If this topic is one that toes the line on breaking forum rules, I would just ask that a moderator delete it or inform me so I can delete it. My hope is that its actually a topic that brings about healthy and substance filled discussion. Please bear with me here as I'm not even 100% sure where I was going with this. If it seems like a pointless discussion or one unnecessarily extrapolated on and made more difficult than it has to be, please just let it fade into the archives :)
Lately I've been really interested in learning more about Historical and Modern Day Science, more specifically Science related to how the world works and consiousness; Physics and Neuroscience. I've been using Books, Magazines, Videos, Articles, and other Educational Tools to attempt to gain some insight into where the field of Science was a thousand years ago, hundred years ago, etc., and what it has grown to today. Along the way, you naturally get an idea of the Human Culture during those times. For example, Atomic Theory was actually first proposed by Democritus somewhere around 400 B.C (Incredible incredible genius this guy was). He was a "Pre-Socratic" Philosopher and the traditional line of thinking then was that space was synonymous with the Heavens...The late 1600's brought Newton, and even with emerging revelations on how the world worked (his own), he was heavily involved with the Church and Biblical studies.
Why I'm asking? I had given my Mother a list of books I wanted (Yes I still give my Mom a Christmas list) and one was "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. She was noticeably upset when I next saw her and, in so many words, told me she thought it was incensitive of me to ask her to purchase me something that so obviously and easily dismisses God. I didn't really notice the title was so forthcoming, I thought it would be more fact presenting rather than God shaming... and the contents of the book likely are, but still she was right. I know her better than anyone and it was a poor decision to ask her for that, knowing full well how strongly she felt about her faith and how much effort she put in as a Mother to give her son the opportunity to do the same (while not forcing her belief on me, ever). So I've always respected her faith and feel like I kind of put her in a compromising position by forcing her to speak up about that.
Anyway, the title of this thread is a bit vague but the reason I brought it up is that I dug a little and watched Richard Dawkins speak at an event related to getting "something from nothing" and then another video, and another. He seems overly hostile at times towards creationists. He gets agitated and even seems offended if a person even insinuates that a creator exists. So I decided to drop his book from the list because it all just seems condescending now. Hopefully I'm not doing myself a disservice.
Do you personally believe in a God and still agree with the majority of widely accepted Science today (big bang, something from nothing, ever expanding universe, black holes, time dilation, age of the Earth, etc.)? If so, how do you reconcile, if you were asked to, to someone that both of these are part of your core beliefs? If not, do you think that the two can truly co-exist or do you look at someone who says this as contradicting themselves?
I understand many atheists believe that the idea of God was originally created to explain the unknown and continued/continues as more of a comfort than anything. I believe that's how most Atheists would explain that. But I also wonder if the advancement of Science should (or is expected to) negatively correlate with religious faith. If a Theory of Everything becomes universally accepted 500 years from now, what would the World's general view on Religion be?
There is so much we don't know about even just this tiny planet, but religions claim to understand how everything came to be. Get the fuck out of here.
I think the safe rule of thumb is that anyone who tells you they know for sure they know the answer is a liar.
However, Religion provides comfort to many and attempts to provide answers to questions science will not broach. I'd much prefer to deal with someone who was raised with good religious values than an atheist who believes none of it matters so they might as well only live for themselves. Granted, certain religious teachings can be dangerous as well if taught in extreme ways. I'm also not trying to say atheists are all jerks, but there isn't always a good scientific explanation on why you should do the "right thing" or even what the "right thing" is.
As for me personally, I like to think I have an open mind. I'd classify myself as agnostic. I don't believe anything has it exactly right as of yet. I'm not sure I believe we ever will figure most of it out, but I also don't think I'd be surprised if answers came from science, religion, a mixture of both, or none of the above.
How did it all begin? Was there a creator? Maybe. Was it the big bang? Maybe. Has it just always been? Maybe. I think answering some of life's questions with "I don't know." is perfectly acceptable.
Then who created that "something" that created it all?
Stephen Hawking: M-Theory predicts that the Universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing without the need for a creator
One problem may be that we are trapped in our three dimensional worlds and we don't even fully understand the fourth dimension--time--let alone the other seven dimensions proposed in M-Theory (and no, the M does not stand for Milton in case you were wondering)...
Ed Witten interview--cued up to question about Big Bang and the concept of time
Murray Gell-Mann: talks about emergence (you don't need something more to get something more)
Quote:
I do believe in a creator, but that's about it at this point. The only reason is that there has to be an uncaused cause, everything comes from something but at some point that was nothing and something created it all.
Then who created that "something" that created it all?
Stephen Hawking: M-Theory predicts that the Universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing without the need for a creator
One problem may be that we are trapped in our three dimensional worlds and we don't even fully understand the fourth dimension--time--let alone the other seven dimensions proposed in M-Theory (and no, the M does not stand for Milton in case you were wondering)...
Ed Witten interview--cued up to question about Big Bang and the concept of time
Murray Gell-Mann: talks about emergence (you don't need something more to get something more)
Yea this has been an intriguing debate within Science circles. How can something come from nothing? Hawking is on record, as you mentioned, that our Universe came from nothing. Nothing was there before the singularity appeared and exploded.
I still find it extremely hard to comprehend the idea of "nothing". What do Humans have as a comparison? Even the nothing we think we know, empty space, has been proven to consist of something by quantum research.
There's only one single mathematical equation ever that doesn't allow for time to flow in both directions. It is the only reason we experience time as forward flowing...and that is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Entropy.
To be clear, I am not espousing the faith of any organized religion (tenets of which may be inconsistent with science), but merely the theoretical existence of an all powerful god.
I see religion as an outlet for purpose/healing/motivation. I think it’s great if used correctly. But I would never turn to it for education on why things are what they are.
So can they coexist? I guess so. There’s still so much we don’t know and can’t understand so religion helps fill that void.
This is a good point. It's actually two different questions and your statement is perfectly reasonable in my mind
It's two sides of a coin.
It's amusing that some...some who try to use science to negate faith ...at the same time ascribe to psuedo science such as sociology and aspects of phsychiatry in an attempt to fill that void. In an attempt to have science do what only faith can do, in an attempt to use 'science-ism' as a type of religion, a version where they can tweak the rules...in all that implies.
But, of course the real sciences; physics, biochemistry, biology, etc, are true and fact based! Of course!
