• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why does God leave no tracks?

Xalith

Newbie
Apr 6, 2015
1,518
630
✟27,443.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I will also add that the Jews threatened to tell Caesar that Pilate was allowing someone who was named as a King to live, when Caesar "should" have been the only king.

Pilate obviously did not want Caesar angry with him.

John 19:12: And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,253
6,244
Montreal, Quebec
✟304,345.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You are contradicting yourself:

"The Romans did not want rebellion so they took the course that would minimize that risk: placating the demands of the Jewish leaders to kill Jesus."

That's how the Jews forced them to do what they wanted.
I am not contradicting myself at all. The Jews clearly did not force the Romans to do anything. The Romans could have refused to crucify Jesus but they chose to do so because it served their interests.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,253
6,244
Montreal, Quebec
✟304,345.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I will also add that the Jews threatened to tell Caesar that Pilate was allowing someone who was named as a King to live, when Caesar "should" have been the only king.

Pilate obviously did not want Caesar angry with him.

John 19:12: And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
I will also add that the Jews threatened to tell Caesar that Pilate was allowing someone who was named as a King to live, when Caesar "should" have been the only king.

Pilate obviously did not want Caesar angry with him.

John 19:12: And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

But that does not absolve the Romans of their decision to crucify Jesus. A government that caves to this kind of pressure still bears moral responsibility for their actions. At most, Pilate was pressured to kill Jesus. But he certainly was not forced to do so.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
45,372
6,902
✟1,022,311.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am not contradicting myself at all. The Jews clearly did not force the Romans to do anything. The Romans could have refused to crucify Jesus but they chose to do so because it served their interests.

No, Pilate could not refuse else he would be responsible for the Jews causing an uproar or uprising and Caesar would find out and that's the last thing Pilate wanted.

John 19:12: And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

Here is the veiled threat that Pilate could not go against. This was a localized issue for the Roman's, resting solely on Pilate's jurisdiction and he had no choice but give in to the demands of the Jews.

Your position ignores all the scriptural facts here so I'm done repeatedly showing the scriptures that disprove your position.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
45,372
6,902
✟1,022,311.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
At most, Pilate was pressured to kill Jesus. But he certainly was not forced to do so.

Semantics. Those are the same thing. Pressured or forced has the same meaning in English.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pressured

pres·sured, pres·sur·ing, pres·sures
1.
To force or try to force, as by influence or persuasion: The salesman pressured us to buy the car right away.
2. To pressurize.
3. To pressure-cook.
 
Upvote 0

Xalith

Newbie
Apr 6, 2015
1,518
630
✟27,443.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
@ewq1938 : While we agree on the fact that Pilate was pressured/coerced/pushed into a corner... this doesn't excuse him of guilt.

I don't know if Christ forgave Pilate or not (I've seen and read things going both ways), but the truth of the matter is, Pilate chose Caesar over God. He knew (there are writings that say that his wife warned him because she saw Jesus in a dream before that day and warned Pilate who He was) who Jesus was, or at the very least had suspicion, which is why he tried to find a peaceful end to the conundrum.

But in the end, he chose Caesar over God.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
45,372
6,902
✟1,022,311.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
@ewq1938 : While we agree on the fact that Pilate was pressured/coerced/pushed into a corner... this doesn't excuse him of guilt.

It actually does. On top of that, the Jews accept the guilt. This is a case closed type of thing based on these things.



I don't know if Christ forgave Pilate or not (I've seen and read things going both ways), but the truth of the matter is, Pilate chose Caesar over God. He knew (there are writings that say that his wife warned him because she saw Jesus in a dream before that day and warned Pilate who He was) who Jesus was, or at the very least had suspicion, which is why he tried to find a peaceful end to the conundrum.

But in the end, he chose Caesar over God.

