The Case for Christianity

[Brunswick1954]

Spirituality
It has often been suggested that science has proven that God does not exist. The main thrust of this argument is that Science does not presume the existence of God and therefore we don't need the concept of God in order to explain the universe and therefore there's no God. Besides, look at the suffering and evil in this world. If God exists, why would He allow evil?

We have moved far from the world that our ancient forefathers inhabited. Back then, believing in the supernatural was self-evident. We need to see our world through their lens if we were to discuss the existence of God.

The nature that science investigates is not the Nature we experience. Nature, to us, is alive - the plants and animals in it. Although science can tell us how milk, for example, is derived from grass, or bones from calcium, we are not yet able to replicate any of these natural processes. We cannot, for example, make milk from grass nor bones from milk. In repairing our teeth, the dentist does not have a paste that they can apply to the tooth to fill the hole that will dry into enamel.

This is odd, don't you think? We can uncover the beginning of the universe, discover black holes, even create artificial intelligence but we have not penetrated even the simplest form of life.

It seems to me that science, despite its powerful discoveries and penetrative investigative tools, has only scratched the laws of nature that it set out to do. The bridge between the nature that science has been able to discover and explain and the Nature we experience is life. We live in a world of living things whilst science has only been able to study the world of the dead.

The origin of the word "spirit" is spirare, which simply means to breathe. In other words, every thing that is alive is spirit. To rationally discuss this Nature, we cannot turn to science but to psychology, philosophy and religion.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Spirituality
It has often been suggested that science has proven that God does not exist. The main thrust of this argument is that Science does not presume the existence of God and therefore we don't need the concept of God in order to explain the universe and therefore there's no God. Besides, look at the suffering and evil in this world. If God exists, why would He allow evil?

This paragraph conflates several distinct arguments and misrepresents each. First, science does not claim to disprove God—it operates on methodological naturalism, which means it explains phenomena based on observable causes. If science can explain the universe without invoking God, that weakens the need for a God hypothesis, but it doesn’t constitute disproof. Second, the problem of evil is not a scientific argument but a philosophical one: it challenges the coherence of a benevolent, omnipotent God in light of gratuitous suffering. Saying “evil exists” doesn’t prove there is no God, but it does make the traditional theistic God morally incoherent without a compelling theodicy, which theologians still struggle to provide.

We have moved far from the world that our ancient forefathers inhabited. Back then, believing in the supernatural was self-evident. We need to see our world through their lens if we were to discuss the existence of God.

Why should we rely on the worldview of people who thought lightning was the wrath of gods and disease was caused by demons? Our ancient ancestors lacked the tools of modern science, and while their worldview was understandable given their context, it was based on ignorance—not insight. Progress means building on their questions, not freezing our answers at their level. To evaluate claims about reality, we need better methods, not older myths.

The nature that science investigates is not the Nature we experience. Nature, to us, is alive - the plants and animals in it. Although science can tell us how milk, for example, is derived from grass, or bones from calcium, we are not yet able to replicate any of these natural processes. We cannot, for example, make milk from grass nor bones from milk. In repairing our teeth, the dentist does not have a paste that they can apply to the tooth to fill the hole that will dry into enamel.

This is false. Science absolutely investigates the Nature we experience—plants, animals, ecosystems, physiology, cognition. Saying we cannot “make milk from grass” is misleading: cows do that through biochemical pathways that we understand in great detail, and lab-based synthetic milk is already in production using genetically engineered yeast and fermentation. Similarly, the fact that dentists can’t regrow enamel yet isn’t evidence of mystery—it’s evidence of the complexity of biological materials. This is an argument from ignorance: “We don’t know how yet, so it must be something deeper.” But “not yet” is not the same as “never.”

This is odd, don't you think? We can uncover the beginning of the universe, discover black holes, even create artificial intelligence but we have not penetrated even the simplest form of life.

There’s nothing odd about the fact that some problems (like origin-of-life) are harder than others (like cosmology). Human understanding progresses unevenly. But it’s false to say we haven’t penetrated life. We’ve mapped genomes, engineered microbes, cloned organisms, edited DNA, created synthetic cells, and built molecular machines. The claim that life is untouched by science is simply incorrect. What we haven’t done is completely recreated abiogenesis, but we’ve come far—and invoking mystery as a placeholder for spirit is premature.

It seems to me that science, despite its powerful discoveries and penetrative investigative tools, has only scratched the laws of nature that it set out to do. The bridge between the nature that science has been able to discover and explain and the Nature we experience is life. We live in a world of living things whilst science has only been able to study the world of the dead.

This is a romantic but incorrect dichotomy. Science studies the living constantly—medicine, biology, ecology, neuroscience, cognitive psychology—all deal with life in motion. Even artificial intelligence is being designed to mimic living cognition. The statement that science studies only the “world of the dead” is poetic but untrue. Living systems are measured, modeled, and manipulated in labs daily. Saying life escapes science is like saying music escapes physics—only if you ignore how sound works.