And no, those don't contradict real faith in any way!
It's both - without the rackets that try to sit between.
I see religion as an outlet for purpose/healing/motivation. I think it’s great if used correctly. But I would never turn to it for education on why things are what they are.
So can they coexist? I guess so. There’s still so much we don’t know and can’t understand so religion helps fill that void.
I tend to agree with this. I don’t have any kids yet, but I find the question as to whether anyone teaches their kids religion to be a fascinating question. For example, getting their child baptized, Sunday school, etc.
One thing I have never understood about organized religion, assuming for the moment an all powerful and all knowing God with christian like values, why would that God punish humans born into a particular faith that holds itself out as the exclusive path to God?
I would think an all powerful and all knowing God with christian like values would detest any such faith as usurping the power of God for human power.
But, I don't want this thread to go sideways, so that's all from me.
Face it, faith is just wishful thinking. Which is fine. If you want to believe in Santa Claus, that's your right too, but don't act like we're the unenlightened ones.
Thanks Matt. He has been recommended to me by friends and colleagues numerous times. I will likely give one of his books a shot down the road, but I'm not sure the first one I'll pick up to read is "The God Delusion". I'm always open to recommendations and I'll definitely check out the YouTube videos you mentioned.
To be clear, I am not espousing the faith of any organized religion (tenets of which may be inconsistent with science), but merely the theoretical existence of an all powerful god.
Organized religions are inconsistent with each other. They all can't be the exclusive pure word of (or path to) God. So, why would an all powerful God with christian type values punish humans not born into the "correct" religion? That has never made any sense to me ... it would be as uncaring as anything possibly could be.
Do we need to believe in Genesis to believe that a God exists? I don't think so. But to the orthodox within the Judeo-Christian religions, it is blasphemy to deny anything written in whichever bible those folks believe in.
I'd suggest that you read anything and everything you can get your hands on (you seem to be doing that already) and continue to ponder and seek your own truth. But don't consider yourself "disloyal" to your religion of birth if you come to question some parts of your religion while believing in some overriding principles therein. In other words, be open in your search for answers.
Metaphorical. But very real.
Try to keep pretending that the secular attempts to fill that territory don't - also -continually move the goal posts to accommodate real science.
You didn't read my post very carefully at all. You cannot simply continue to tear down the strawman of religion to negate faith. In many cases you are correct about religion.
For myself, yes I believe in God and for what it's worth this is my take on this topic. If I ask myself how did all of it get from nothing to something? The only way you can ever truly arrive at an answer is by faith or by speculation.
Religion is a human construct. It is based on faith but is primarily for managing human behavior, whether it is to explain what at the time was not understood, or to provide a structure for human interaction and community. Like all human constructs it can be used for good and also for ill intent. But faith and religion are not at all the same thing.
For myself, yes I believe in God and for what it's worth this is my take on this topic. If I ask myself how did all of it get from nothing to something? The only way you can ever truly arrive at an answer is by faith or by speculation.
My answer is “I don’t know” and I’m ok with that. Personally, I don’t need an answer for all of my questions. I tend to find that religion gets by largely on chasing the unknown and providing an “answer” or explanation and that’s perfectly fine. Again, not for me but I get it.
When you are a zealot you are a zealot and rational discussions are impossible with those types of people
I understand rejecting religion as a human construct. But if you equate faith with Santa Claus, you have shut your mind to logic just as tightly as those you criticize.
Real sciences, the hard sciences, and scientists of _course_ you can rationally debate them. That's the whole darn point of real science. Rationality and discourses.
So, hard sciences + real faith = real thinking.
Science ISM , false and complex ever changing opaque theory about humans, for example... And it's mirror version within religion, not so much.
So, what I believe, is that God is at another level of abstraction that our logical thinking brains are unable to fully comprehend and understand, and that we will not understand until the time our souls leave our flesh and ascend to the next level.
I find both explanations equally implausible.
Do we need to believe in Genesis to believe that a God exists? I don't think so. But to the orthodox within the Judeo-Christian religions, it is blasphemy to deny anything written in whichever bible those folks believe in.
I'd suggest that you read anything and everything you can get your hands on (you seem to be doing that already) and continue to ponder and seek your own truth. But don't consider yourself "disloyal" to your religion of birth if you come to question some parts of your religion while believing in some overriding principles therein. In other words, be open in your search for answers.
Yat...I really appreciate this. I also really appreciate the well thought out responses and discussions. One of my favorite pieces of advice that I came across while researching book suggestions was from Carl Sagan (I believe) who put the bible in his top 5 books you should read first. His reasoning was that everyone should take the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Really loved that and I think that simple piece of advice/perspective says a lot about a person.
I understand rejecting religion as a human construct. But if you equate faith with Santa Claus, you have shut your mind to logic just as tightly as those you criticize.
For myself, yes I believe in God and for what it's worth this is my take on this topic. If I ask myself how did all of it get from nothing to something? The only way you can ever truly arrive at an answer is by faith or by speculation.
It is probably inevitable that the direction of the posts come to this at some point, but I do want to point out that the goal of my OP was not to have one side persuade the other. Rather just a discussion on if, how, and in what cases both sides can co-exist.
Science can be observed and measured.
I can't measure the big bang. I can't observe it.
I can't measure creatures evolving into other creatures. I can't observe it. I can measure and observe mutations, but I can't measure and observe mutations creating brand new species.
Therefore if you believe in evolution or the big bang, you aren't believing based on observation. Therefore you don't believe based on real science, but by faith. Evolution is a religion.
I'll have every atheist on this forum jumping on me for daring that their "more enlightened" beliefs comprise a religion, but it's the truth.
You cannot disprove the first one, even scientists philosophers, and thought leaders have been scientists and deists at the same time. As Hitchens would point out, it’s impossible to get to theism with any proof. He quickly then we move to disapprove of the morality argument for religion as well.
In my own life I’m more of the agnostic where I don’t know and don’t claim to know. I value science and morality on their own terms. I can also see local religious groups creating communities and support systems where there is a need, but I also see the lack of diversity problematic. Ultimately supporting one absolutist position as truth is something that I can’t get behind in earnest despite some positives.
If it’s about love and support in the face of adversity I’ve gotten a lot more out of community talks with friends and neighbors, the scripture aspects of those tend to get in the way for me
I find both explanations equally implausible.