It doesn't matter in this topic. It is only important who God blames for the crucifixion and that is the Jews, not anyone else.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
72
✟132,365.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
The falsifiable prediction stuff comes from Popper and that definition only allows a scientist to prove something false. In actuality we know that scientists usually seek to prove something true. To do this science relies on induction (statistics, etc.). The results of scientific experiments are confidence intervals. That is my understanding. I'm not a scientist or a philosopher or anything like that. It's fun to think about these issues though. :)

Also, there is nothing about studying the past that makes science impossible. An archaeologist can set up an experiment and then discover "new" data by digging it out of the ground. The key is that the person designing the experiment cannot know about the data that is later used in the experiment.
How do you set up a scientific study to discover how a living complex cell came from non-living matter? Do you think scientists have been working on that for centuries? Scientifically, nothing matters at all in the God, no God question, until science can prove by the scientific method that a single complex cell came into existence from non-living matter. What do you think?
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
45,372
6,902
✟1,022,311.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How do you set up a scientific study to discover how a living complex cell came from non-living matter? Do you think scientists have been working on that for centuries? Scientifically, nothing matters at all in the God, no God question, until science can prove by the scientific method that a single complex cell came into existence from non-living matter. What do you think?


What I find interesting is how animals adapt to new surroundings. An animal isn't blending in well or is having some type of trouble and "magically" future generations suddenly have new camoflage or new abilities to deal with the surrounding environment but how was that accomplished? I need the ability to fly but I don't see evolution giving my great grandchildren wings. My point, like you made, is there seems to be an overseeing intelligence affecting the evolution of animals. People have gotten taller and smarter but these things came mainly from better diets and more meat and living condition rather than from any type of evolutionary process, IMO.

It's really animals and even certain plants that seem to have something helping them.
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,911
741
78
✟8,968.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Evolutionary processes, Ewg1938, also include such key factors as diet, etc. Also your flight example seems a bit off. Dinosaurs were originally covered with feathers and let's say, for giggles' sake, they wanted to fly. They couldn't, but having evolved into birds, they did.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The problem is that science can never find God's tracks.

God leaves a lot of tracks on the earth and in the universe. I happened to study science in my whole life. And I do see many many tracks of God. That is why I believe.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Even though my examples might be silly, my motivation is to understand if believing in a God of some kind is reasonable. Having been raised as a Christian, it is hard for me to untangle God from my thoughts. I can't quite disbelieve in God as completely as most atheists, but I don't know what sort of God can actually exist.

Assume a god exists, then what? Do you like to see that god? We can not see God. That is the final answer.
So what you do?
One step back, you asked to see "tracks" of God.
What kind of track would show you that God exist? If you can not answer this question, then even you see the tracks, you won't recognize it.
So, what kind of track you wish to see?
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
72
✟132,365.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
God leaves a lot of tracks on the earth and in the universe. I happened to study science in my whole life. And I do see many many tracks of God. That is why I believe.
I agree with you, there are hundreds of simple and complex scientific wonders that can only be explained by acknowledging a superior, intelligent being, with all sicentific knowledge and we call this being, God.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
72
✟132,365.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Evolutionary processes, Ewg1938, also include such key factors as diet, etc. Also your flight example seems a bit off. Dinosaurs were originally covered with feathers and let's say, for giggles' sake, they wanted to fly. They couldn't, but having evolved into birds, they did.
Do you really believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds?
 
Upvote 0

Crandaddy

Classical Theist
Aug 8, 2012
1,315
81
✟28,642.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
The problem is that science can never find God's tracks. I ask myself if there is some inherent aspect of God that makes it impossible for Him to leave tracks. I ask myself if God can actually do anything meaningful without leaving tracks. Then there is the imaginary friend possibility. Imaginary friends serve a purpose and leave tracks in the real world even though they exist only in a human's imagination. I suppose the imaginary friend God that exists in human imaginations leaves tracks. Is it possible that God is real, but He restricts Himself to our imaginations? In other words, there is a real God that inspires humans to create imaginary friend Gods in their minds that then interact with the world? Could science tell if there was a real God behind these imaginary friend Gods?

