Not beliving in God = You would then do (X) bad thing..

[playhavock]

So, I have seen things like this writen and heard them spoken the beliver in God says something like:

"If I did not belive in God... I'd do all sorts of horrable things!"

To me, this is not real morality, it is akin to saying that I do not steel because I'm afraid of being caught and sent to jail. Rather, I do not steel becuase I do not want to, I do not wish to do this act, I know that stealing harms someone else, causes incress in prices, and other results that are all negtive, and more over, I simply have no desire to steel, for no other reasion that it is negtive it action and nature.

There are meny ethics and morals I hold that I hold only becuase I personaly value them, and some of them I can make a logical augment for, others I perhaps can not, I've not looked at all of them, but I do not say "If (Y) is proven wrong, I'll start doing (X) bad thing!" for I never know when or if (Y) might be proven wrong, even if it is something I am very sure about say, gravity - "Why if gravity stops working, I'll start killing!" (actualy we will all be flung off the planet due to centerfical force and killed but on the way I could try to kill someone I guess)

No, I do not make my ethics about a "if (Y) then I'll do (X)"

To me those who utter that there morals hinge upon there belifes really deep down want to do those bad things, and its only begrudgingly that they do not do them, at least thats what it seems like when they utter such things.

What do you say, would you do (X) the moment you stop thinking there is a God? What bad thing do you really want to do, but are not doing just because you think there is a God?

[Truely Free]

I am sorry, my Quote markers seem to have been messed up.

[PhiloKGB]

Science would be a venue for learning more about how God creates and upholds nature, and the scientific laws show that God is (as the Bible indicates) a God of order who is constantly involved in holding the universe in place.

Why "constantly involved"? Is God not capable of making a self-regulating cosmos?

As to the areas in which science and "religion" conflict, it is simply observed that God continues to be the best argument.

This is the total opposite of the historical record. Our collective knowledge is simply replete with instances of mechanistic explanations replacing divine ones. And I am not aware of a single example of the reverse.

I pointed out in another thread ( I think "Search For Evidence") that a lot of explaining needs to happen before even a confusing, uncompleted model of the worlds beginning can be constructed apart from God, and it is not nearly as possible as creation (at least in my opinion).

God has no explanatory power in the beginning of the universe. God answers, however unhelpfully, the question, "Who or what did this?" but is utterly silent on the question of how.

[Truely Free]

PhiloKGB, it's good to see you back
Sorry it took so long, weekends are kinda "minecraft with the hubby" days

It seems a bit off topic, but does addresses my post, so I will trust Playhavok will not feel to badly about us slightly veering off the OP.

Why "constantly involved"? Is God not capable of making a self-regulating cosmos?

Your question is almost impossible to answer directly. To answer we would have to answer a lot of questions into which we have to insight at all. It's not addressed by science, theology, and from what I can see, philosophy. There are many who do hold to this view, that God created the world, much like a light switch, and can turn it on and walk away. I believe that Thomas Jefferson was of that viewpoint, though I might be wrong on that.
In order to know if God is "capable" if you put it, we would have to know answers such as these "Does God do it because it is good, or is it good because God does it" (God loves, if God doesn't love he isn't good. so either he is evil or love is evil) "Can God contradict His nature." (The Bible teaches the nature of God is one that is involved in what He created) and " Why would God create something that He had no interest in being involved with?"

Now, is God involved? If the Bible is true, yes. If the millions of people who have subscribed to some form of deism are right, yes. If God exists, yes.
Many would point to consistency in scientific laws, to morality, to natural instinct exc to further point out God's involvement. I would say, if God is real, yes He is involved, if He is not involved, He might as well not be real. He could have simply created the building blocks which by chance created earth....In case, we would know nothing about Him and have no reason to even conjecture about Him.

Our collective knowledge is simply replete with instances of mechanistic explanations replacing divine ones. And I am not aware of a single example of the reverse.