Here's what I call "The Loud Pop Theory"...
The Universe was originally nothing more than a single "particle" which I call the qulon. The qulon split into a qulon and anti-qulon pair (don't ask me why, my theory isn't all inclusive). These qulon and anti-qulon pairs then multiplied to form a two-dimensional plane of qulon/anti-qulon pairs that folded in on itself to form a three-dimensional bubble which burst in what I call "The Loud Pop" from the force of the anti-gravitons inside the anti-qulons and the gravitons inside the qulons.
According to my theory, matter is not made up of tiny strings, but tiny bubbles. And it proposes that Black Holes do not contain a singularity at their center, but instead are empty of all matter and contain only anti-gravitons, so in a sense, they are merely anti-graviton bubbles (much like oxygen bubbles in water).
But here's the key: it's just a theory of mine that covers some of the big mysteries that still exist. I don't believe it to be true (or false), nor do I have "faith" that it is true, I merely suggest it as a possibility.
Reason and statistical probability shows Mets are not likely to finish with the best record in baseball. But a rabid Mets fan can still believe that they are going to
Quote:
I'd much prefer to deal with someone who was raised with good religious values than an atheist who believes none of it matters so they might as well only live for themselves.
Or conversely, you could say that you prefer to deal with someone who was raised to care about his fellow man than someone who had to be blackmailed under the threat of hellfire. The latter just turn out to be hypocrites anyway.
Quote:
"With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."--Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winning physicist.
See, that's so condescending. Nobody is blackmailed by hell to do good by the Church. People do good for others through the Church for a variety of reasons, most of all, it makes them feel good, just the same as non-religious people do.
Good people are good people and bad people are bad people. Religion has nothing to do with what makes either of them what they are.
The problem is, it seemingly can't.
Science hits a point in understanding where we don't know how something works and says, "lets figure this out..." and incrementally, over a long period of time, we make progress toward understanding what was previously not understandable.
Religion hits a point in understanding where we don't know how something works and shrugs and says, "Must be God." That's fine, it's just lazy. And systematically Science has proven those claims to be wrong.
p.s.--Steven Weinberg isn't your run-of-the-mill Nobel Prize winning physicist. He and Ed Witten are the two physicists most widely named when other physicists are asked who is the greatest living physicist.
Quote:
"If there is no point in the universe that we discover by the methods of science, there is a point that we can give the universe by the way we live, by loving each other, by discovering things about nature, by creating works of art. And that—in a way, although we are not the stars in a cosmic drama, if the only drama we're starring in is one that we are making up as we go along, it is not entirely ignoble that faced with this unloving, impersonal universe we make a little island of warmth and love and science and art for ourselves. That's not an entirely despicable role for us to play."
p.s.--Steven Weinberg isn't your run-of-the-mill Nobel Prize winning physicist. He and Ed Witten are the two physicists most widely named when other physicists are asked who is the greatest living physicist.
I need to look into Weinberg. I love Witten but sometimes I find it difficult to listen to his voice for prolonged periods. I realize that sounds dumb and its about the content but I honestly have a tough time focusing on anything other than the way he talks, lol.
Religion is an expression of faith.
Science does not require faith. Faith does not require science. Both can live compatibly because neither really infringes on the other.
I need to look into Weinberg. I love Witten but sometimes I find it difficult to listen to his voice for prolonged periods.
Murray Gell-Mann's brush with the CIA - ( New Window )
Yet they also believe in God and the Church. Shows the minds ability to comparmentalize and hold otherwise contradictory beliefs. Logically science and religion contradict one another but the mind allows the same person to believe in both
Believing in God does not make you ignorant, it's quite the opposite. If you are a analytical and logical person like myself, it takes a plethora of information outside the bible to believe in a creator (coming from an ex atheist). Those that claim that faith is the bridge to ignorance haven't truly dived into the historical, archeoligocal, and even scientific information that all points to one thing; an intelligent creator.
Believing in God does not make you ignorant, it's quite the opposite. If you are a analytical and logical person like myself, it takes a plethora of information outside the bible to believe in a creator (coming from an ex atheist). Those that claim that faith is the bridge to ignorance haven't truly dived into the historical, archeoligocal, and even scientific information that all points to one thing; an intelligent creator.
I understand where you are coming from here and it is sort of in line with how my personal thinking leans.
Probably not where you were going with this exactly but...I remember researching the Double Slit and becoming fascinated with how it worked. Then I got drawn into the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser studies. Went down that path for months and since then I've always thought that there is some sort of Superior or Quantum Consciousness that makes all of this reality tick.
That is just one thing I've always been fascinated by and lost some sleep over but there is no one reason I can pinpoint to feel in line with your thoughts above. Rather it is a culmination of everything I've packed into my tiny brain. However I admittedly backed my way into that with a pre bias on looking for ways that the Science I learn could fit into the faith I had. I do believe I am still open minded enough to follow where my intuition leads me, but thats about where I am at right now. (I couldn't imagine having this discussion if I still smoked the ganja)
At that moment when your mortality becomes in imminent danger you will attempt to "hedge your bet". I work with elderly every day and it is an almost universal action.
I'd bet that under the worst of circumstances you'd likely start praying.
Quote:
because God is a figment of somebody's imagination.
I'd bet that under the worst of circumstances you'd likely start praying.
Praying = talking to yourself. So, yeah. I might talk to myself.
Quote:
Organized Religion and science cannot or will not.
This is a good point. It's actually two different questions and your statement is perfectly reasonable in my mind
My all time favorite quote is an iteration of:
Never have I learned something from someone I agree with
I think this is at the heart of what's wrong in todays society (politics, religion, sports,cooking methods pick a topic) people cant just admit that it's okay to be ignorant. "I dont know" is not only an ok statement Its my prefered state of mind and thing I most like to hear.
We are all extremely ignorant across a wide array of subjects.
We just dont like to admit it. Which is why there are a lot of inane arguments here at times instead of debates and I honestly dont know If I have had the pleasure of being involved in more then a handful of honest debates in my life. Where two or more people were willing to reconsider their position based on any new information provided.
when you start from an acknowledgment as you are, now learning can actually be achieved and in that space science and God can co-exist.
God and science are constructs and one doesnt preclude one from another.
At the core there is an understanding that both constructs are not fully understood. Religion has become a finite solution for people to understand God. But it's a man's interpretation. Religion has become a solution and so has anyone who considers themselves a science expert instead of someone still learning science. A science expert ceases learning and just as much at fault.
