If Faith is important....

Why do some Evangelical Protestants argue that there is scientific evidence for God?

Faith, and where I mean religious faith is by definition a belief without evidence, is central to Protestantism, aren't these people rejecting the core of their religious sect's beliefs?

If I have scientific evidence/proof of God, how can I have faith?

obvious Child said:

Why do some Evangelical Protestants argue that there is scientific evidence for God?

Faith, and where I mean religious faith is by definition a belief without evidence, is central to Protestantism, aren't these people rejecting the core of their religious sect's beliefs?

If I have scientific evidence/proof of God, how can I have faith?

Click to expand...

Because it's indirect. Example: Did Jesus ascend to heaven or did he remain dead? Since we have yet, and most probably never, find his body, we can assume that he either ascended to heaven he never existed, which would be a slap to the face to all the thousands of people that saw him and his works during his time.

obvious Child said:

Why do some Evangelical Protestants argue that there is scientific evidence for God?

Faith, and where I mean religious faith is by definition a belief without evidence, is central to Protestantism, aren't these people rejecting the core of their religious sect's beliefs?

If I have scientific evidence/proof of God, how can I have faith?

Click to expand...

Their perception that modern science and secularism is a threat to their faith causes them to use it to further their religious validity. It's the whole idea that creationism can be called a science. They need to perpetuate this in order to directly compete with modern secularism.

Orius said:

Their perception that modern science and secularism is a threat to their faith causes them to use it to further their religious validity. It's the whole idea that creationism can be called a science. They need to perpetuate this in order to directly compete with modern secularism.

Click to expand...

Theology has always been a part of a classic liberal education. It should not be termed a science, since science cannot prove God exists. However, it should still be included in education, since the assertion "God exists", with faith, opens up the entire realm of theology. Modern secularism needs to stop attempting to have theology removed from the curriculum.

obvious Child said:

Why do some Evangelical Protestants argue that there is scientific evidence for God?

Faith, and where I mean religious faith is by definition a belief without evidence, is central to Protestantism, aren't these people rejecting the core of their religious sect's beliefs?

If I have scientific evidence/proof of God, how can I have faith?

Click to expand...

This is actually and excellent point and something that I hadn't considered. But then again, since I have never argued the scientific existence of God, and have always just had faith, I suppose I do not fit in this hypocrisy.

DarkWizard12 said:

Because it's indirect. Example: Did Jesus ascend to heaven or did he remain dead? Since we have yet, and most probably never, find his body, we can assume that he either ascended to heaven he never existed, which would be a slap to the face to all the thousands of people that saw him and his works during his time.

Click to expand...

We never find the bodies of 99.9999% of all the people who ever lived. Did they all rise from the dead too? More often than not, the bodies from antiquity that we do find remain nameless, they're just buried without any ceremony and we never know who they are. For all you know, we may have found the body of Jesus and never known it.

And news flash for you, if reality slaps you in the face, it's a clear indication that you believe something false. Think about it.

reefedjib said:

Theology has always been a part of a classic liberal education. It should not be termed a science, since science cannot prove God exists. However, it should still be included in education, since the assertion "God exists", with faith, opens up the entire realm of theology. Modern secularism needs to stop attempting to have theology removed from the curriculum.

Click to expand...

Science could prove God existed if... you know, God existed. However, for centuries religion has gone to extreme lengths to hid God from any possible scientific evaluation, moving God into the gaps because they fear that when science goes looking for God, they won't find anything. Theology, like astrology and other pseudosciences, was taught back in the days when we didn't know better. Today, however, religion offers us nothing demonstrably reliable, it's just a security blanket for people who can't handle reality.

Cephus said:

Science could prove God existed if... you know, God existed. However, for centuries religion has gone to extreme lengths to hid God from any possible scientific evaluation, moving God into the gaps because they fear that when science goes looking for God, they won't find anything. Theology, like astrology and other pseudosciences, was taught back in the days when we didn't know better. Today, however, religion offers us nothing demonstrably reliable, it's just a security blanket for people who can't handle reality.

Click to expand...

By this logic, science can't prove we exist, as they can't prove that something can come from nothing. :shrug:

obvious Child said:

Why do some Evangelical Protestants argue that there is scientific evidence for God?

Faith, and where I mean religious faith is by definition a belief without evidence, is central to Protestantism, aren't these people rejecting the core of their religious sect's beliefs?

If I have scientific evidence/proof of God, how can I have faith?

Click to expand...

You have an outstanding point.

