in? If that's the case, then I also guess you and I will quickly find ourselves running out of things to talk about ...

 

[Kylie]

I'll Choose Truth Over a Comforting Lie, Any day.

As would I.

So the question is, how do we determine if something is the truth or not?

 

[Kylie]

Welcome to CF.

You say that as though such is typical behaviour here. It is not. It is very rare that people on this site say to me, "You claim your position is X, but I, knowing practically nothing about you, claim that you are not correct and your position is Y instead, despite your claims it is not."

 

[AV1611VET]

You say that as though such is typical behaviour here. It is not. It is very rare that people on this site say to me, "You claim your position is X, but I, knowing practically nothing about you, claim that you are not correct and your position is Y instead, despite your claims it is not."

Post 961

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's a simple question.

If there's no evidence for X, what reason would anyone have to believe in X?

That's the quadrillion dollar question, isn't it, Kylie? And we both know the answer, don't we?

The way I came to approach the whole religious fiasco is to start with the Skeptical, Existential position (ala Sagan and Sartre) as assumed ... not the Bible as assumed.

 

[Kylie]

Praise God, no!

The what actual evidence do you have?

 

[Kylie]

Ok. It sounds like you've encountered Christians of all kinds, then. Were there any you found more interesting than the others?

Those that could post arguments for their position without resorting to logical fallacies.

My apologies for not being more clear. No, I'm not saying that any argument against Christianity is equivalent to one against atheism. I'd never make that claim. All I'd say is the same basic scrutiny that may apply to a Christian can, in similar ways, be applied to an atheist. That's all. Nothing too out of the ordinary.

But this would not be relevant when assessing the validity of the claims that Christianity makes.

Well, before we go arguing this or that, folks do need to be aware of and accountable for the ways in which they think anyone has to justify their beliefs and /or arguments. Personally, I'm critical of Epistemology and I think we all fail on various counts of justifying our perceptions and beliefs. Yet, there are some folks who talk as if they're somehow infallible. I just don't "do" infallible. I'm highly provisional.

As for an argument for God being self-contained, I can imagine there may be some Christians who do that. But I don't do that. I assume that Christianity has no protective shield epistemologically and I'm not the kind to evaluate the world's furniture via perceptions or beliefs from within a safety bubble. Mainly because there is no safety bubble for any of us.

What I meant was that if someone presents, say, the First Cause argument for God, I can point out the flaws in that argument without needing to look at other arguments.