Anyway that's my expounded view on my initial statement.
If you're in the Rochester area I'd love to buy you a beer and discuss the marriage of both.
No scientist with religion that I have ever seen handles the reappearance of an interventionist God in the lives of modern civilized humans at all well.
Quote:
That theory is way over my head but curious if you've tried discussing it on a Physics forum like Reddit r/physics or something similar. Bet you'd get a good thought provoking discussion going.
I want to do more study on black holes, graviton and anti-graviton pairs, the holographic principle, and string theory in general before presenting it. I need to make sure I fully understand what I think I understand when it comes to what Susskind called the Black Hole Wars between him and Hawking. Youtube is such an amazing resource.
It truly is. So much material. If you haven't watched any of the PBS Space Time videos, I'd recommend adding those to your watch list:
PBS-Space-Time-Channel
Out of curiosity, is this something you do for a living or just a type of hobby? I've been regretting not getting into Physics at a younger age and at this point, Mathematics is downright scary. I've just never been interested enough to pursue higher levels. However, I've always been naturally good with numbers.
I do understand that an expert level grasp of Math isn't necessarily "required", but I've made an effort to get re-acquainted with Calculus lately anyway. Wondering if there's any sources or materials out there that could help me pursue this. If anyone has any suggestions, fire them my way!
However I have a strong belief in God. The
complexities of the universe let alone the human
eye to me cannot he explained by entropy.
To me the lack of believing in a Creator is useful
for those subscribing to moral relativism.
Sorry but a Big Bang plus entropy and chaos
does not a universe make.
Real sciences, the hard sciences, and scientists of _course_ you can rationally debate them. That's the whole darn point of real science. Rationality and discourses.
So, hard sciences + real faith = real thinking.
Science ISM , false and complex ever changing opaque theory about humans, for example... And it's mirror version within religion, not so much.
Yes. Well put.
People here are still unsure or "up in the air" about visitors from another planet. Meanwhile, there are cave paintings portraying spacecraft and strange looking people coming from them. Science has proven this but the findings are classified.
I believe in science completely. However, half of the other people out there who claim to be all about science are science believers only when it happens to support their argument. Rarely do they cite science when it disproves their position. It is actually comical.
mathematical precision is able to happen
autonomously. To me science is being used
to deny God again for many who subscribe
once again to moral relativism.
to deny God again for many who subscribe
once again to moral relativism.
... and in many instances those who are using science as a way to deny that there is a God are often the same people who ignore science when they say a man can be a woman.
Sorry but a Big Bang plus entropy and chaos
does not a universe make.
There are vast numbers of books that show how the sequencing works, aside from Dawkins' wonderful "The Ancestor's Tale." My favorite is
The Story of Life in 25 Fossils
Tales of Intrepid Fossil Hunters and the Wonders of Evolution
Donald R. Prothero
It's not really about 25 fossils, it's about 25 families or genuses of evolutionary niches. But the amount of knowledge, evidence and detail shown in it is spectacular. And in every family, the sequencing from primitive to modern works, exactly, in ways that confirm evolutionary theory. So-called intelligent design can't respond to that, or come close. "Belief" in Intelligent Design stops working when you do the reading beyond the very simplistic work used in ID.
Dawkins is a jerk as a human being, but he's an extraordinarily knowledgeable jerk. His knowledge and ideas are compelling, when you get beyond the self-love.
the-story-of-life-in-25-fossils - ( New Window )
Quote:
Sorry but a Big Bang plus entropy and chaos
does not a universe make.
But, some ghost that lives forever in a sort of magical place does? Not only does that not make a whole lot of sense, it sounds ridiculous.
Well it certainly sounds ridiculous when you use those words to describe it. No one person has all of the answers. However if you are going to be so certain of your belief that the idea of creation is dismissed at every point made (or vice versa, goes for both sides) then I would argue that you SHOULD have all of the answers. But using language such as "magical place", "ghost", and "ridiculous" don't seem synonymous with having answers, but rather a dismissal using condescending language.
Here's a good example from a Hitchens-D'Souza debate (Thanks Matty)...These ideas are from D'Souza and I'm paraphrasing this:
Many people have a false understanding of what evolution actually entails. Many believe the idea of evolution explains the introduction of life on the planet...but evolution does not explain how life became on this planet (Even Darwin knew this). Evolution explains the transition of one life form to another, which is very different from accounting for life itself.
For example, the Primordial cell. This is described by professional biologists as a kind of super computer due to its level of complexity. Even Richard Dawkins describes it as a sort of digital computer. This cell could not have evolved (come about via the process of Evolution) because Evolution pre-supposes the cell. Evolution requires the cell as it already has the built in capacity to reproduce itself.
"So hiw did we get a cell? The very idea that random molecules in a warm pond through a bolt of lightning assembled a cell, would be akin to saying that a bolt of lightning in a warm pond could assemble an automobile or a skyscraper. It's preposterous. Richard Dawkins knows it preposterous and therefore when asked how did we get life originally...he said well maybe aliens brought it from another planet. It's ridiculous but it's in a way the best explanation he could come up with other than intelligent design."
^^
This is likely a dated example as the something from nothing theories have come a long way, but it makes the point either way.
Btw I am way out of my element here if it isn't obvious. Simply playing Devils advocate.
To only answer the OP’s question, yes I believe God created the universe but don’t ask me to explain it, I just believe it....not sure how He did it or by what means. Just believe that He did. I guess you could call it faith but not necessarily blind faith. Of course you could google Intelligent Design answers to the creation of the universe if you need to know such.
I do believe science and God can “work together” but I also don’t believe science has all the answers or that some of the answers they propose are always right for whatever reason.
But couldn't this also be an argument FOR intelligent design? My thinking is along the lines of, someone could argue that Evolution is a tool of the creator. And/or using my post above that Evolution pre-supposes the cell and therefore wouldn't exist without the cell which is a design from an intelligent source.
Fair question, but with strong answers available, I think.
1) I have no objection to the idea that there was an original creator, an entity that triggered the Big Bang or even the first spark of life on earth. My issue is with an intervening God that is required by organized religion. As I said, no one has been able to link evolution through natural selection with the idea that after 2 billion+ years of evolution and 2 million+ years of proto-humans an intervening God returned to have a relationship with humans that he didn't directly create.