The origin of the word "spirit" is spirare, which simply means to breathe. In other words, every thing that is alive is spirit. To rationally discuss this Nature, we cannot turn to science but to psychology, philosophy and religion.

Yes, “spirit” comes from “breath”—because early humans saw breath as the sign of life. But etymology doesn’t grant metaphysical weight. If we redefine “spirit” to mean “life,” we’re no longer discussing something supernatural. As for rational discussion: philosophy and psychology contribute greatly, but religion often makes claims that are not rationally defensible. If your view of life depends on unverifiable metaphysics, it’s not rational discourse. Science may not answer every question, but it’s the most reliable method we have for separating what’s true from what just feels meaningful.

NHC

 

[steve_bank]

Faulty premise.

'Science' says nothing about god or gods. Some with prominent science credentials may have a belief or position on existence of gods, but that does not make it 'science'.

Science as broadly invoked in these debates is a top level broad category with subcategories. Subcategories t hat are filled by different people around the world with different beliefs including Christians.

Note there is no 'pope' of science or central authority that deems something right or wrong. No one person or group who speaks for 'science'.

Theories are expressed in units of measure defined in Systems International. For example kilogt5ams, meters, and seconds.

If something can not be questioned by SI units it can not be measured. If it can not be measured and numerically expressed it is philosophy not science.

Theories are expressed in unis of measure defined in Systems International. As to the question of existence of the bible god, there is no science to apply.

If a Christian claims the Earth and Adam and Eve were created some 400n years ago science can refute the specific clam. Sam,e as to the occurrence of the biblical flood.

A philosophical conclusion based in science can be reached that no god is required fort the exi9stence of the universe.

Such a position is a threat to for exam the RCC. The RCC with its 2000 years of power, influence, and wealth falls apart it is proven a od does not exist. Powerful current and historical fo0rces at play all focused on exi9stence of the bible god.

Gaza a glaring example, Israeli Zionism. G0d gave the land to them.

Atheism is not just immoral to the RCC, atheism is a threat to their position.

Personally I do not see any reason why the universe can not have always existed and always will exist. Form changes over time. No beginning or end, no creation by a god requi9red.

From whence came god?

 

[DBT]

Perhaps some form of a cyclic universe.

 

[steve_bank]

Perhaps some form of a cyclic universe.

The possibilities are endless.

From my 70s astronomy class at tie tie ther was a question of the misting mass of the universe.

Depending on them ass assigned the universe could be oscillatory, steady state, or an expansuion followed by a caboose IOW one cycle.

The term "missing mass" in the context of 1970s astrophysics refers to the discrepancy between the amount of mass astronomers could observe in the universe and the amount of mass they knew
must be present based on its gravitational effects.

 

[James Brown]

It seems strange to me that we want to agree with 'ancient forefathers' if they believed things we want to believe. Not the details, of course--just the basics.

But then we freely discard their beliefs when they don't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[bilby]

The origin of the word "spirit" is spirare, which simply means to breathe. In other words, every thing that is alive is spirit.

On the contrary, the implication is that everything that is alive breathes.

Which is one of the most absurd of the myriad attempts by humans to define what it means to be "alive".

The entire brewing industry depends on yeast living, growing, and reproducing in entirely anaerobic conditions. Any definition of "alive" that requires us to reject one of the worlds oldest industries as impossible, is a definition that shows its adherents to be abysmally ignorant of reality at the most fundamental level.

To suggest that the absence of breath indicates the absence of life, is so incredibly parochial and antropocentric as to show that those entertaining the suggestion have a depth of ignorance that is matched only by their wealth of self-importance.

 

[Elixir]

Yes, “spirit” comes from “breath”—because early humans saw breath as the sign of life.

I heard a rogue (female) theologian outlining the etymology of spirit and in particular "soul". She argued that "soul" never referred to a separate entity, but rather, was another reference to breath, accepted at the time as synonymous with "life".
Seems that religions tend to make a mess of their own doctrines in the same manner that coding becomes unwieldy and fragile when it is "updated" by remming out huge sections and adding copious new sections that may or may not be compatible with what remains of the original code...

 

[pood]

I’ve heard theists argue that because we don’t know how life began and we haven’t made it in the lab, it follows that Giod created life.

What happens if we do make life in the lab?

“You see, you created life in the lab! That means life needs a creator! Therefore, God created life in nature!”

 

[pood]

Anyway, what is the case for Christianity? Certainly nothing in the OP presented it.

 

[bilby]

What happens if we do make life in the lab?

We did that, fifteen years ago.

