> Zero energy. I gave the fact and the reference to zero energy universe. You just deny it.

This is an odd claim. I didn't deny anything. And then you accuse me of head in the sand???

> You refused to answer my question, so I’ll ask it again. Could your god make human life on earth if there was some change to one of the known universal constants.

I didn't refuse to answer. I don't know the answer. Speculative questions only take us to speculative answers, which is no way to handle a responsible discussion.

> you claim science points beyond science as the basis for your answer to the scientific basis for your theological beliefs. It doesn’t.

Your voicing an opinion doesn't make for a scientific case. And then you accuse me of being self-serving????

> Science points to more science to discover what we don’t know.

Of course it does, but there are many questions that science can't and will never be able to answer. Science operates in its own realm, but not in every realm.

> Your claiming a theological need as the scientific basis of your god belief.

This is an odd claim. I did no such thing.

> This isn’t science it’s your personal theology and therefore does not answer the question.

This is an odd claim. I talked to you science, and you transferred it to theology. You didn't read me accurately.

I sense a real chip on your shoulder that is preventing you from reading me accurately enough to engage in a civilized discussion. Perhaps there is no value in continuing the discussion. It seems that your bias is coloring your perceptions and reactions. We'll talk again another time.

1. Zero energy. I gave the fact and the reference to zero energy universe. You just deny it. That’s not an argument it’s just your head in the sand.

2. Designed universe. You refused to answer my question, so I’ll ask it again. Could your god make human life on earth if there was some change to one of the known universal constants.

3. Complexity : you claim science points beyond science as the basis for your answer to the scientific basis for your theological beliefs. It doesn’t. This is your self serving construct. Science points to more science to discover what we don’t know. Your claiming a theological need as the scientific basis of your god belief. This isn’t science it’s your personal theology and therefore does not answer the question.

> Science does tell us that all the energy of the universe at the time of the Big Bang and now, amounts to zero.

Let me ask you a question. Isn't it correct that the singularity, as defined by science, is a point at which all the laws of physics break down?

> Everything is so perfect

I don't know where this comes from. It's not something I said, nor does it seem to fit with your point.

> If some of the universal constants were different , could your god create human life and have it live and survive similarly to how it has with the set if universal constants we have now?

Speculation doesn't take us much of anywhere. We do know that the constants in the universe are not determined by the laws of nature, because the laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values. But in our universe, we have a very narrow range of values that make life possible.

So there are three possibilities: Physical necessity, chance, or design.

1. It can't be due to physical necessity. String theory predicts there are 10^500 different possible universes with nature's laws.
2. It can't be due to chance. The odds against all of these delicately narrow parameters happening by chance are out the roof. Life-prohibiting universes are far more probable than life-permitting ones.
3. Design offers the best explanation, if, that is, we are inferring the most reasonable explanation.

> I asked for your scientific evidence for god but now your saying science is limited and you need theism.

I gave you the scientific evidence for God.

[list][*] When we think about why there is something rather than nothing, science tells us nothing can be self-generating, and that which doesn't exist cannot be the cause of its own existence. The fact that the natural world exists points to the existence of God as the causal mechanism. In other words, all of what we have observed through science teaches us to look beyond nature for the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing.
[*] The large number of delicately balanced, fine-tuned elements of the universe that science has shown to us point us to a universe that was designed rather than one that occurred by chance.
[*] The immense complexity of all things, on which science continues to elaborate, makes it less and less likely that all this happened by time + matter + chance. Science is giving us evidence of an intelligent, personal, powerful, timeless, purposeful source.[/list]

> Science tells us nothing about before the Big Bang, your assertion here is wrong

Science does tell us that all the energy of the universe at the time of the Big Bang and now, amounts to zero.

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe[/url]

This very neatly fills the hole you have claimed about there being something from nothing.

> Everything is so perfect

If some of the universal constants were different , could your god create human life and have it live and survive similarly to how it has with the set if universal constants we have now?

If yes, then you would mount this argument whatever the universal constants are.

If no, you are placing limitations include the abilities of your omnipotent being.

I asked for your scientific evidence for god but now your saying science is limited and you need theism.

Sure. No problem.

First of all, causality. Science says that nothing can self-generate out of nothing. If you have nothing, you get nothing. And yet the universe exists. That begs a reasonable explanation.

