Maybe I should have just called this thread Christianity Today! 😉 Sounds like a cheesy tv or radio station. 😉

Therefore humble yourselves before the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you.

I Peter 5:6-7 NKJV

Commentary:
If we are proud, we have nowhere to go but down; if we are humble, nowhere to go but up. So we should be humbling ourselves, giving our worries to God, so that when the time is right, He can raise us up.

Edited 2/4/2020 22:55:45

Also, I forgot to mention this, and this is something that I feel very strongly about:

As I am a scientist, I would like to say science does NOT and should NOT be used as a proof for the existence or refutation of ANY religion. This is NOT what science is about. Not in the the slightest. Science is not about proving anything right. It is about proving wrong.

Any idea or thought that we consider to be "scientifically certain" simply means we have effectively eliminated any other possibility that might explain the phenomenon we see. This requires very discrete, specific, and concrete definitions about what we study.

As God (or any sort of being like Him) is a very abstract concept, science definitely cannot be used prove or disprove the existence of such a being. Thus, you cannot ascertain that there exists some sort of scientific proof that God exists.

And if you have found a scientific article which tries to deal with the probability of the existence of a higher being and concludes with reasonable certainty that one exists, I would certainly love to give it a read, as I am in general highly skeptical of any sort of placing of concrete odds on an abstract idea.

Edited 2/4/2020 23:46:06

Aura, as a to-be scientist myself, I entirely agree with you. I like to think (and sometimes say) that I believe nothing can be proven, there can only be evidence strongly for or against it.

As for me being scientifically certain, I should rephrase to say that I am convinced by the evidence. Now, since an omnipotent God is a sort of tricky thing to find evidence for, you have to start with something tangible - i.e., where God became human in the person Jesus.

Now, I hope we can start from the assumption that we all agree that Jesus was a historical person - a real human and not a fairy-tale character, as some more ignorant people have tried to label Him. Let me know if this assumption is wrong.

Jesus said some whacko things, and I agree entirely with C.S. Lewis when he said that Jesus was either who He said He was (the Son of God) or a stark-raving madman. He can't be merely put in the box of a good moral teacher or someone who wanted to overthrow the Romans. So basically, to find out if Jesus is who He said He was, then we have to look at the things He did when He was on earth, and see if it lines up with His claims.

I'm don't really have the time to type it all out now, though I'll happily answer any specific questions of yours, but there is one book that examines the question I have put to you very well. Basically, (true story) the wife of an atheistic journalist became a Christian. Her husband, the aforementioned atheist, set out to prove to her that Christianity was wrong by proving (forgive my use of the word) that the resurrection never happened. In the end, he became so convinced by the evidence that the resurrection did happen, he became a Christian too.

The book he wrote is called The Case for Christ (by Lee Strobel), and they have made a movie of it too. If you are really serious about exploring this, then definitely check them out. If you want a condensed version, this article explains what kind of evidence Strobel explored:
https://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/the-case-for-christ.htm

He also (afterwards) wrote the Case for a Creator, which explores the scientific evidence for creation. Jonathan Sarfati's book Refuting Evolution is also very interesting. (Disclaimer regarding Sarfati's work, there are internal divisions among Christians over how God created the world. Sarfati's (and my) view can be described as the far "right wing" (creationism), whereas the far left "left wing" is theistic evolution. Christians hold all views including and between these extremes, unfortunately.)

Let me know if you want me to elaborate on anything I said above, I'd be happy to! (I just wanted to write as little as possible, so I didn't go and explain heaps of things that you are equally capable of finding out yourself, if you have the desire.)

(P.S. I am very glad you are a scientist and not a philosopher. I'm not a fan of philosophy, one, because it does my head in, two, because in my experience philosophers try to use abstract concepts to disprove other abstract concepts. Philosophy is just ideas, and who's to say who's right or wrong? No-one, if there is no God. Science, on the other hand, has evidence, and even though evidence can be interpreted differently, at least there is the evidence.
Philosophers, don't be triggered, just my opinion.

P.P.S. What kind of scientist are you?)

Edited 2/5/2020 01:24:34

Edited that about 3 times for various reasons. 😉 I think it's good now.