CaptainCourtesy said:

This is actually and excellent point and something that I hadn't considered. But then again, since I have never argued the scientific existence of God, and have always just had faith, I suppose I do not fit in this hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Explain please why people who have reason and logic should really care about your personal definitions and perceptions? Why demonstrating pure hypocrisy again and again – that is when points contradicting your shored view are expressed you accept that you have no abilities to address them except for simply calling them hypocrisy – why do you think it may matter for people who have abilities to address points made in an intelligent conversation?

obvious Child said:

Why do some Evangelical Protestants argue that there is scientific evidence for God?

Faith, and where I mean religious faith is by definition a belief without evidence, is central to Protestantism, aren't these people rejecting the core of their religious sect's beliefs?

If I have scientific evidence/proof of God, how can I have faith?

Click to expand...

Atheists go around and start treads and claims that there is no scientific evidence for God.
Evangelicals answer: here is the evidence and they submit the evidence. Atheists fall into a state of denial and go around and start treads and claims that there is no scientific evidence for God.





Why do atheists keep on arguing that there is no scientific evidence for God and define a pure delusion - when a world view is based on no empirical evidence and no logic as faith? When Evangelicals and Catholics and Protestants again and again destroy this notion of atheists as absurd, why do atheists go to another tread and start the same absurd again? Why they never address points made by Evangelicals and Catholics and Protestants?

The answer is simple, - atheists have redefined science and faith so that one wouldn’t even know what is what anymore. In atheistic science belief in God is a scientific theory, because it fits atheistic definition of a scientific theory.






Scientists Believe Life Emerged from a Process of "Creative Destruction"

poll (in 1992) shows that a worryingly high proportion of climate scientists believe

The scientists believe that the warming and melting of ice

When do scientist believe that chemical evolution occured?

Hong Kong and US scientists believe illness is a coronavirus.

1. Phoenix Mars Lander Exposes Ice, Scientists Believe - Science News ...


.US Forest Service scientists believe an Oregon State

Many Scientists Believe that the Dog Genome Holds a Wealth of

Scientists in the US believe they may have found a new type of

scientists believe that they have traced a hereditary link to breast cancer

"Scientist believe that stresses between igneous and sedimentary rocks caused

[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rlz=1T4GZAZ_enUS323US323&q=scientists+believe++-christian+-god&start=20&sa=N]scientists believe -christian -god - Google Search[/ame]

84,500,000 results for scientists believe -christian -god. (0.13 seconds)

That is 84,500,000 documented proofs for the points made by Evangelicals.

They key difference here is scientists have a reason to believe. That is, there have been experiments or calculations demonstrating something may be true, and now they're going to investigate further. If it succeeds, great! If not, it was a bad idea, try again.

Believe != faith. Faith means you believe in something without proof. Belief is just the general idea that you think something holds true.

obvious Child said:

Why do some Evangelical Protestants argue that there is scientific evidence for God?

Faith, and where I mean religious faith is by definition a belief without evidence, is central to Protestantism, aren't these people rejecting the core of their religious sect's beliefs?

If I have scientific evidence/proof of God, how can I have faith?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a Christian or even remotely religious - but there's more to believing in God than just having Faith that he exists.

You have to have faith in a lot of things - such as the Bible (or other holy book) and other various things from holy scriptures like the Great Flood, the Crucifixion, the he can walk on water, that he made everything, Adam and Eve, the Battle of Jericho, the Parting of the Red Sea.

Some of these things can be explained scientifically - like, they've found evidence that Soddom and Gomorrah (sp) burned due to a naturally occuring phenomena with sulfer . . . and the wall of Jericho possibly being brought down by a natural earthquake.

There are a lot of stories from the Bible that are similar to other religious Mythology and such, as well, like a Great Flood - such stories related to it are found in a majority of dead-religions. As well as stories related to God and an apple that somehow led to the destruction of an empire (like Troy) or was the beginning of human-nature (like Adam and Eve).

All these things - it takes faith to believe they (1) Happened at all - or (2) Happened because God or Jesus made them happen.

In my opinion, though, a lot of people feel compelled to *prove* that he exists and these things did happen in order to get more to believe and follow their religion.
It's become more and more necessary because we are all, generally, more educated and many more people are looking at religions and deciding, for themselves, that "I don't believe that God created the universe in 7 days" or that he walked on water, etc.

Faith helps people stick to their belief - but it doesn't really bring non-believers into the belief.

GManNickG said:

They key difference here is scientists have a reason to believe. That is, there have been experiments or calculations demonstrating something may be true, and now they're going to investigate further. If it succeeds, great! If not, it was a bad idea, try again.

Believe != faith. Faith means you believe in something without proof. Belief is just the general idea that you think something holds true.