2) ID and evolution through descent by natural selection are irreconcilable. The idea of ID is specifically designed to provide a role for an intervening God that pushed life toward the creation of modern humans, not for a random process.
3) Btw, ID is a gimmick. American Protestant Creationists needed a way around the idea that Creationism is religion, not science, so they edited their texts to call it ID. But they never reconciled any of that with the massive evidence for evolution, especially including the vast fossil record. See the link for a start.
4) But it always returns to the fossil record, and to thousands of PHD-level scientists in close to a dozen disciplines who study this stuff in exquisite detail.
Link - ( New Window )
To only answer the OP’s question, yes I believe God created the universe but don’t ask me to explain it, I just believe it....not sure how He did it or by what means. Just believe that He did.
1) As I have been discussing, the combination of a spectacularly detailed fossil record which NEVER comes up with inconsistent evidence that would require the need for an alternate theory. To be sure, there are vast holes in the record about specific species but the aggregate record is remarkably accurate and consistent--even while being examined by well trained scientists with a massive body of knowledge and research data. That puts the odds the odds of an alternate solution at a vanishingly low level--albeit not at zero.
2) Scientists who deal with this kind of material argue strenuously that ID isn't science, because it isn't "falsifiable." Proponents Of ID will never accept evidence that shows their theory to be wrong--so it is no theory. Proponents of evolutionary theory would accede to a single case where the fossil record shows ID-like evidence. There just isn't any. The mathematical odds of 1) and 2) both leaning toward evolution through thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence, but still being incorrect is just tiny.
Quote:
To only answer the OP’s question, yes I believe God created the universe but don’t ask me to explain it, I just believe it....not sure how He did it or by what means. Just believe that He did.
Who created God? And where did He exist before He created the Universe?
Quote:
I do believe science and God can “work together” but I also don’t believe science has all the answers or that some of the answers they propose are always right for whatever reason.
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, in fact, it makes that disclaimer right up front. Science openly admits that the Universe poses riddles and mysteries of which some will be forever beyond our grasp. Science is humble. It recognizes its limits and mankind's infinitesimal place in the cosmos. As Dick Feynman once said, "We can never know if we're right, we can only know if we're wrong."
This is a trap question and a never ending wormhole. Only created things have a creator, God always existed and was not created. If there is some back story here we will never know it. Also this question is a trap, because then the next question becomes "Who created God's creator" and so on. Everything will not always come to finite, mathematical conclusion the human species can understand. If there was such an "ending" we would have scientifically found it already
to deny God again for many who subscribe
once again to moral relativism.
mathematical precision is able to happen
autonomously.
"God did it" doesn't prove anything, either.
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”
Non-denominational churches are about this. A direct relationship with God, not a relationship with religion
This is a trap question and a never ending wormhole. Only created things have a creator, God always existed and was not created. If there is some back story here we will never know it. Also this question is a trap, because then the next question becomes "Who created God's creator" and so on. Everything will not always come to finite, mathematical conclusion the human species can understand.
Quote:
This is a trap question and a never ending wormhole. Only created things have a creator, God always existed and was not created. If there is some back story here we will never know it. Also this question is a trap, because then the next question becomes "Who created God's creator" and so on. Everything will not always come to finite, mathematical conclusion the human species can understand.
But that's the point of the question because the same thing can be said of the Universe: that it always existed in one form or another. If it's possible that there can be existence "before" there was time, then it's fair game for both those who don't pretend to know how the Universe began and those who pretend it began with a creator. You don't get exclusive rights "but what was there before that?"
Well seeing as science can not explain everything, I guess people who demand mathematical or scientific proof for everything have a decision. They can either believe in a higher power, or they can continue to deny God and not have any other explanation.
2) the known universe is accelerating outward into... What? (The "known universe" seems to be a good metAphor for scientific knowledge expanding against--but not "into"--something ultimately unknowable.)
3) scientists can identify a fraction of the sources of energy that would be necessary to accelerate this expansion of the universe last the speed of light. If memory serves, that fraction has a numerator of 1 and a denominator of 10 to the 23rd power. In other words, there is vastLy, almost infinitely more energy in our universe than we can comprehend. The product of science is knowledge and humility.
4) While I think it is not productive to try to align science and religion on a point for point basis, the question of what was there before God created the light in Genesis is not unlike what was there before the Big Bang.
5) Man's relationship with God evolves in the Bible. From the demand that the first monotheist, Abraham, sacrifice his son to prove his faith to God's sacrifice of his son, there is a movement from the stern God of the early prophets to a spirit of grace and redemption.
6) I have no sophistication in physics, but the "mysteries" of life-after-death and a Fall into Time, bookended by eternity, does not seem inconsistent with our experience of time even when some physicists contend that directional time is an illusion.
At this point in my life, the desire to wrestle the infinite into the finite seems a parallel-- rather than exclusive--endeavor in science and faith.
Well seeing as science can not explain everything, I guess people who demand mathematical or scientific proof for everything have a decision. They can either believe in a higher power, or they can continue to deny God and not have any other explanation.
Richard Feynman--The Uncertainty of Knowledge - ( New Window )
Why - ( New Window )
Quote:
Those who believe blindly in faith to the exclusion of science, and those who believe in science to the exclusion of faith. Both are closed minded people who cling to a belief and shut out rational discourse.
I understand rejecting religion as a human construct. But if you equate faith with Santa Claus, you have shut your mind to logic just as tightly as those you criticize.
I equate faith with wishful thinking, what do you equate it with? Explain the "logic" of believing in something that has no basis in fact, but conveniently rids you of your biggest fear: death. Or did I just answer my own question?
Do you believe all facts are now known by humans? If you don’t, then there is plenty of things that are not based on fact which are true. Or do you believe everything that can be known is already known?
And if you think faith means nothing but “I get to go see grandma and mr. whiskers in Heaven when I die, you have no concept of what the word means.
Then consider what science has disproven about religion.
Yes, they can co-exist if one dismisses all doctrine and claims of a known supernatural being, and in the end, chooses a position of agnosticism.
Otherwise, they only exist in people who avoid making a choice by avoiding looking at the evidence.....which is cool and probably accounts for a huge amount of people in this world.
Religion is a complete fraud (spiritualism is not), though there may be evolutionary benefits to it in societies that justify it's importance, at least historically, and maybe currently as well.