Sorry, just realised - that article doesn't actually show any of the answers to the questions in the book, but it does show all the questions answered and types of evidence examined, and the final outcome (that Strobel was convinced the resurrection happened). I guess you'll have to read it or ask me if you want the answers. :/

Remember, I said that if a scientist is seeking to prove something, they are trying to define something very specific (ie, Trying to prove or reject a null hypothesis that using a ensemble kalman filter reduces spatial errors of Mean Sea Level Pressure in a model ensemble). Trying to prove or disprove something as related to vague events that occurred over 2000 years ago, is, in my opinion, an impossible task.

While I know wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources, I think they do a decent job with the historical question about jesus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

I am generally in alignment with the fact the man did exist. As for his miracles? The resurrection? Scientifically, many have proven these acts to be impossible for a normal human. Of course, the argument then is that Jesus wasn't a normal human, but that's where we have to draw the line in the sand between religion and science. Science should definitely stay out of religion, and religion should stay out of science.

Perusing through your link, there are a few things that would make me immediately skeptical. First and foremost, the creator of this website is clearly trying to sell his work. Science, for the most part, is freely available and open to scrutiny. Find something stuck behind a paywall? Contact the corresponding author and they will most likely happily give you a copy of they article they wrote.

The second criticism is the clear lack of citations and references, other than to the bible. Relying on a single, not scientifically verificable, prose, is not useful.

The third and final criticism I have is that this person is a Journalist! They are most definitely NOT a trained scientist. A journalist is trained to look at both sides of an argument and weight them equally and are most definitely not trained the rigors of science.

When I mean science I mean via the scientific method! I don't mean quasi-science that journalists tend to make in their attempts to communicate findings with the general public. I mean something coming out of a published journal that is held to rigorous standards. Science in its pure, uncontested, form.

Also, once again, I would like to reiterate is is NOT in my interest to explore spirituality, or work towards proving or disproving it. I once again reiterate that I am spiritually unexplored, I don't have any sort of spiritual need, and am not interested in pursuing it.

However, I essentially want to argue that science and religion should be treated as completely separate spheres, and therefore not mutually exclusive. Science does not and should not pursue to align with religion, and religion does not and should not pursue to align with science. Attempting to put them together compromises the logic of both, and being a passionate scientist, you can probably understand why I feel so strongly about keeping them separate.

On another note, I am a Masters in Science Candidate in Atmospheric Science. I have my bachelors degree in Atmospheric Science. You?

Edited 2/5/2020 02:23:24

In a way God is like aliens. People debate to no end on his/their existence, and there is not nearly enough evidence to prove or disprove his/their existence. In other words, I agree with what you said.

As I said, that article doesn't give you the anwers, I'll try find a better one that goes into the details. Though thinking on your requirements, finding a scientific article that addresses the entire probability of there being a God is like asking for a single verse in the Bible that explains the entirety of God's character - not happening! In terms of reliable sources, the book itself has oodles (on average 8 per chapter for 15 chapters, you do the maths!), and I'll try find a better article that also does.

First of all, I think I have to address your statements about keeping science and religion separate. I personally think they are intertwined inseparably, because if both are true, then they must support each other. As much as science would like to be objective, the worldview of the people conducting experiments and interpreting the results ALWAYS will influence the conclusion. The bigger picture the conclusion, the more it will be influenced by worldviews. The criticism that a Christian who wants to believe God created the world will always find evidence for it is equally applicable to an atheist who doesn't want God to have created the world. Scientifically, everybody has the same evidence, however each person will interpret the evidence (often subconsciously) to suit their worldview. So in my opinion, science and whether a person is religious or not have everything to do with each other.

That said, I agree that events 2000 years ago are a bit out of the reach of the scientific method. For this reason you have to use other (quasi-scientific) methods. For instance, the Gospels have been examined using the same techniques that are used in criminal investigations to cross-examine witnesses to check if they are telling the truth and are true eyewitness accounts. Homicide detectives have done this, and concluded that the Gospels all stand up to the test.
Another example would be that there are more early copies of the Gospels than any other historical document; Julius Caesar is only known to have existed from a handful of documents, and these are dated to hundreds of years after his death. Yet no-one questions the truth of these documents. The Gospels had literally thousands of texts arise within a hundred years of Jesus' death: within living memory. If anything they said was not true, it would have been called out pretty quick. Also, many of the Apostles were killed because they said that Jesus rose from the grave. That would be the only time in history somebody was killed for something they made up, so at the very least they must have been convinced Jesus rose again from the dead. Also, more than 500 people saw Jesus after his crucifixion, including a couple hundred at once; a reputable atheist psychologist said that for that many people to have the same hallucination at the same time is a bigger mirage than the resurrection itself.
I could go on, but you're probably getting bored and won't have read all this anyway.

