Comments for God: new evidence

Comment on Start here… by R, E. Barker

R, E. Barker — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 08:45:31 +0000

If the fine tuning argument is accepted – and I see no reason to doubt it – it would clearly imply specific design and purpose. In which case it would mean that it was God’s design and purpose to cause all the earth shattering disasters which have brought such terrible pain and suffering to millions of people in recent times and which appear to be getting worse. Is this the God of infinite love of which Jesus speaks?
On the other hand God does admit (Is. 45:5-7) that He creates both good and evil. And Job recognises this too (Job 2:10) And, also, in the final chapters of Job, God explains how He controls EVERYTHING. Does this mean the God of fine tuning is no more than a mere mechanical master mind – a Wizard of Oz? Is this the God they have found?

Comment on Start here… by John Edward Strange

John Edward Strange — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:08:03 +0000

Regardless of personal conviction, there simply is no measurable evidence for a ‘God’ in the theistic or deistic sense. Belief in a God relies on faith, hence the nature of religion.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory which fits with available evidence- fossil record, and especially the genetic blueprint which is undeniable in my view as a map of evolutionary development.

It is not a certainty that this theory is correct- far from it. Nor does it answer questions like ‘how did everything start’, ‘what is the meaning of life’ etc.. It is, however, convincing that the theory fits all current available knowledge- which, after all, is the sum of human science and philosophy. Our heritage; as the most privileged generation that has ever existed, in this sense.

With this in mind, the question has to be this: are we prepared to trust scientific findings, in the knowledge that we are effectively looking at a millimetre squared of a photo which is (perhaps) millions of square miles wide and long? Or do we wish to place faith in a theory that looks toward our individual ‘souls’ or convictions and makes a leap of faith.

For me, there is the simple reality that people will choose according to their feelings and experiences. We are largely free to choose for ourselves, after all.

Having said this, I feel the most humble and most informed standpoint (though only a fraction more informed than faith) is to attempt to rationally explain what we observe around us. We owe it to future generations, even if we ourselves end up believing something which turns out to be wide of the mark.

The argument that belief in a Divine Creator can then lead to a specific World faith is simply irrational. The only rational continuation of belief in a Deity, in my opinion, is an ecumenical approach. However, whilst this standpoint could be correct (through some kind of subconscious human awakening towards a greater meaning, perhaps) this approach still lacks any evidence in scientific terms.

I contend that we cripple the analytical, evidence-based skills of future generations if we ever encourage them to believe as fact something based solely on faith. No less than the future of humanity is at stake.

Comment on Rodney Holder by Jo

Jo — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:48:55 +0000

This guy was on Radio 4 yesterday. He was so irritating I wanted to punch the radio. He knows nothing about science.

Comment on Start here… by Glen

Glen — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 02:59:22 +0000

Brian, what you say is correct. But most Christians would not claim that science proves that the Christian God is real.

They would claim that the findings of science support the claim that there is a rational and powerful God of some sort, and are fully compatible with what we know about the Christian God from other ways he revealed himself to us. To put it another way, Christian teaching about what God is like fits with and explains what we have found out about the world through science, and even explains it better than atheistic presuppositions can.

Comment on Should faith need evidence? by Vividpurplexed

Vividpurplexed — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:56:51 +0000

Without trust and faith in people and institutions let alone buildings and transportation equipment we would become stuck and immobile, scared of our own shadows. We manage to live lives in almost complete ignorance of the fundamentals of science and engineering yet take for granted the developments that industries that use such knowledge provide. Faith is testable almost like an aircraft. We know only a fraction of how an aeroplane works yet we get onboard and we are flow at 6 miles high for thousands of miles. If we get onboard with religious faith, arguably that can take us much higher and much further. We don’t need to know all the details and indeed can’t know them. The assumption in the material world is that we DO know but clearly we cannot as an individual know how everything works so we act in “good faith” for most aspects of life.

Comment on Start here… by Vividpurplexed

Vividpurplexed — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:46:19 +0000

I have been reading two amazing books that have offered an astonishing challenge to my assumptions about the theory of evolution and the nature of life.
The first is called “A meaningful World” by Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt.
The second is called: “Evolution, Creationism and other Modern Myths”.
What if the evidence for Darwin’s theory is fundamentally flawed and not backed by any serious scientific evidence?
What if the alleged evidence of the fossil record simply doesn’t exist?
What if Darwin’s basic observations such as finches on the Galapagos islands don’t have the adaption characteristics claimed?
What if the text book illustrations of adapting moths were falsified at source?
What if the theories of sedimentation and the origins of “fossil fuel” formation can be fundamentally challenged?

It has left me feeling as though the theory of evolution, as popularly presented, comes close to the story of Father Christmas.

I have found this revelation strangely liberating. The bleak pronouncements of evolutionary propagandists have a humanity-denying direction that saps the spirit and suggests that life is fundamentally accidental and meaningless.

I have not yet arrived at my own “myth” but feel that the exploration can now re-commence without concern for this particular “science-myth” that is paradoxically life denying.

Comment on The Greatest Show on Earth – part 4 by Tim McDowell

Tim McDowell — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:36:28 +0000

I’ve just finished reading the review of Dawkins’ the biggest show on earth, which I found very good. All of it is true and it points out many flaws in the book, however in much the same way as Dawkins sets up “Strawmen” the review avoids any pro-god arguements and sticks to the “ad hominum” style of confrontation.
I’m just pointing this out because it seems to me like the rest of this website, people are happily pinting out mistakes or flaws in those who present atheist arguements and use these as proof that there is a good. Just because Dawkins clumped together various types of Christian theists, doesn’t make his arguement wrong!!

You say theres new evidence, show me it, claiming evidence is no evidence at all.

Comment on Start here… by Brian

Brian — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:14:01 +0000

But this alleged evidence could just as easily point to a non-Christian God. Are Christians comfortable with that idea?

Comment on Start here… by A.J.Fiedeldey

A.J.Fiedeldey — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:04:04 +0000

Surely we all know deep down, that nothing comes from nothing and if we are not moved by creation to wonder then we are not capable of wondering. The problem lies not within the universe but within the mindset of the beholder. Because the design is intelligent , it takes intelligence to recognise it and the highest form of intelligence is humility. Without humility no recognition. Sorry!!

Comment on Start here… by T.K. Wang

T.K. Wang — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:09:47 +0000

On the contary, R.E. Barker, it takes a lot more humility to acknowledge that we are the creation of a supreme intelligence. If the evidence points to a supreme creator, it is the height of arrogance to insist that we all got here purely by ‘chance’. Darwinism cannot explain the starting conditions. It simply seeks to propose a model of how the diversity of life came about, but why are the conditions just right for life in the first place?