I read The God Delusion about 2 years ago along with God Is Not Great (Hitchens) and several other atheist-oriented books (mostly Sam Harris) and Dawkins' God Delusion, by far, has done the most thorough job of all the ones I have read, explaining the complete scientific lack of evidence for God, complete lack of veracity by the doctrine, including the evidence showing the bogus claims for God's existence by all the major and minor religions. I came away thoroughly convinced that all supernatural claims are bogus and that the best one can believe is that there is no proof either way.
As far as the original question goes, yes they can co-exist, provided one doesn't hold all the fairy tales as evidence of the sham and takes a position of agnosticism. But this is only a general view, individuals often have their own experience that swing things one way or another. And even a scientist would find his own personal God, regardless of all know lack of evidence, should he/she have an experience that germinates some faith, even a tiny bit,
Science is not compatible with many of them by virtue of the fact that science has destroyed the veracity of the bulk of each book/doctrine that make the claims of God's existence. So it ends up taking some mental gymnastics to cherry pick the articles of faith and still believe in the God of the Old, New Testaments and Quran. But of course, one is free to do that, even if one is a scientist.
Sorry for the multiple responses in a row, but I did read almost the entire thread now and it inspired me to post a more articulate answer to the original, main question.
When the character molded after William Jennings Bryant is put on the stand by the defense, the examination forces him to explore his faith in the terms of science, and vice versa. It culminates in the idea that science and the Bible could both be right. Since the Bible doesn't really say how long a day was, it's possible to interpret the days of creation as actually spanning millions of years each and that G-d (or some greater being) put things in motion and creation is really just the natural result of evolution over those millions of years.
I always liked this approach. I believe in G-d and a greater being. But, I also absolutely believe science and the evidence it provides us. This is a topic I really want to broach with my Rabbi. Although Orthodox, he has a very modern approach to many, things. I really want to hear his thoughts. I just haven't found the right way, to ask him yet.
Quote:
In comment 14199296 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
Those who believe blindly in faith to the exclusion of science, and those who believe in science to the exclusion of faith. Both are closed minded people who cling to a belief and shut out rational discourse.
I understand rejecting religion as a human construct. But if you equate faith with Santa Claus, you have shut your mind to logic just as tightly as those you criticize.
I equate faith with wishful thinking, what do you equate it with? Explain the "logic" of believing in something that has no basis in fact, but conveniently rids you of your biggest fear: death. Or did I just answer my own question?
Do you believe all facts are now known by humans? If you don’t, then there is plenty of things that are not based on fact which are true. Or do you believe everything that can be known is already known?
And if you think faith means nothing but “I get to go see grandma and mr. whiskers in Heaven when I die, you have no concept of what the word means.
Mike-One does not have to avoid acknowledging that there is an unlimited amount of "unknowns" in the world, to know that the scientific evidence for supernatural being(s) is ZERO. Anyone making claims of which there is zero proof, as has been done for thousands of years, to the detriment and slaughter of humans, in the name of the doctrinal claims of religions, in the name of g/God(s), bears the burden of proof.
Religion has been forced to backtrack on claim after claim for hundreds of years, and science, not once.
Quote:
In comment 14199337 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 14199296 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
Those who believe blindly in faith to the exclusion of science, and those who believe in science to the exclusion of faith. Both are closed minded people who cling to a belief and shut out rational discourse.
I understand rejecting religion as a human construct. But if you equate faith with Santa Claus, you have shut your mind to logic just as tightly as those you criticize.
I equate faith with wishful thinking, what do you equate it with? Explain the "logic" of believing in something that has no basis in fact, but conveniently rids you of your biggest fear: death. Or did I just answer my own question?
Do you believe all facts are now known by humans? If you don’t, then there is plenty of things that are not based on fact which are true. Or do you believe everything that can be known is already known?
And if you think faith means nothing but “I get to go see grandma and mr. whiskers in Heaven when I die, you have no concept of what the word means.
Mike-One does not have to avoid acknowledging that there is an unlimited amount of "unknowns" in the world, to know that the scientific evidence for supernatural being(s) is ZERO. Anyone making claims of which there is zero proof, as has been done for thousands of years, to the detriment and slaughter of humans, in the name of the doctrinal claims of religions, in the name of g/God(s), bears the burden of proof.
Religion has been forced to backtrack on claim after claim for hundreds of years, and science, not once.
And I am open-minded to the existence of a superior or even supernatural being, to the extent that it has not been disproven.
I was addressing Mike's claims that since not all things are known, that it proves anything about the existence of such a being. I also think it is only reasonable to expect that extreme claims of things existing-that defy all scientific evidence to the contrary, bear the burden of proof. If this seems unreasonable, please prove to me that Zeus, Neptune and the Isis do not exist, or I may continue to claim they do.
It's worth noting the number of gods that people have believed in over the years....I believe it is about 5000. Atheists just believe in one less than almost everyone else.
When you look at the body of work of believers throughout history, it's fairly clear that the claims and doctrinal requirements and back stories have gotten better and more impervious to criticism, until science and western principles of human rights were able to attenuate those claims, some more successfully than others based on the claims, enforcement, and cultural adoptions.
Whether it is walking on water, building a ship that housed animals to survive a global flood, turning water into wine, raising the dead, God showing up pretty often to speak to, order, punish, kill people, Mohammed flying on a horse, angels, demons, virgin birth, the list goes on and on as far as claims that defy science and have conveniently stopped occurring since certain books were written.
The entire New Testament and Christianity is based on the re-used mythical themes of virgin birth and resurrection, just had better script writing.
But perhaps you meant something else in your question about the actual existence of God ? If so, the above examples greatly undermine the main claim, which leaves us with-we have zero either way.
Yes, science has proven some historical generalities claimed in the bible e.g. the existence of certain historical figures, tribes and peoples, geographies. What is lacking is proof or a reasonable explanation for anything super natural. If you know otherwise, please share.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but those who believe in a creator (quite an extraordinary claim, wouldn't you say?) come to the table with no proof whatsoever and then they claim you're condescending if you call them on it. Or that you're not open minded. I'm very open minded, that's why I continue to explore the question.