Science tells us that before the Big Bang, the universe was a dimensionless singularity where none of the physical forces and laws were at work.

And so science insists that whatever caused the Bang to go bang was a powerful, timeless force outside of nature. Science points us to a causal mechanism outside of itself. Scientific naturalism is inadequate to explain the beginning of the universe; theism fulfills the principle of sufficient explanation.

Secondly, teleology. The universe has many attributes that are extremely (unreasonably) tuned for life. If these universal constants were even slightly different than they are, life would not exist. Science shows us [i]that[/i] the universe is this way but points us elsewhere for [i]why[/i] it is this way. When we observe the way the universe is and its finely-adjusted and tuned balance, science leads us to an explanation outside of time + chance.

Third, the complexity of what we see in nature (and what science observes) is not totally explainable by science. The more we know about the cell, for instance, the more it begs an explanation for its fantastic complexity, efficiency, and operational origins. Again, while science can give a partial explanation, theism can give a complete explanation.

Science has told us amazing things about the natural world, pointing beyond scientific explanations. If we follow Occam's Razor and pursue the simplest and most logical explanation, theism is more concordant with science than naturalism is.

Your words

[quote]“I believe in god because of the logic and scientific evidence”[/quote]


My question, what’s your scientific evidence?

You answer

[quote]“ what I’m claiming is you can’t...”[/quote]

And

[quote]“We all understand the limitations of science “[/quote]

So far your good at listing things you can’t prove scientifically. I’m pretty good at that too. Everyone is.

Your also good at saying science is limited, umm yep, no argument there.

But I wasn’t asking what you can’t prove or what are the limits of science.

I asked , directly from your question, for your scientific evidence.

> So your claiming you have scientific evidence for god but when asked for it , you list the things you don’t have and then point out the limitations of science .

No, that's not what I'm claiming. What I'm claiming is that you can't do experiments on God or to find God. You can't demand, "OK, God, we have all our equipment lined up, our technology is a go, and we have people here, so, now, perform! Now, right now. Do what our experiment demands of you."

Here's what I'm claiming: You can't do that. You can do that to test gravity, motion, force, velocity, biological growth, and the things of the natural world appropriate to scientific inquiry. But God isn't your circus monkey to perform on demand.

So your claiming you have scientific evidence for god but when asked for it , you list the things you don’t have and then point out the limitations of science .

Not very convincing.

> Would you say Catholics in general have this deficiency?

That's a good question, but I'm not able to answer it. I'm not sure generalizing is a good idea, anyway.

> I also noticed a strong denial of the self-sacrifice imperative in your words here. Is that another trapping of Catholicism and not reflective of maybe true Christianity?

There is certainly an aspect of sacrifice that is fitting to Christianity. Love itself is an act of sacrifice, and Jesus called us to deny ourselves and follow him. I got the idea in the original post that the writer was saying sacrifice was pretty much the whole thing, which I disagree with.

> I wonder what the limits of these imperatives are. I suppose that is handled on a case-by-case basis through church leadership?

Almost all the imperatives have conditions or explanations. We are to feed the hungry and help the poor, but we will never eradicate poverty. We are to tell the truth, but sometimes wisdom teaches us to hold our tongues. Etc.

> Serious question, would a mansion count?

By the standards of most of the world, all Americans live in mansions.

The Bible has no qualms with wealth, per se. Wealth is not a sin. The Bible asks three main questions about money: (1) How did you get it? (legally and justly or exploitatively?); (2) What are you doing with it? (indulging in luxuries or helping the needy?); (3) What is it doing to you?

As Slash (of G&R fame) said, "Money will trash you out." Money can mess you up, but money can also be used to great effect. R.G. LeTourneau, a Christian businessman, gave 90% of his money away during his lifetime. He used it to build schools, fund projects for the poor, etc.

By contrast, I read of a movie producer (I can't remember his name right now) who became a Christian, gave all his money away, and went to work in a soup kitchen.

Both are good examples. Le Tourneau kept earning money and he was a very wealthy man, but he used it for good. Lot's of good causes would have gone undone without him. The movie producer was very noble and did a good thing also.

The Bible doesn't tell us that one of those is right and one is wrong. We each do what God has given us to do.

> When we give to the poor, does it come with the stipulation that they should start working hard to avoid needing more handouts?