In terms of actual scientific discoveries, the Refuting Evolution book would be your go-to. But not much point recommending stuff if you aren't interested in finding out.

On the other note, I am starting a Bachelor of Science (direct entry honours) this year, probably going to major in biochemistry.

I agree with Aura's initial statement: "science does NOT and should NOT be used as a proof for the existence or refutation of ANY religion." The exception to this is when a religious book makes scientific claims, ie. the qur'an and hadith, then we can know for sure that they're wrong... but that's a discussion for another time.
Arguing science won't make someone a Christian, because "without faith it's impossible to please God". There's stuff like a talking donkey in the bible... that won't be proven scientifically. Of course our faith is based on something, it isn't blind, and the longer we live as Christians the stronger (hopefully) that faith will become based on our experiences aligning with the bible.

In terms of actual scientific discoveries, the Refuting Evolution book would be your go-to. But not much point recommending stuff if you aren't interested in finding out.

Do you not believe in evolution?

That said, I agree that events 2000 years ago are a bit out of the reach of the scientific method. For this reason you have to use other (quasi-scientific) methods.

Quasi-Science is most definitely NOT science.

Edited 2/5/2020 05:11:07

@Pepe, I agree, at some point there is always a leap of faith involved. But I believe that science and history have a strong case in support of the Bible's claims, though it cannot prove anything.

@Aura, I do and don't believe in evolution. I do agree with downwards evolution (i.e. speciation), of complex organisms becoming less and less complex while becoming more diverse and forming more species due to natural selection. I don't, however, believe that all the life that exists today came from one cell. (which came from where? To date, I have not heard any plausible explanation for this). That kind of evolution requires way too many random beneficial mutations occurring at once, multiple times. I find this especially difficult to swallow when what we observe happening today (via scientific method) is just the opposite - the accumulation of harmful mutations vastly outnumbering beneficial. It's called genetic entropy, it's quite interesting. Anyway, that's just the biggest of the many reasons I don't agree with prokaryote to human evolution.

As for your other point, I agree, quasi-science is not science. But science has its limits, so sometimes other methods (perhaps slightly less objective, though I'm not saying science is purely objective, it's not) need to be used where science fails. For example, the historical methods used to evaluate the reliability of the gospels; where science says "it's in the past, and we can't attest to it" an historian might say "they attest to each other". Might be a bad, simplified example, but it works in my head, let me know if it doesn't in yours!

I am going to say something and I hope it makes sense. It may have something to do with this, or it may not.

On the topic of evolution... Evolution clearly does not have even close to the amount of evidence it would need to actually make a point. Yes, there have been fossils found of animals that have given evidence for evolution. Evolutionists believe that there are "links" between different types of animals (algae, trilobites, fish, mammals, then humans, etc... ). Since the creatures supposedly "evolved" there should be links between the certain types of animals. How many "supposed" links have they found? Well, these.



Archaeopteryx: Evolutionists have long taught that birds evolved from reptiles. This proved hard to support, however, because of a big "missing link"—there was no transitional animal between dinosaur and bird. If only they could find a triceratops sprouting feathers! Then they found archaeopteryx and immediately put it forward as the reptilian-avian link. Archaeopteryx was bird-like, having feathers, wings, and a bill; and it was lizard-like, having teeth, claws, and an unfused backbone. Unfortunately for evolutionists, many reptiles don't have teeth, ostriches do have claws on their wings, penguins have an unfused backbone, and platypuses have bills and lay eggs. So, those characteristics of the archaeopteryx prove nothing. In addition, scientists have yet to find a fossil bearing any kind of a transitional state between scales and feathers; all fossils of feathers are fully formed. Common sense says that archaeopteryx was just a bird.

Lucy: This may be the most famous "missing link." "Lucy" is the name given to a skeleton found in Ethiopia in 1974. Originally, the few bone fragments were thought to be a transitional species between ape and man. The more the bones are studied, however, the more they appear to be simply those of an extinct ape.

