The lights are on
This is the place to hang out with Christians who love gaming. If you are a Christian or an open-minded individual I encourage you to join and stay a while.
As we delve deeper into the universe and learn more about it, we are seeing more evidence for the existence of God. There are also plenty of reasonable arguments for His existence. If you are a Christian, then you should know that this doesn't replace our personal experiences with God or our faith by not seeing God. That's the reason I don't care to witness to atheists with scientific evidence and arguments. That's not what we are called to do as Christians in the Bible anyway. This evidence just supports what we already know to be true, that our God exists.
I have my own arguments and have found evidence for myself, but I want to hear from other Christians, too. What scientific evidence of or arguments for God''s existence are there that you have found? Feel free to discuss.
1 Peter 3:15 (NASB): "But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence."
As far as I am concerned, faith and religious matters lie beyond the reach of science and its presupposed philosophy of naturalism. Which makes sense just by the language used: how could the supernatural be evidenced in the purely natural world? I read theological works in my spare time, and one argument I like to cite often is from St. Thomas Aquinas. He took Aristotelian physics and used it to create the first of his "proofs" for God, the Argument from Motion.
First, he states that objects and processes in the natural world do not move or take action of their own volition - they must be acted upon by a mover. If we apply this logic to everything in existence, we have an endless chain of things being acted upon by movers, which are in turn acted upon by other movers. The only way to break this chain is to have an initial, immovable mover - an effect without a cause, without beginning or end. That, of course, is God.
Now obviously, Aristotelian physics is not science - it is philosophy. Physics in the naturalistic sense presupposes a philosophy, whereas this kind of physics (metaphysics) is a philosophy itself. Now, why would the initial mover, which caused all effects which came after it, be subject to and bound by the effects which it itself caused? In other words, how can we find God through science if God is superior to and created the natural world and everything within it?
Of course, faith can't be represented in the natural world. It wouldn't be faith if we could see it.
You do not think that God represents Himself through His creation? I see God in many things, especially the cosmos. I see His glory in stars and planets and galaxies. I see the laws of physics as His blueprint for the natural world and how it works.
The Argument of Motion is similar to an argument I've always loved. It basically says the same thing. If the universe had a cause (the Big Bang), then that cause must've had a cause, based on simple physics. The only way you could break that is with a causeless, eternal cause to everything that exists, which is its effect. That causeless cause is God.
I believe God shows Himself through His creation. But logic can provide good arguments, too.
You have made me so happy by reading Aquinas. I find his 5 reasons to be the best arguments, especially considering Thomistic philosophy's way of presenting arguments in their entirety.
One simple (or complex, however you look at it) piece of evidence is Biology in the form of "human anatomy". There are more than 930 parts that make up the human body, this includes bones, muscles and organs, and doesn't include cells, tissue, and the millions of arteries (vessels). All these parts are in the EXACT position they need to be in order to function properly, thus proving we were designed by the Creator. There is NO way such a complex system organized itself on its own.
Speaking of biological complexity, did you hear that the head of the Human Genome Project converted to Christianity? (From atheism, no less). He probably realized that something so complex could not possibly have been the result of random chance.
I make the same argument about the universe. Do you understand how unimaginably huge the odds were that the Milky Way would be formed, that our solar system would land far enough away from the black hole in the center of the Milky Way to not get pulled by the gravity, that the earth would be formed by trillions upon trillions of compressed rocks and ice, that the earth would end up in the perfect spot for the right temperature, that life would form and evolve into eventually into us? And then there are the odds against us that nothing catastrophic had ever happened to destroy our chances of being formed from evolution. The chances are literally one-in-infinity.
If you have faith in that kind of luck, then you have more faith than I have in God.
I heard an argument against miracles that was interesting last night. I've heard the argument numerous times that the ancient people that wrote the Bible did not understand the laws of nature, so they could believe in miracles. The particular Christian apologist (I think that's the word for it) said that the argument was self-contradictory. Why? Because in order to even recognize a miracle, you have to understand what's normal. People understood that rising from the dead was a miracle because they understood that people don't normally rise from the dead. You have to understand what's normal to recognize what isn't.
I watched a lecture by that same apologist last night and heard a lot of interesting arguments. That was just one of them.
I see your point. Plus God brings it to a point where you can't question that it was him, As a Christian we know when God moves. Even little things are miracles. That why the normal exist, because he created it. I completely get your point. :)
I saw a movie last night called 'The Genesis Code'; it wasn't THAT good a movie (I'd give it a 6.5 being a optimist) but it was interesting.
God created the Universe in 6 days, while science says it was about 16 billion years. so what if 16 billion years IS 6 days to God?
It's very interesting the way they explain it. here's a Link to watch it on YouTube: the genesis code
It's not for free, but it's definitely worth 2 bucks.