As I see it, the problem with using the methods of modern science when it comes to searching for evidence of God is that modern science is restricted to the study of objects insofar as they move and interact within the limited confines of physical space and time. Because God is absolutely limitless and transcendent of physical space and time, I don't think modern science is equipped to discover evidence of his existence. However, this doesn't mean that I completely eschew evidentialism with respect to knowledge of God, as you might suppose. Modern science has indeed given us a great wealth of knowledge about a great many things, but I nevertheless believe that its scope is limited, and that we can learn things about the world that it can't teach us. I don't think it can give us the answers to all of the world's mysteries (or even, in my opinion, to its most important and interesting mysteries), and God is one being (speaking rather loosely here, as I'd say that God is a unique sort of “being”) who lies beyond its purview.

I'd say that the “tracks” that God leaves consist in ontological aspects of physical objects that people in lab coats who play with fancy scientific instruments have no need to concern themselves with in order to do their jobs, which is why I tend to roll my eyes in not-so-minor annoyance when I see scientists pontificate on philosophical and theological matters that lie beyond their professional fields of expertise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟591,302.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
As I see it, the problem with using the methods of modern science when it comes to searching for evidence of God is that modern science is restricted to the study of objects insofar as they move and interact within the limited confines of physical space and time. Because God is absolutely limitless and transcendent of physical space and time, I don't think modern science is equipped to discover evidence of his existence. However, this doesn't mean that I completely eschew evidentialism with respect to knowledge of God, as you might suppose. Modern science has indeed given us a great wealth of knowledge about a great many things, but I nevertheless believe that its scope is limited, and that we can learn things about the world that it can't teach us. I don't think it can give us the answers to all of the world's mysteries (or even, in my opinion, to its most important and interesting mysteries), and God is one being (speaking rather loosely here, as I'd say that God is a unique sort of “being”) who lies beyond its purview.

I'd say that the “tracks” that God leaves consist in ontological aspects of physical objects that people in lab coats who play with fancy scientific instruments have no need to concern themselves with in order to do their jobs, which is why I tend to roll my eyes in not-so-minor annoyance when I see scientists pontificate on philosophical and theological matters that lie beyond their professional fields of expertise.

How can a human have a relationship with God if God is invisible to scientists? Let's say Joe Schmoe claims to have a word of wisdom to buy futures in cranberry commodities and Jack Spratt claims that God says to eat no fat. If we have a large sample of these words of wisdom, then statisticians could say something about them. How can there be a relationship without something that can be tested?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crandaddy
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I agree with you, there are hundreds of simple and complex scientific wonders that can only be explained by acknowledging a superior, intelligent being, with all sicentific knowledge and we call this being, God.

Please demonstrate (with evidence), that God is the explanation for what we see in science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Davian
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟591,302.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Please demonstrate (with evidence), that God is the explanation for what we see in science.

I second this. :) I have been trying to learn about neurotransmitters to understand my own issues with depression. It is abundantly clear that the human body was not designed in the way that a human engineer would have designed it. The human body is vastly more complicated than it needs to be, and it doesn't work all that great. When humans begin to create androids, we will see what an engineered humanoid is able to do. Humans will probably voluntarily stop reproducing as we realize all the defects in our design. Or maybe humans will gradually correct their defects through genetic engineering.
 
Upvote 0

Crandaddy

Classical Theist
Aug 8, 2012
1,315
81
✟28,642.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
How can a human have a relationship with God if God is invisible to scientists? Let's say Joe Schmoe claims to have a word of wisdom to buy futures in cranberry commodities and Jack Spratt claims that God says to eat no fat. If we have a large sample of these words of wisdom, then statisticians could say something about them. How can there be a relationship without something that can be tested?

To clarify, I'm not saying that God can't interact with the world in ways that scientists can detect, nor am I saying that one can never be justified in believing that God has interacted with the world in such ways. The point I'm trying to make is that because of God's unique nature and status as absolutely metaphysically ultimate being, the methods of modern science can't discover him in particular as being the cause of such interactions.

Let's say that Joe Schmoe consistently makes windfall profits time and time again on every single investment he makes. Let's also say that Joe claims that “God” tells him when, where, and how he makes his investments, that his track record of success is so astronomically improbable that random happenstance can be safely ruled out, and that no better alternative explanation for his success can be found. Would science then have discovered that God exists and that he's telling Joe how to invest his money? I don't think so. At most, it would have discovered that Joe is somehow receiving messages from some unknown entity or entities that he refers to as “God,” and that said entity or entities somehow have the ability to convey to him information that has a causal relation to future market states, such that his responses to said information result in substantial profit for himself.