Click to expand...

Evangelicals laugh. If scientists have a proof why they say that they believe but not have a proof?


If it is a bad idea, why they say they believe in it.

And then, what - Evangelicals do not have a reason? They are delusional? It is the same notion again and again- Evangelical are delusional, schizoprenic.

Above there is 84000000 documented proofs that scientists have no proof but all beliefs.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

By this logic, science can't prove we exist, as they can't prove that something can come from nothing. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Where something comes from has nothing to do with demonstrating it factually exists. Try again. :doh

justone said:

Atheists go around and start treads and claims that there is no scientific evidence for God.
Evangelicals answer: here is the evidence and they submit the evidence. Atheists fall into a state of denial and go around and start treads and claims that there is no scientific evidence for God.

Click to expand...

I am not an atheist; I believe in God. Yet, I claim that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God and there never will be. So there are believers that claim this as well.

You claim that Evangelicals have this evidence. Well, I haven't seen you post it. What is it?

obvious Child said:

Why do some Evangelical Protestants argue that there is scientific evidence for God?

Click to expand...

Because they are ignorant brainwashed idiots?

Faith, and where I mean religious faith is by definition a belief without evidence, is central to Protestantism, aren't these people rejecting the core of their religious sect's beliefs?

Click to expand...

100+ years ago..sure. Now days not so much. Many of the "faith" beliefs that we had 1000 years ago have been explained by our expanding knowledge of the world around us.

The world is not flat, or the sun does not revolve around the earth. The world had faith this was true because the religious folks said it was so and we did not know better, but now days anyone claiming this is frankly stupid and anyone believing this based on faith... should be committed to an insane asylum. There are many other examples where "faith" has been replaced with hard cold facts.

That we live in a world today where many religious people choose to believe a 2000 year old book rather than what they can see in front of them is more disturbing than anything else. But that is our reality today and I have faith that logic, science and common sense will triumph over illogical, non scientific drivel and ignorance.

If I have scientific evidence/proof of God, how can I have faith?

Click to expand...

Good point. But since you dont, then it is only faith that he or she or it exists

Aunt Spiker said:

Well, I'm not a Christian or even remotely religious - but there's more to believing in God than just having Faith that he exists.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. The entire realm of spiritual belief is dependent on one belief: Does God exist? It is a sufficient belief on it's own.

Now, if you are going to believe in a particular religion, beyond spiritual faith, then there are other miraculous events that you should have faith in.

Aunt Spiker said:

You have to have faith in a lot of things - such as the Bible (or other holy book) and other various things from holy scriptures like the Great Flood, the Crucifixion, the he can walk on water, that he made everything, Adam and Eve, the Battle of Jericho, the Parting of the Red Sea.

Click to expand...

And so here are some of the Christian beliefs, beyond belief in God. I do happen to believe that Jesus was a Divine Incarnation and as a result was able to perform miracles. No scientific evidence for it exists, however. I agree that some of these "miraculous" events can be explained by science. I also believe that some of them are merely stories and never happened. I also believe some of the miraculous abilities taught by the Hindus as performed by Lord Krishna, another Divine Incarnation (there have been more than one).

My point is that belief in these miracles is not necessary in order to believe in God.

reefedjib said:

I respectfully disagree. The entire realm of spiritual belief is dependent on one belief: Does God exist? It is a sufficient belief on it's own.

Now, if you are going to believe in a particular religion, beyond spiritual faith, then there are other miraculous events that you should have faith in.



And so here are some of the Christian beliefs, beyond belief in God. I do happen to believe that Jesus was a Divine Incarnation and as a result was able to perform miracles. No scientific evidence for it exists, however. I agree that some of these "miraculous" events can be explained by science. I also believe that some of them are merely stories and never happened. I also believe some of the miraculous abilities taught by the Hindus as performed by Lord Krishna, another Divine Incarnation (there have been more than one).

My point is that belief in these miracles is not necessary in order to believe in God.

Click to expand...

True, good point.

CaptainCourtesy said:

This is actually and excellent point and something that I hadn't considered. But then again, since I have never argued the scientific existence of God, and have always just had faith, I suppose I do not fit in this hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Wait...what? What hypocrisy?

How is having faith while acquiring proof to encourage the faith of others anything remotely hypocritical?

Cephus said:

We never find the bodies of 99.9999% of all the people who ever lived. Did they all rise from the dead too? More often than not, the bodies from antiquity that we do find remain nameless, they're just buried without any ceremony and we never know who they are. For all you know, we may have found the body of Jesus and never known it.

Click to expand...