Some people are not capable of that and should be on permanent subsistence. The Bible gives an example of widows in 1 Tim. 5.3-8. Others, however, should learn to work (Eph. 4.28; 1 Thes. 4.11; Acts 20.35; and esp. 2. Thes. 3.10).

> Does the bible say we should extend life as long as possible by for example replacing failing organs in old age?

The Bible doesn't say anything about this subject, mostly because it is a modern capability (and we are still on a learning curve of how to do it well in some cases). Instead we are to use wisdom to make good decisions. We have to weigh risk, cost, and benefit. In cases like this, each case has to be taken on its own merit or folly.

> What if the goverment becomes totally corrupt, does the bible implore us to make revolution and install a new one?

The Bible never talks about revolution, but it does say that the purpose of government is to enforce the good and restrain evil. Because of that teaching, some Christians infer that revolt is allowable when the government is no longer doing what it was ordained to do. My personal position, I happen to believe in the legitimacy of revolution for just cause.

> Now, you've avoided my question. If the faith itself is about to be forgotten in the world due to worldly sinners exercising power, how do you ensure the entire religion isn't extinguished?

I wasn't trying to avoid your question, but to speak instead to the issue of morality, since that was the subject of the post. To address your question directly, the Bible tells us that there will [i]never[/i] come a time when real and true faith is forgotten. The Bible prophesies that atheism will increase and that lots of Christians will be so much like the world that you won't be able to tell the difference (and they will provide fuel for denigrating real Christians), but that there will [i]always[/i] be true Christians.

We ensure that some will always be faithful by teaching the truth, sharing our good news in appropriate ways, and living the way Christians are supposed to live.

> Your Catholic education left you with an inadequate understanding of the teachings of Christianity and what the Bible actually says.

I won't deny this. Would you say Catholics in general have this deficiency? Because that would bolster my own case a little, being that it's Catholics rallying Westerners under their banner to win the ideological war.

I also noticed a strong denial of the self-sacrifice imperative in your words here. Is that another trapping of Catholicism and not reflective of maybe true Christianity?

I like that you dare to list virtues in your post. Most are terrified to do it. So thanks. I want to gather up the ones you list here:

[list][*] value of human life,
[*] respect
[*] compassion
[*] help other people (practically)
[*] honesty,
[*] caring for the poor,
[*] visiting those in prison,
[*] telling the truth,
[*] treating each other with dignity, not harming other people
[*] feed the hungry,
[*] reduce disease, health, healing the sick,
[*] distribution of wealth, fiscal responsibility,
[*] knowledge, educated people,
[*] justice, fairness, fair governments,
[*] environmental responsibility,
[*] peace, living in peaceful community with other people
[*] influence the world, make the world a better place.
[*] imperative for self and civilization.[/list]

OK, I can't say that's not plentiful. It's actually quite complex. I wonder what the limits of these imperatives are. I suppose that is handled on a case-by-case basis through church leadership?

>> Where will you live: Trust in God. You need no material comfort.
> No. God blesses us with places to live and we are to be good caretakers of what God gives us to be responsible with.

Serious question, would a mansion count?

>> How will I eat: Trust in God. This why we have charity.
> No. We should be diligent and responsible enough to work for what we get. We work for our food.

When we give to the poor, does it come with the stipulation that they should start working hard to avoid needing more handouts?

>> If I'm in bad health: Trust in God. If you die, you will go to heaven.
> No. We have every responsibility to use medical knowledge and technology to help ourselves. There is nothing wrong with doctors or medicine in our quest for health.

I just had no idea the bible taught this, I mean beyond taking care of yourself as best you can.

Does the bible say we should extend life as long as possible by for example replacing failing organs in old age?

>> If I am stolen from: Trust in God. They will be judged in the end.
> No. The government is ordained to reward good and punish the bad. There is nothing wrong with pursue legal means to deal with crime.

What if the goverment becomes totally corrupt, does the bible implore us to make revolution and install a new one?

>> If the West falls into a sea of degeneracy, and the Christian faith is forgotten due to sheer numbers of animalistic peoples out-propagating the keepers of the faith: TRUST IN GOD.
> No. We are to work for justice and truth.

Now, you've avoided my question. If the faith itself is about to be forgotten in the world due to worldly sinners exercising power, how do you ensure the entire religion isn't extinguished?

P.S. - the 10 commandments part I will put to the side for the moment