This is more of a matter of opinion. Some Christians see evolution as totally false. Others try to see creation and evolution like they go together somehow. I see it the first way and take those 6 days in the Bible as literally 6 days.
I think of it this way. If 6 days is 16 billion years to God, then what is 1000 years (the Millennial Kingdom at the end of Revelation). Is that an unreal amount of time or literally 1000 years on the earth?
I know the verse that the theory is going from, but I think that by saying that 1 day is like 1000 years (or however it is said in the Bible) to God, it's just saying that God is eternal. Time really has no effect on Him because He created time.
Just my opinion.
The Genesis account of creation supports the literal 6 days, as at the end of each day it says, " And there was evening and there was morning-" and it lists the days in order. I'm sure those "evenings and mornings" did NOT last billions of years, so our earth is very young and not as old as evolutionists want us to believe.
Sorry good people, I joined the group and have been getting email updates for some time. I saw this and decided to jump in. :) We're getting into a lot of opinionated things right now. I use to go with the theory that each day was actually millions of years, but honestly, the only thing that helped support was evolution (which I don't fully believe anyway). However, this still wouldn't explain how several things on Earth supposedly suggest the Earth is older than the Bible would make us believe. That's when an interesting idea just clicked--think for a second of everything God created. Did he create it all newborn? Was Adam a newborn child? The plants seedlings? The animals cubs and younglings? No, the Bible highly suggests they were all fully grown. So why couldn't the Earth be the same? This means we actually have no idea how old the Earth could be, and we don't have to. All we know for sure as Christians is that in 7 days, God created all life on Earth and saw it was Good.
Also, there's a movie called "God of Wonders" that is a documentary of Christian scientists explaining God's wondrous works and how all creation points to a Creator. I recommend it to anyone curious about science and Christianity (and maybe looking for evidence to support the Creation theory). One big thing is how in the book of Job, he writes, "Hast thous entered into the treasures of the snow." We didn't discover that each snowflake was an independent crystal-like design until recently, so how could a man with no scientific knowledge of the snow write of such a thing? To make it even better, that specific portion was God speaking to Job, meaning it wasn't even Job's own words. This is just one small example that the video mentions.
Also, just my opinion, but I personally don't believe in the 1000 years of reign. I don't really want to get into that though, and I respect that a lot of people do believe that (I really don't mind; I just want to see Jesus in the end in Heaven). I just see the entire book of Revelation as mostly symbolic, not really physically meaning what it says.
Of course a lot of this is opinionated. Theories are really just popular opinions (based on evidence, but still not fact). And I heard the argument about the world being created old a long time ago and definitely agree. Adam and Eve (both fully grown when they were created) had to have something to eat, and a bunch of seeds weren't going to cut it. I don't have much interest in guessing the earth's age, partly because of that.
And, just from curiosity, why don't you believe in the 1000 years of reign? You can just start a conversation with me if not on this forum. I'm always interested in what other Christians have to say about subjects like this.
I don't mind to share it here; you'll have to excuse me though, it's been quite some time since I studied the Book of Revelation. My main argument against it though was that it didn't sound coherent with the rest of the Bible. You always hear of Jesus's second coming being the end of time; however, the 1000 years of reign theory adds in a third coming, and suggests that we are not in the last days. Outside of that one verse in the scripture, there's really nothing else that directly points to it either.
The idea that Revelation is mostly spiritual, including that verse, comes from the way it's written. It sounds a lot like the prophesy books of the Old Testament which all held spiritual meanings such as a lot of the passages pointing to Jesus's coming to the cross. Also, the theory of the Anti-Christ, False Prophet, and Beast also work this way. In the Bible, there are several trinities: the most popular and important being the Godhead Trinity. If the Anti-Christ was actually a physical being, then why did (I believe it was one of the book of Johns or Paul's epistles) the Bible state "There are already many Anti-Christs among you"? The Bible actually claims it is a spirit of Anti-Christ. That's what the three are: the spirit of Anti-Christ. Anyone who is not for Christ holds the spirit of Anti-Christ, for Anti simply means against.
I'm not going to pretend to understand everything about the book of Revelation or even say I understand any of it. There were just some things I didn't like about the 1000 years of reign theory that I felt the need to study about, lol I prayed and felt that the Holy Spirit guided me through my studies. Like I said though, I respect if other people believe that theory. I really can't say it's not true; I have no solid proof. Regardless of beliefs such as that, the most important thing I hope someone believes is that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God who voluntarily gave His life for our sins. As long you have a solid relationship with Him, then a lot of the, I like to call them "opinionated beliefs" or "denominational differences," really don't make much a difference. I'm just an 18-year old getting ready for college though; I'm no Bible scholar. I believe the Bible, and I believe what the Bible tells me.