I find the story of Adam & Eve fascinating in terms of its metaphors and how they relate to the scientific discoveries which followed. If you perceive/accept it as a work of fiction, the "writer" makes some very peculiar choices. Start with the fact that after God created heaven, earth, light, etc, it is written as "one day" instead of "day one" given that the following days are day two, day three, etc (or second day, third day, etc, depending on the translation). As a metaphor, that could be a way of expressing that the Universe was created before time was created (which fits with some science-based theories on time and the Big Bang).
Now consider that Eve is created from the rib of Adam. Another odd choice for a fiction writer. Why not just say God created Eve same as he created everything else out of nothing? This fits with my own theory of the original particle--the Qulon--which splits into a Qulon/anti-Qulon pair (which multiplies exponentially). In other words, the original anti-particle springs from the particle, it doesn't come separately (and batteries are not included).
And most intriguing of all to me is the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" and what the metaphor represents in terms of what separates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom. Animals may know who to fear and who is safe, but they don't think in terms of good and evil. But man is knowledgable of good and evil because our brains are smarter than the brains of other animals. And what is the price we pay for that added intelligence? Well, it means we have a brain that's too large to fit comfortably through a woman's vaginal canal during delivery. So that whole "in pain shall she bear children" thing because Eve ate from the tree of knowledge connects to women dealing with greater pain during deliver in order to accommodate our larger brains. Metaphorically speaking.
See, I'm open-minded!
Of course there is ZERO factual proof of God. If there was proof, it would not be FAITH. FAITH is by definition a belief in something you can't prove.
Yes, organized religion is used as an excuse for many horrible things done throughout history and today. But that is not at all the same thing as having faith in something unknown if your mind is open to all possibilities.
Been reading here since I was at least 14 years old and I'm now 30. Giant fandom is the commonality that brings this community together but the diversity of discussion topics that go beyond that are one of the main reasons this place is so great. Cheers.
For those who are interested and want to go deeper into why People of faith believe, this book might answer some questions.
I think just about every seeking Christian has read the book. It lends support to the people of faith by adding muscle (reasons to believe) and know your faith isn’t just blind. Although I don’t recall if it discusses the creation issue...it’s been a while since I read it.
Here is a synopsis of the book....
A classic, authoritative defense of Christianity containing arguments from the best apologetics of the ages. Scholarly, intelligent resposes for those who question or attack the basis of Christian faith. Google Books
Of course there is ZERO factual proof of God. If there was proof, it would not be FAITH. FAITH is by definition a belief in something you can't prove.
Yes, organized religion is used as an excuse for many horrible things done throughout history and today. But that is not at all the same thing as having faith in something unknown if your mind is open to all possibilities.
Mike- While I am guilty of blending responses of faith and religion, it is important to note that I clearly see the difference. The problem is, that very often "faith" is created by the influence of religion from family upbringing, religious education, religious doctrine and many other influences. So it becomes difficult to separate the two.
To this end, when someone such as yourself claims "faith," I can only assume that some or many of the influences above are what led you to having such faith. The problem with this is that most, if not all of these influences are bogus from the foundation (doctrinal sources) on up, due to claims of authorship directly from God and the like, claims of other supernatural events that are scientifically impossible, repeated attempts to backtrack on the claims of authorship and timing, etc.
So though many people claim "faith" at the end of the day, it seems that they wouldn't have had much to plant the wishful thinking without all the fake back story they've had shoved down their throats individually, and as a species.
How does one separate from the biases of such deep-seated mythology without scrutinizing the historical and scientific realities of such wide-spread trickery?
If I include (my knowledge of) religion in my thoughts about God, I am atheist, because religion has lost all credibility. ("Religion poisons everything" -C. Hitchens).
Religion deserves absolutely no protection from criticism in a free society given it's track record and lack of credibility.
But to the point of the main question of the original post, this leads me to a "yes," because as there is no proof of God, and no proof of no God, they can easily coexist. Once dogma is introduced, this becomes less and less likely. Science can only rule out the CLAIMS that God exists that are based on falsehoods or lack of evidence, as well as make the overall orthodoxy and authorities making such claims look farcical. And this is exactly what has happened and continues to happen.
Manh as always on this topic
Mike in Marin, I liked the articulation and agreed with much of what you wrote. Thank you
And to those who are fascinated about this massive topic,
I would highly recommend reading The God Delusion. I have found Dawkins to be pretty arrogant at times on interviews, debates, etc.
But the book is very balanced and cogently argued. And it is so fascinating and he addresses so many topics across science (astronomy, evolution, paleontology, birth of the solar system), history, religious texts, Biblical evidence, morality, philosophy. It's a 7-course meal.
And one of my favorite parts of it is the piece on the Mid (?)Cambrian Burgess Shale fossil discoveries. He takes this f&^%ing worm that lived 500 million years ago and beautifully uses it for an example of evolution. It is mind-blowing. I don't want to say more as there is a bit of a really satisfying treasure he lays out.
The book is a real pleasure to read.
Quote:
Based on your response, I think you should consider the difference between faith and religion. Like Milton, you seem to be blurring the two.
Of course there is ZERO factual proof of God. If there was proof, it would not be FAITH. FAITH is by definition a belief in something you can't prove.
Yes, organized religion is used as an excuse for many horrible things done throughout history and today. But that is not at all the same thing as having faith in something unknown if your mind is open to all possibilities.
Mike- While I am guilty of blending responses of faith and religion, it is important to note that I clearly see the difference. The problem is, that very often "faith" is created by the influence of religion from family upbringing, religious education, religious doctrine and many other influences. So it becomes difficult to separate the two.
To this end, when someone such as yourself claims "faith," I can only assume that some or many of the influences above are what led you to having such faith. The problem with this is that most, if not all of these influences are bogus from the foundation (doctrinal sources) on up, due to claims of authorship directly from God and the like, claims of other supernatural events that are scientifically impossible, repeated attempts to backtrack on the claims of authorship and timing, etc.
So though many people claim "faith" at the end of the day, it seems that they wouldn't have had much to plant the wishful thinking without all the fake back story they've had shoved down their throats individually, and as a species.
How does one separate from the biases of such deep-seated mythology without scrutinizing the historical and scientific realities of such wide-spread trickery?
It is apparent that you don't believe in God or scriptures so this won't make any real difference for you, and I really have no desire to get into a back and forth about it but simply for clarifications sake in the discussion I wanted to make a couple of comments about faith. Genuine biblical faith is not really simply wishful thinking as you describe it but instead faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen. Christains also believe faith is a gift from God and not something passed down from family members. I completely understand for someone who has no belief or faith that makes little sense, but it is different than you understand it to be.
p.s.--It's not just Christians who believe their faith is a gift from God. The wording may be different, but that's true of all religions.
