How I Discovered, as a Scientist, that God is Real

Faith & Science Conversation
16

If that was addressed to me, I’m sorry, but you misunderstood. I am all about God’s providential timing and placing, miracles where he does not break any of the natural laws he has put into place, but wonderfully demonstrates his sovereignty over time and place, as I say, and timing and placing. ‘Co-instants’ and ‘co-instance(s)’ are my substitute words for coincidence, and they denote ‘not a chance!’

Actually, they do, quite consistently, and sometimes just for fun. :slightly_smiling_face: I have been keeping a ‘Co-instants Log’ for over three decades with retrospective entries for two decades before that. So you’re preaching to the choir as far as I’m concerned. That was the whole point of my tagging @MarkD – he’s not in the choir, yet, anyway. He’s dismissive of God’s providential M.O.

17

You would appreciate reading about George Müller.

18

We don’t even agree on what it is which leads people to believe in a god. I’m mostly dismissive of the claims of people who insist they and only they have the real deal.

1 Like
19

How many real deals do you think there are? None, right? And yet you complain?

You have read Maggie’s accounts, haven’t you? Did you notice any similarities between her accounts and mine, God’s providential M.O.? Multiple unrelated co-instants except for their meaningfulness, beyond what any reasonable person would consider to be within the realm of mere probability?

20

Nope, wrong. People believe a lot of different things and, wait for it, they’re all real. When it comes to things this personal what’s true for you is real for you too. It has effects in this life, the one life we can be very sure we definitely have. That makes it real, as real as it gets IMO.

Yes lots of real deals, and not just between different religions but between denominations and very likely between you and more people than you would suspect in the very same church, though I could be wrong about that last one. But even if yours is some kind of Stepford church I know there are people on these forums who have to measure what they share with others in their church. That isn’t a criticism. It may be regrettable but it isn’t surprising. What we are inside isn’t easy to see and there is a tendency to assume everyone is just the way we are. I used to think the same.

What do you have in mind? What have I complained about? I really don’t know.

2 Likes
21

The ‘deal’ that I was refering to that you deny is the supernatural, not just the claims, the ‘deals’, about it.

 

Complain was a figure of speech with respect to you being dismissive of all claims, since you do not believe any are legitimate.

22

Is insistence on the supernatural even biblical? Wouldn’t matter to me of course but you shouldn’t think that I don’t have faith in anything which cannot be demonstrated. I definitely do. What I believe is pretty out there and generally dismissed by most atheists I meet, but I grant you it isn’t as out there as the notion of the supernatural. Makes me wonder if all Christians are committed to a supernatural God. Maybe they are but I don’t see why they should need to be.

I get that disagreement about such things is upsetting for you. I hope you can get past that. I don’t think you’ll ever be living in a world which perfectly aligns with your personal beliefs. I certainly don’t have such an expectation. I’m much more concerned with how we live in such a diverse world in a way that is consistent with our values. My presence here is in part about working on that.

3 Likes
23

That’s pretty funny, really. The world does align perfectly with my beliefs. A Christian worldview covers all of reality quite nicely, as I have mentioned before and not too long ago, but you have neglected to remember. A pretense at condescension isn’t going to work, sorry.

24

Seriously? A man does not naturally rise from the dead. Are you familiar with the word ‘miracle’? You can find it in the Bible without too much difficulty.

25

Greetings.

I do not understand some of what you say. We have different vocabularies. I have no idea what you, personally, mean by a “Christian worldview” or whether you understand what Paul meant when he taught Christians should hold a worldview that “the whole world lies in darkness” (1 John 5: 19)

I also have not been able to figure out what you mean in your statement about denying the supernatural. Rather than trying to figure it out, I’ll just refer to two others of your statements above.

  1. Is insistence on the supernatural even biblical? Yes it is. Jesus was called the “Miracles worker” because He insisted the only proof He came from God was His working miracles "believe in the evidence of the miraculous works I have done, even if you don’t believe me. Then you will know and understand that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.”(John 10:38) [New Living Translation]

  2. “…wonder if all Christians are committed to a supernatural God. Maybe they are but I don’t see why they should need to be…” Yes. The whole premise of Christianity is the miracle that a supernatural, spiritual God, made himself a human being by impregnating the virgin Miriam (Mary) in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 7: 14 “behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb , and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.” (Emmanuel meaning “God with us as Savior”; the name Yeshua also meaning savior; Yeshua being the Aramaic Spelling of Jesus, also Yehoshua, Joshuah) The old Testament prophecy of the savior/yeshua/Messiah coming as God made flesh/man is reiterated at John 1: 1-15.

Essentially, total faith and dependence on these verses is the beginning of acceptance of Christianity, It is the basis of the Creed. If a person does not believe this totally supernatural miracle, he may follow some of the teachings of Jesus as a philosophy, but he is not a Christian - by definition.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.*** 6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”)
*** [NOTE THIS IS THE SAME DARKNESS PAUL DESCRIBED IN SAYING THE WHOLE WORLD LIES IN DARKNESS. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, THAT WHICH PERTAINS TO JESUS, HIS WORD AND PEOPLE IS LIGHT; EVERYTHING ELSE IS "OF THE WORLD, I.E. DARKNESS]
I don’t intend to be condescending, but we seem to have different vocabularies. To a Bible scholar who has been a “born-again- miracle-witnessing-Christian” for 50 years, there is no such thing as a Christian “worldview”. It is an oxymoron, like hot-ice. In Christianity “world” is synonymous with “darkness”, at least, but also the sin nature and corruption.