Often Science chooses either/or, when both and is a better choice. Science cannot prove or disprove God through direct measuring exc. When trying to use Science to disprove God one often tries to prove that something can exist without God and point out that than God has been replaced by science.
What is often left unconsidered however, is that God is a God of Law and order. What would be wrong with His creating a scientific law to govern the world He created?
Most scientist would assume that the laws always existed. How could the laws of matter exist before there was matter? As matter was coming into existence, it began acting in a certain way, they say, by itself. The laws are pre-existent. A Christian doctrine would say that the law was not pre-existence and is not self-governing. It was created by God when he created matter and He governs it.
It actually seems like a valid option, when you consider that we have never seen any new laws evolve or existent laws stop working. (we simply come to a better understanding of how it works) Evolution and "abiogenesis" itself contradicts laws of science, such as the Newton's Law of Motion and the second law of Thermodynamics. (at least in my very limited understanding)

God answers, however unhelpfully, the question, "Who or what did this?" but is utterly silent on the question of how.

I entirely agree (well, not on the unhelpful part). The "How" is answered through science, which is why a Christian would argue that Science and God are not enemies, but one helps us understand the other better, and one cannot replace the other. Science my change our understanding of God on some levels (evolution for instance, can conflict with a very conservative view on Creationism) but doesn't even have to conflict with it there (as I pointed out before, doesn't necessarily replace or conflict with God. Check out the theory of "theistic evolution". Many notable Scientists support ID as the best explanation for abiogenesis.)
Thank you for your excellent arguments. I hope I have adequately answered (or at least given my viewpoint) on your arguments.

[PhiloKGB]

Now, is God involved? If the Bible is true, yes. If the millions of people who have subscribed to some form of deism are right, yes. If God exists, yes.
Many would point to consistency in scientific laws, to morality, to natural instinct exc to further point out God's involvement.

Indeed, you mentioned scientific laws before as indicative of God's constant involvement, which seemed odd to me. I don't know what it means to say, for example, that God is constantly involved in gravity. Is God intentionally holding the Moon in such a way that it moves 2 cm away from the Earth per year? And even if God is somehow involved in morality, it certainly doesn't appear as if he's enforcing a standard with any regularity.

Often Science chooses either/or, when both and is a better choice.

I am not aware of a single instance of that.

Science cannot prove or disprove God through direct measuring exc.

I find that to be a consequence of the thoroughgoing efforts of apologists to make God both real and unreal, if you will. If one constantly tweaks God's characteristics so that he's in principle unobservable to data-gathering methods, then it's no surprise that data-gathering methods don't detect him.

When trying to use Science to disprove God one often tries to prove that something can exist without God and point out that than God has been replaced by science.
What is often left unconsidered however, is that God is a God of Law and order. What would be wrong with His creating a scientific law to govern the world He created?

Can God really be said to be one thing or another? Sure he's a god of law and order... until he wants to intervene, perform miracles, answer prayers, etc.

Most scientist would assume that the laws always existed. How could the laws of matter exist before there was matter? As matter was coming into existence, it began acting in a certain way, they say, by itself. The laws are pre-existent. A Christian doctrine would say that the law was not pre-existence and is not self-governing. It was created by God when he created matter and He governs it.
It actually seems like a valid option, when you consider that we have never seen any new laws evolve or existent laws stop working. (we simply come to a better understanding of how it works)

Well, it seems to be the case that "laws" of the universe aren't laws in any familiar sense. They're more like observations that haven't been contravened.

Evolution and "abiogenesis" itself contradicts laws of science, such as the Newton's Law of Motion and the second law of Thermodynamics. (at least in my very limited understanding)

Having a significant amount of the requisite schooling, I can assure you that neither abiogenesis nor evolution violates any law.

[Truely Free]

Hey, PhiloKBG
I am excited to continue this conversation, but I was wondering if you would be willing to move this particular topic to a different thread.
I realize that I was the one who brought up this topic, and that it may have some impact on my answers to the OP; but it does seem to be off topic. I don't want to be rude and commandeer Playhavok's thread, especially if there are other people who want to answer the OP or the related posts.
I would (or you could if you prefer) set up the debate in the "Christianity and Apologetics" forum, under the heading of "Are Science and Religion at War" or something along those lines (perhaps you have a suggestion).
I would refer back to the original thread, but only block copy your reply. I might however clarify with a re-worded question or two.
I am very eager to answer your excellent post, especially when I have so many answers turning around in my head, but I don't want to do this without your consent, so I will be waiting for your answer. Feel free to move it yourself if you don't want to wait on me, and would like to clarify your points yourself.

[playhavock]

my next post in right and wrong will totaly be about how wrong it is that people keep loosing letters to my avatar name all the time.

Anyway thanks for not derailing too much. Choo choo.