So what would make a secular scientist believe in GOD?

[LittleNipper]

Presented here, so that we may have a place to start is one biochemist's (Dr, Sy Garte) journey from staunch atheist to firm believer: So, why are you a believer, or what would you need to become a believer in some Creator GOD.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to LittleNipper in post #1]

So, why are you a believer, or what would you need to become a believer in some Creator GOD.

There is no scientific evidence that would make someone a believer. Scientific evidence is not the Gospel. In Hebrews 11 the Greek word "hypostasis" is defined as something that is real. or the very essence of an object. It is translated as assurance or being sure. The reformers translated the Greek word "pistis" as faith. They used "pistis" to convey the idea of a particular wisdom given by God to someone who believes the Gospel message. It is only when God gives someone this wisdom that their eyes are open to their sin, and they can see that they have a sin problem. Apart from God opening their eyes with "pistis" they will be lost in their sin.

[oldbadger]

Presented here, so that we may have a place to start is one biochemist's (Dr, Sy Garte) journey from staunch atheist to firm believer:

Very briefly I 'googled' Doctor Si Garte's journey to Theism. I read some nice stories about how a biochemist became a believer, but I read not a word about what happened to Doctor Si Garte AFTER he became a believer. Not a word.

So what happened to him? What was the difference about him?

This is the thing, I communicate with lots of believers and I look to see if they follow their god's wishes, and so far I've noticed that very few if any actually do. Some can quote selected words of their God that support their lifestyles, whilst ignoring other words of their God that wish for some other course of action.

So when I hear about a conversion I look to see what their god's wishes are and then to see if the convert is doing those things.

I wonder what Doctor Si Garte is doing differently? Anything?

[Clownboat]

There is no scientific evidence that would make someone a believer. Scientific evidence is not the Gospel.

What a nonsensical thing to say (outside of the gospels not being scientific obviously). If evidence is provided that there was or is a god concept that created the universe for example, I for one would then believe in this god concept. Therefore your words are not true.

In Hebrews 11 the Greek word "hypostasis" is defined as something that is real. or the very essence of an object. It is translated as assurance or being sure. The reformers translated the Greek word "pistis" as faith. They used "pistis" to convey the idea of a particular wisdom given by God to someone who believes the Gospel message. It is only when God gives someone this wisdom that their eyes are open to their sin, and they can see that they have a sin problem. Apart from God opening their eyes with "pistis" they will be lost in their sin.

This is irrelevant preaching and does not make your un-true claim above, true. I acknowledge that you hold these beliefs though, just not sure why you air them here as if they have any meaning (outside of those that share similar beliefs).

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #63]

What a nonsensical thing to say (outside of the gospels not being scientific obviously). If evidence is provided that there was or is a god concept that created the universe for example, I for one would then believe in this god concept. Therefore your words are not true.

You seem to believe that salvation is something that you choose. Man cannot and will not choose salvation. John 15:16, "You did not choose me, I choose you." The only way to salvation is for God to choose you. You do not choose God. Matthew 22:14, "Many are called few are choosen." So you may like to believe that you would but you would not you do not have that option. The only way for you to be saved is if God convicts you of your sin to the point that you ask for forgiveness. Salvation is not about believing God exists but about agreeing with God that we are sinners in need of a savior.

This is irrelevant preaching and does not make your un-true claim above, true. I acknowledge that you hold these beliefs though, just not sure why you air them here as if they have any meaning (outside of those that share similar beliefs)

.

I was answering Littlenippers question. "So, why are you a believer, or what would you need to become a believer in some Creator GOD"

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #63]

This is irrelevant preaching and does not make your un-true claim above, true. I acknowledge that you hold these beliefs though, just not sure why you air them here as if they have any meaning (outside of those that share similar beliefs).

How is it irrelevant? Little nipper asked how we came to be Christians. Therefore the answer falls in line with the question.

[Clownboat]

You seem to believe that salvation is something that you choose.

How you got that from my words will forever remain a mystery!
Copy/Paste: If evidence is provided that there was or is a god concept that created the universe for example, I for one would then believe in this god concept.