I guess “Christianity 101” could also be listed in the Foreign Languages department as well as Theology.

26

Uncovering new phenomena in what way? Are you talking about only what is objectively measurable?
No: Well then, isn’t maggie’s experience an example of uncovering new phenomena?
Yes: But then there is no logical justification for this. The universe began 13.8 billion years again and nothing beyond that is measurable. So it would seem that we have excellent reason to think there is much that is real which will never be objectively measurable. And why should everything real be either objective or reducible to mathematical quantities as is required by measurement?

It is demonstrable that people can know things which they will never be able to demonstrate to other people. To be sure, they must accept that they will never have a reasonable basis for expecting people to accept the truth of what they know – but that is the most you can say of such subjective knowledge derived from personal experience.

So you are looking for reasons for belief in something other than that something. Sounds like a worthy endeavor to me for a number of different reasons. One is that it would provide a means for those who do believe to distinguish what is likely to have really come from the real thing.

Ah the old bootstrap circularity which precludes such “cultural availability” from ever coming into existence. LOL

27

Mark, you said:
“…people can know things which they will never be able to demonstrate to other people. To be sure, they must accept that they will never have a reasonable basis for expecting people to accept the truth of what they know”
Assuming you know you are dealing with intelligent people, don’t we have they expectation that they can use logic? This is my expectation if I want to communicate the truth that prayer to God, when coupled with faith in Jesus Christ, activated by a right relationship with Him, will always produce miracles, i.e. supernatural intervention by God contrary to the natural course of events.

I have proof as predictable as mathematics, that any combination of variables A, B and C will never achieve the desired result until factor X is added in. When factor X is added, the desired result will always be achieved. I have proved it in my life thousands of times. Factor X is “The fervent, effectual prayer of a righteous man, through Jesus Christ”.

1 Like
28

I’m not sure how this turned into why aren’t I a Christian but I’m not here for conversion.

29

Sorry;

Since Biologos is a Christian organization, I just assumed you considered yourself a Christian

30

Quite alright Maggie. I can understand how you might make that assumption. But I am from a family where most are Christian, but with a much less nuanced and intellectual approach than so many here have. In some sense you could say I’m having the conversations I wish I could have with them.

What I was trying to tell Dale is that he, you, I, none of us are likely to ever live in world in which everyone holds the same beliefs. So I think it matters how we get along. I get grief from atheists online for not being content to hang out with them complaining about believers and hurling insults at them. First of all I don’t share their bias that being religious is stupid and backward. But even more importantly, to do so would be inconsistent with my values as I have no desire to divide humanity into an us-camp and an other-camp. I think we’re all us and how we treat each other matters, or should.

4 Likes
31

And I am not here for converting anyone.

Doesn’t mean I will not explore where logic goes from what they say… mere curiosity prompts me to do that.

Thank God… or goodness… or whatever. I believe that a diversity of thought and belief is as essential for the survival of civilization as a diversity of genome is essential for the survival of the species.

Stupid and backward is a much more equal opportunity thing… usually goes wherever there are large numbers of people.

You are sounding a lot like Jesus in the Bible when you say that!

2 Likes
32

I hope you know I’ve never felt you were trying to goose march me to belief.

2 Likes
33

That is more than a bit of a truism – I don’t know where you got the idea that I or anyone else did think that.

34

Woop! Big mistake here! I said that not Mark!

Reasonable expectation if not assured, but logic can only take us from the premises we accept to equivalent conclusions. Thus logic can lead anywhere and is thus completely insufficient to make its conclusions reasonable. That requires the objective evidence of science.

That is your experience but not the experience of others. Once upon a time people were giving testimonies for the healthful benefits of consuming radium. Clearly that was wrong, however. So testimonies don’t prove anything.

Yes! Personal experience is the most convincing evidence for personal belief. But that only works for the person having those personal experiences and provides no reasonable basis for expecting other people to accept the truth of such things. That requires the objective evidence of science which provides written procedures anyone can follow to get the same results.

Which many other Christians like myself have proven also to their own satisfaction.

And therein lies the difference from science. These things depend on what is inside you… your belief… your character… and your desires.

2 Likes
35

I don’t recall actually saying that. I wouldn’t be inclined to say they must accept that they will never have a reasonable basis for expecting agreement, but I do think it would be more reasonable to accept that restraint.

I believe logic is more useful in a priori pursuits such as mathematics than it is in respectful human persuasion. To the extent that logic applies it will always depend on valid premises, and if we can’t agree on the premises there is no point in pounding ones fist on the table. The argument will fail.

This strikes me as rather mechanistic, almost as if God were just a natural force to be tapped by man for his personal use by way of proper prayer technology. I think there is something which justifies God belief but I don’t think it is anything like what you describe. If your prayers are working perhaps you are a great sorcerer but I wouldn’t consider you humble in a manner befitting what I think gives rise to God belief.

2 Likes