Yea, but those 99.9999% were all seen dead. Most even recorded by the romans(I think they recorded deaths...I know they did with births). So, why, out of all dead people that die and remain dead, would the ancient peoples point out jesus and say "He ascended into heaven!!!!". Did they throw dice, or what?

And news flash for you, if reality slaps you in the face, it's a clear indication that you believe something false. Think about it.

Click to expand...

interesting....this was what I said:

which would be a slap to the face to all the thousands of people that saw him and his works during his time.

Click to expand...

I was never one of "the thousands". I was born in AD, so I rather think myself immune.

DarkWizard12 said:

Yea, but those 99.9999% were all seen dead.

Click to expand...

Says who? Wow, you have written records for every single dead person in history? That's amazing!

Most even recorded by the romans(I think they recorded deaths...I know they did with births).

Click to expand...

Whether they recorded some deaths or not doesn't mean they recorded all deaths and interestingly enough, they didn't record the crucifiction of Jesus. Imagine that.

So, why, out of all dead people that die and remain dead, would the ancient peoples point out jesus and say "He ascended into heaven!!!!".

Click to expand...

That's not remotely original or even uncommon. Heck, it's not even unusual in the Bible. Both Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) and Enoch (Genesis 5:24) did it. In the ancient world, rising from the dead wasn't a big deal, especially since they had a poor understanding of what constituted death. Ascending into heaven wasn't a big deal either, these are very common mythically. Your problem is that you're taking one of these mythologies and believing it's factually real.

I was never one of "the thousands".

Click to expand...

Nor do you know if any of those supposed thousands actually existed, at best we have second or third hand accounts of them but none of the people present at Jesus' supposed miracles ever wrote independent first-hand accounts, at least not that have survived. I can say I flapped my arms today and flew around New York City and a million people saw me, but unless some of those million people come forward and corroborate my story, it's pointless. Should we worry about posthumously offending those who supposedly saw Mohammed fly off to Mecca on the back of a flying horse? I don't think so.

Cephus said:

Says who? Wow, you have written records for every single dead person in history? That's amazing!

Click to expand...

Out of all the people in the world, how many are recorded to have "ascended into heaven"? True, there may have been more, afterall not even the bible, let alone the book of any religion(except MAYBE the koran) claims that there wasn't more people. Still. If ascendency was so common, I don't think people would bother to record it and call it holy.

Whether they recorded some deaths or not doesn't mean they recorded all deaths and interestingly enough, they didn't record the crucifiction of Jesus. Imagine that.

Click to expand...

Well, would that be unusual? If the Romans did record crucifixions, then you would have something, if not, then it is nothing unusual and wouldn't really refute it either way.

Heck, it's not even unusual in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Is that a fact? Because it sounds like an opinion.

regardless, I'll let it slide.

Both Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) and Enoch (Genesis 5:24) did it. In the ancient world, rising from the dead wasn't a big deal, especially since they had a poor understanding of what constituted death. Ascending into heaven wasn't a big deal either, these are very common mythically. Your problem is that you're taking one of these mythologies and believing it's factually real.

Click to expand...

And Elijah was seen as a prophet, and enoch is shrouded by jewish mysticism.

Nor do you know if any of those supposed thousands actually existed, at best we have second or third hand accounts of them but none of the people present at Jesus' supposed miracles ever wrote independent first-hand accounts, at least not that have survived.

Click to expand...

although it is true most are second hand accounts, luke is considered the most accurate and was indeed written by him.

I can say I flapped my arms today and flew around New York City and a million people saw me, but unless some of those million people come forward and corroborate my story, it's pointless.

Click to expand...

And thus, why christianity grew so fast dring its beginnings. People did come forward.

Should we worry about posthumously offending those who supposedly saw Mohammed fly off to Mecca on the back of a flying horse? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

No because it may have actually happened, as was prophesied to Abraham.

Regardless, that's not why we shouldn't worry though. It's a simple matter of a lack of correlation.

CaptainCourtesy said:

This is actually and excellent point and something that I hadn't considered.

Click to expand...

Generally, I bring that up against people, namely Creationists who argue they have irrefutable scientific evidence of God. But sadly, most don't understand that what they are doing is rejecting faith as a core aspect of their religion.

justone said:

Atheists go around and start treads and claims that there is no scientific evidence for God.

Click to expand...

Your entire post fails because it does not use the proper definition of religious faith.

You are arguing just as Oftencold did that faith that the sun will rise tomorrow is the same as faith in a titanic battle of resurrected Vikings and their Gods battling numerous evil creations in an epic fight that ends the world.

Stupid yes. But not unexpected.