Quote:
Christains also believe faith is a gift from God and not something passed down from family members.
In other words, you have faith that your faith is a gift from God. No surprise there!
p.s.--It's not just Christians who believe their faith is a gift from God. The wording may be different, but that's true of all religions.
I wasn't trying to imply that only Christians believe that but instead choosing to speak only for myself and let anyone else speak to what they believe. That's often one of the problems in these types of threads, too often people try and explain and define the very things that they don't believe in.
Quote:
In comment 14203598 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
Based on your response, I think you should consider the difference between faith and religion. Like Milton, you seem to be blurring the two.
Of course there is ZERO factual proof of God. If there was proof, it would not be FAITH. FAITH is by definition a belief in something you can't prove.
Yes, organized religion is used as an excuse for many horrible things done throughout history and today. But that is not at all the same thing as having faith in something unknown if your mind is open to all possibilities.
Mike- While I am guilty of blending responses of faith and religion, it is important to note that I clearly see the difference. The problem is, that very often "faith" is created by the influence of religion from family upbringing, religious education, religious doctrine and many other influences. So it becomes difficult to separate the two.
To this end, when someone such as yourself claims "faith," I can only assume that some or many of the influences above are what led you to having such faith. The problem with this is that most, if not all of these influences are bogus from the foundation (doctrinal sources) on up, due to claims of authorship directly from God and the like, claims of other supernatural events that are scientifically impossible, repeated attempts to backtrack on the claims of authorship and timing, etc.
So though many people claim "faith" at the end of the day, it seems that they wouldn't have had much to plant the wishful thinking without all the fake back story they've had shoved down their throats individually, and as a species.
How does one separate from the biases of such deep-seated mythology without scrutinizing the historical and scientific realities of such wide-spread trickery?
It is apparent that you don't believe in God or scriptures so this won't make any real difference for you, and I really have no desire to get into a back and forth about it but simply for clarifications sake in the discussion I wanted to make a couple of comments about faith. Genuine biblical faith is not really simply wishful thinking as you describe it but instead faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen. Christains also believe faith is a gift from God and not something passed down from family members. I completely understand for someone who has no belief or faith that makes little sense, but it is different than you understand it to be.
Steve- Thanks for your response. A few points:
1. I pray to my own idea of God. What that is changes day to day. Spiritually, I have a God. Intellectually, I do not, as I work hard to separate this entity from all I have known growing up. I used to believe in a Christian God until I did my own search that included all arguments and evidence about 5 years ago.
2. "Passed down from family" is a huge oversimplification of and a straw man argument against what I wrote above. You have no simple way of bifurcating your experiences that create your biases, just like the rest of us. I wonder what your faith would be if you were raised in the Jewish faith, where there is no requirement that one believes in God ? Or perhaps if you were never exposed to
Christian church, scriptures, sunday school or the hundreds of other influences both as a child and onward ? Would you have miraculously received this gift from the Christian God then ? Or maybe from another of the 4999 other gods ?
3. And finally, your argument about " it is different than you understand it to be" goes without saying, as I have obviously endeavored to set aside what I was experienced as a child in order to do my own research which has led to where I am. However, I find it telling that this is all anyone in your position can ever get to, considering the complete lack of credibility that religion has earned over the past 6 thousand years.
So unless one has some personal experience and physical evidence of God showing himself to you, that cannot be explained by "wishful thinking," all roads lead to agnosticism, at best.
I wasn't trying to imply that only Christians believe that but instead choosing to speak only for myself and let anyone else speak to what they believe.
For those who are interested and want to go deeper into why People of faith believe, this book might answer some questions.
I think just about every seeking Christian has read the book. It lends support to the people of faith by adding muscle (reasons to believe) and know your faith isn’t just blind. Although I don’t recall if it discusses the creation issue...it’s been a while since I read it.
Here is a synopsis of the book....
A classic, authoritative defense of Christianity containing arguments from the best apologetics of the ages. Scholarly, intelligent resposes for those who question or attack the basis of Christian faith. Google Books
That book may explain why people of faith believe, but it does not provide a strong case for the critically thinking skeptic. It's a very weak case.
To your point about a greater odds of a child growing up with the similar beliefs of their parents. Of course that's the case and it's obvious if someone is more exposed to something they have a greater chance of understanding and accepting it themselves but so what? To dismiss something just because ones parents believed it doesn't make any sense either but regardless of family at some point it always comes down to the individual, what they do or don't believe, and they making their own decision.
Also to that same point there are also countless of examples of people converting to a belief different from that of their parents.
To your last point:
"So unless one has some personal experience and physical evidence of God showing himself to you, that cannot be explained by "wishful thinking," all roads lead to agnosticism, at best."
I believe anyone that has a genuine relationship with God does have a personal experience of some sort. I'm not talking about a burning bush or anything like that, but still something personal none the less.
I don't expect anyone in this day and age sees physical evidence in the way you are talking about it.
To your point about a greater odds of a child growing up with the similar beliefs of their parents. Of course that's the case and it's obvious if someone is more exposed to something they have a greater chance of understanding and accepting it themselves but so what? To dismiss something just because ones parents believed it doesn't make any sense either but regardless of family at some point it always comes down to the individual, what they do or don't believe, and they making their own decision.
Also to that same point there are also countless of examples of people converting to a belief different from that of their parents.
A few examples of people picking or changing religions is nice, but is tiny compared to the millions and millions of people threatened with a very real and painful death for leaving religions over the years. Isn't it interesting how that works ?
This is the problem, few people are free enough for it to "come down to the individual." And even in western countries where it is supposed to be free, we have social pressures, family guilt like the OP recounted, etc.
Perhaps we should make The God Delusion required reading for 7th graders and throw creationist educators in prison for child abuse.
I don't expect anyone in this day and age sees physical evidence in the way you are talking about it.
Fascinating and coincidental, how all the miracles stopped when the books got written and the word got spread by the faithful at sword-point !
Video cameras all over the place in phones these days and not once do we see God coming down and asking someone to knife their child or their blaspheming neighbor to death or tell us to stop worshipping the tits and ass of Abella Danger at risk of lightning strike !