Java man: In the late 19th century, a Dutch physician trekked through the jungles of Java in Indonesia and found part of a skull cap, three teeth, and a thigh bone. Despite the facts that the skull and the thigh bone were found fifty feet apart, and there were human skulls in the area, the findings were compiled and (with the help of a talented artist) presented to the world as Homo erectus—a transitional species between man and ape. More likely, the skull fragment is from an extinct ape, and the thigh bone belonged with one of the human skulls. Even evolutionists now admit that specimens of Homo erectus are most likely just variations on normal humans.

Ida: It's still unclear why this nearly complete fossil found in Germany caused such a stir. "Ida" appears to be the fossil of a lemur, lacking only a grooming claw and a row of fused teeth. Evolutionists have declared these minor disparities to be proof that humans descended from lemurs.

The Bible says nothing about "missing links." The creation story found in Genesis does not rely on macroevolution (species-to-species change); therefore, no "links," missing or otherwise, are needed. Instead of a single tree encompassing all animals, the genetic diagram of the Bible is more like a field of bushes. God created many different animals. The cats God made branched into a "bush" of different breeds or varieties through the minor changes of microevolution. Dogs did the same, and then chased the cats.

Atheistic evolutionists claim that their theory "proves" God isn't necessary for the development of life. The Bible says the opposite: evolution isn't necessary for the development of life. God is all that is necessary for life (1 Timothy 6:13). God created the world, and all its animals, in six days. Attempts to explain God's creation without God will always leave missing links.





Cumberland Bone Cave in Maryland: All types of animals at least 41 different animals from all kinds of climates have been found in that cave. Antelopes have been found also. Now how, if we are experiencing climate change and warming of earth, how would antelopes have been found in the cave? Only, a world-wide flood could do that. Many other animals have been found also. There is no possible explanation other than a world-wide flood. There are also many different accounts of the flood.

Edited 2/5/2020 12:36:06

"If there is no god, there is no morality."

This is one of the stupidest stances anyone can possibly hold. Atheists are not immoral. We may have slightly different morals than you, but we have morals, and they have nothing to do with god.

Morals are nothing more than a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. That inherently has nothing to do with religion.

In fact, I'd consider the biggest difference between my morals and yours is that I don't condone preaching. Believe what you wish, but keep it to yourself. I don't try and convince religious people to stop believing, yet they're constantly preaching at me and other non-believers trying to convince us that we need to believe what they do.

I can prove the Bible is true and God existed. Do you want evidence?

i thought religion was banned from internet

Also without god there are still human value but a lot of human value is placed in God.... hard facts tho pagens never lead crusades of children to their death in the name of “God.” Catholics have a bad rep, too.

@Nauzhror "This is one of the stupidest stances anyone can possibly hold. Atheists are not immoral."
You missed the argument completely, as atheists normally do when this point is made. No one's arguing that someone can't be moral without religion. We're saying that apart from God, there is no basis for morality to exist, ie. objective morality. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin also had their own beliefs about "what is and is not acceptable for them to do". On what basis would you say they're wrong? Would you preach to them about morality (ie. harming others is wrong), or do you not believe in preaching? ;)
If you were about to run off of a cliff and one of us point that out, are we wrong to do so? Are we just trying to control which way you run, or do we have a reason for pointing that out? In the same way, those who are going to hell should be warned about it and shown a way out, that is Jesus. In Toronto, a street preacher named David Lynn was arrested for telling gay people that God loves them. Now, he can't even rent a church because he was charged with municipal hate speech laws. His message wasn't offensive at all and the whole thing is available on youtube. We (theoretically) have freedom of speech, so don't tell me to keep it to myself, because this is the type of society you're creating. Toronto is a lot more degenerate than other Canadian cities though.

spoiler alert..... universal objective morals don't exist....


also your god does not seem very nice.... making people suffer in eternity for breaking some rules he himself made..... and the only way out is through belive in him..... seems a tad narcissistic to me....

cant you find a nice god to belive in insted?

Edited 2/5/2020 15:41:05

@LND
For morality to come from God, God would have to exist. Since we are still waiting for a god’s existence to be demonstrated, this entire argument is moot. We end the argument there, and tell you to come back when you can show at least one evidence for this 'so called' god.