What I actually believe and what I actually said has nothing to do with any salvation from any damnation from any god concept.

<Snipped preaching for being against the rules of debate here on this forum>

So you may like to believe that you would but you would not you do not have that option.

You and your religion hold no power over me. I actually would believe in a god concept if evidence is ever provided that one exists. I'm guessing your pride will not allow you to believe my words though. Your pride is that you have convinced yourself that you know the unknowable. I'm not impressed!

<Snipped more preaching for being against the rules of debate here on this forum>

So full circle, these words have been shown to not be true and you now can amend your thinking:
"There is no scientific evidence that would make someone a believer."

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #63]

This is irrelevant preaching and does not make your un-true claim above, true. I acknowledge that you hold these beliefs though, just not sure why you air them here as if they have any meaning (outside of those that share similar beliefs).

How is it irrelevant? Little nipper asked how we came to be Christians. Therefore the answer falls in line with the question.

Please be advised, making irrelevant comments is not against forum rules. Preaching is.
"This is irrelevant (not necessarily a problem) preaching" (this is the problem).

It is irrelevant for having nothing to do with the claim though:
"There is no scientific evidence that would make someone a believer."
Again, the preaching being irrelevant to this claim is not the issue. The preaching in place of debating is.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #66]

You and your religion hold no power over me. I actually would believe in a god concept if evidence is ever provided that one exists. I'm guessing your pride will not allow you to believe my words though. Your pride is that you have convinced yourself that you know the unknowable. I'm not impressed!

<Snipped more preaching for being against the rules of debate here on this forum>

While you may not be aware, the debate on the nature of faith and reason is a complex and significant issue in modern Christianity. The role of reason in salvation is a key point of contention that distinguishes the various denominations and the views expressed in this forum. Littlenippers' query about the scientist's conversion to Christianity is at the core of this debate. Hebrews 11 provides insight into the relationship between faith and reason. The question of whether faith stems from reason or if a desire for reason is born from faith is what divides denominations. What some may perceive as preaching is, in fact, a thoughtful contribution to a serious debate in Christianity.

[fredonly]

I watched both videos. They both make one valid point: religion and science are compatible.

Sy Garte then proceeded to make (what amounts to) a long argument from ignorance: we haven't figured out certain things (in particular: abiogenesis), therefore it must be God - or at least that God should be given strong consideration. I get the sense that he's a frustrated scientist: he held the false hope that he'd be able to figure everything out through diligent study and research - and he so wanted answers. God can answer everything about the natural world, so it filled a need of his. Regarding abiogenesis, consider these two possibilities: 1) life developed at least once in a vast universe, gradually over billions of years; 2) A mind just happens to exist that contains an infinite amount of information, not learned or developed over time, but just existing all at once - timelessly. The latter seems to me to be the tougher pill to swallow.

John Lennox proceeds down a different path - presenting the false dichotomy: either the universe created itself or Goddidit. He naively argues that without God, the universe would have to "pop into existence". That's absurd because a universe "popping into existence" implies the prior existence of something into which it can pop. A finite past entails an initial state, nothing more. He also repeats the loaded question: why is there something rather than nothing? It's loaded with the unjustified assumption that there's some metaphysical imperative for there to be nothingness, if there's no God - and he fails to take the next logical step that a theist ought to ask: why is there a God rather than nothing.

Lennox procedes to pontificate that "human intelligence and rationality is the product of the divine mind". He can believe that - it's logically possible, but it's either an untestable (and unparsimonious) hypothesis, or a statement of faith.

Lennox proclaims morality cannot be explained by science. It's certainly true that there can be no testable theory that could become established science, but the development of morality is perfectly consistent with evolution.

[fredonly]

I neglected to answer the question: "what would you need to become a believer in some Creator GOD". I'm open to convincing evidence and argument, but I'm pretty sure I've already encountered the best there is - and nothing has come close. So realistically, I'd need the creator-God to clearly expose itself to me.

I'll add that it seems irrelevant that such a being exists unless there's an afterlife- and that seems quite unlikely.