Researchers at the JCVI in 2010 successfully created a synthetic bacterial cell that was capable of replicating itself. The team synthesized a 1.08 million base pair chromosome of a modified Mycoplasma mycoides. The synthetic cell is called: Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. The DNA was designed in a computer, synthesized, and transplanted into a cell from which the original genome had been removed. The original molecules and on-going reaction networks of the recipient cell then used the artificial DNA to generate daughter cells. These daughter cells are of synthetic origin and capable of further replication, solely controlled by the synthetic genome.

(wikipedia)

They decided to declare that it didn't count, and subsequently to ignore it and pretend it never happened.

 

[TomC]

Anyway, what is the case for Christianity? Certainly nothing in the OP presented it.

This is why I see nothing of importance to respond to in the thread.
No connection whatsoever between "The Case for Christianity" and the opinions in the OP. I honestly agree with most of the OP, but it isn't relevant to any particular religion. Much less one as fundamentally irrational as Christianity.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

What happens if we do make life in the lab?

We did that, fifteen years ago.

Researchers at the JCVI in 2010 successfully created a synthetic bacterial cell that was capable of replicating itself. The team synthesized a 1.08 million base pair chromosome of a modified Mycoplasma mycoides. The synthetic cell is called: Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. The DNA was designed in a computer, synthesized, and transplanted into a cell from which the original genome had been removed. The original molecules and on-going reaction networks of the recipient cell then used the artificial DNA to generate daughter cells. These daughter cells are of synthetic origin and capable of further replication, solely controlled by the synthetic genome.

(wikipedia)

They decided to declare that it didn't count, and subsequently to ignore it and pretend it never happened.

To be fair, it DID require using some off-the-shelf parts...

 

[pood]

What happens if we do make life in the lab?

We did that, fifteen years ago.

Researchers at the JCVI in 2010 successfully created a synthetic bacterial cell that was capable of replicating itself. The team synthesized a 1.08 million base pair chromosome of a modified Mycoplasma mycoides. The synthetic cell is called: Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. The DNA was designed in a computer, synthesized, and transplanted into a cell from which the original genome had been removed. The original molecules and on-going reaction networks of the recipient cell then used the artificial DNA to generate daughter cells. These daughter cells are of synthetic origin and capable of further replication, solely controlled by the synthetic genome.

(wikipedia)

They decided to declare that it didn't count, and subsequently to ignore it and pretend it never happened.

Thanks. I somehow missed this.

 

[pood]

The OP sets a high bar: not just the case for a creator God, but the Christian variety. I am waiting on tenterhooks to see if the bar will be met.

Nah, not really.

 

[bilby]

What happens if we do make life in the lab?

We did that, fifteen years ago.

Researchers at the JCVI in 2010 successfully created a synthetic bacterial cell that was capable of replicating itself. The team synthesized a 1.08 million base pair chromosome of a modified Mycoplasma mycoides. The synthetic cell is called: Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. The DNA was designed in a computer, synthesized, and transplanted into a cell from which the original genome had been removed. The original molecules and on-going reaction networks of the recipient cell then used the artificial DNA to generate daughter cells. These daughter cells are of synthetic origin and capable of further replication, solely controlled by the synthetic genome.

(wikipedia)

They decided to declare that it didn't count, and subsequently to ignore it and pretend it never happened.

To be fair, it DID require using some off-the-shelf parts...

...none of which are mysterious, ensouled, or require the breath of a God to make them work*.








* This is a good thing, as 'breath of God' is currently on back-order at Sigma-Aldrich.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Several months ago, a wise man visited this site and taught us all the parameters of debate and the basis of religious proofs. To prove the almighty Jehovah, you must use The Book. The Book that has been mankind's rock for centuries. The Book that settles all disputes. The Book that wise men throughout the generations have returned to, reverently. And when they do return, they find that The Book will never fail them. Have you read your dictionary today?

 

[pood]

Oxford dictionary, please note. Not just any old dictionary, but The Sacred Dictionary.

 

[James Brown]

Yes, it's a common tactic among Christian apologists* that if you can get your intended target to perhaps admit that maybe there might be some kind of mysterious creative force behind natural phenomena, if for no other reason than because they can't point to an actual physical reason for the phenomena, then the next logical step is to insist that the person must ask Jesus Christ into their heart and become saved.

And if they don't, they are being hypocritical because they already admitted that God exists, so clearly they don't want to be a Christian because they are selfish and sinful and bad.

That's why you can say you are presenting an argument for Christianity per se, but only mention things like God and Faith and Souls, and whatnot. No actual specifics about Christ or Christianity are necessary, because that will come along in lock-step once we've all agreed that some god must exist somehow.

* I know it's a common tactic because I used to employ it when I was a Christian apologist.

 

[Elixir]

* I know it's a common tactic because I used to employ it when I was a Christian apologist.

You were a really shitty Christian apologist.
The admission by the mark that they are not omniscient, should be followed IMMEDIATELY by a demand that they accept JC as their lord and savior.
None of that dancing around with the “some creative force” bullshit - ya gotta demand that they open their heart and wallet right then and there!