While it might be possible for God to be the one who is giving him this information, I say that we would be unable to infer this from a purely scientific analysis of the evidence. The reason why science can't determine whether or not Joe's “God” = God is because the causal circumstances required in order to produce the phenomena in question would not necessarily point to God as their only possible explanation, and I think the same can be said of any other example we could come up with. I doubt we could definitively rule out, for example, that an alien intelligence vastly more technologically advanced than ourselves might have the ability either to successfully predict future market states or else cause them to happen, and then communicate the relevant information to Joe in order for him to make his successful investments, all via mechanisms that are unknown and perhaps undiscoverable to us in our current state of technological advancement. Furthermore, I don't think we could definitively rule out such a technologically-advanced alien intelligence scenario as at least an epistemically possible scientific explanation for any set of phenomena our wild imaginations could conjure up -- the rub here is precisely that no alien intelligence of any degree of technological advancement, nor any other causal mechanism that operates entirely within the confines of natural, physical law can possibly be identified with what I call “God,” who is necessarily timeless, immutable, impassible, metaphysically simple, and the ultimate origin and end of all things beside himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
To clarify, I'm not saying that God can't interact with the world in ways that scientists can detect, nor am I saying that one can never be justified in believing that God has interacted with the world in such ways. The point I'm trying to make is that because of God's unique nature and status as absolutely metaphysically ultimate being, the methods of modern science can't discover him in particular as being the cause of such interactions.

Let's say that Joe Schmoe consistently makes windfall profits time and time again on every single investment he makes. Let's also say that Joe claims that “God” tells him when, where, and how he makes his investments, that his track record of success is so astronomically improbable that random happenstance can be safely ruled out, and that no better alternative explanation for his success can be found. Would science then have discovered that God exists and that he's telling Joe how to invest his money? I don't think so. At most, it would have discovered that Joe is somehow receiving messages from some unknown entity or entities that he refers to as “God,” and that said entity or entities somehow have the ability to convey to him information that has a causal relation to future market states, such that his responses to said information result in substantial profit for himself.

While it might be possible for God to be the one who is giving him this information, I say that we would be unable to infer this from a purely scientific analysis of the evidence. The reason why science can't determine whether or not Joe's “God” = God is because the causal circumstances required in order to produce the phenomena in question would not necessarily point to God as their only possible explanation, and I think the same can be said of any other example we could come up with. I doubt we could definitively rule out, for example, that an alien intelligence vastly more technologically advanced than ourselves might have the ability either to successfully predict future market states or else cause them to happen, and then communicate the relevant information to Joe in order for him to make his successful investments, all via mechanisms that are unknown and perhaps undiscoverable to us in our current state of technological advancement. Furthermore, I don't think we could definitively rule out such a technologically-advanced alien intelligence scenario as at least an epistemically possible scientific explanation for any set of phenomena our wild imaginations could conjure up -- the rub here is precisely that no alien intelligence of any degree of technological advancement, nor any other causal mechanism that operates entirely within the confines of natural, physical law can possibly be identified with what I call “God,” who is necessarily timeless, immutable, impassible, metaphysically simple, and the ultimate origin and end of all things beside himself.


Welcome back, Crandaddy. You seemed to leave right after we got to this point:

I said,

"Just trying to meet you in the middle. I don't actually think it's reasonable to believe in a divinely inspired book that contradicts itself for no good reason whatsoever."

You said,


"Neither do I. What a coincidence."

I replied,

So let's see what we have here...

1. You "start with facts on the ground (completely apart from religion) and try to work [your] way to discovering truth from there"

2. You concede that there are contradictions in the Bible

3. You have no idea what possible good reason there can be for contradictions in the Bible

4. You don't think it's reasonable to believe in a divinely inspired book that contradicts itself for no good reason whatsoever

5. ???

6. You believe in the Bible
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0