Blacknad writes:
One person who does think there is clear evidence for God is Professor Anthony Flew.
Naturally, I agree with Flew. However, IMHO, I offer the following theory (god-given idea) of GØD:
God and GØD
There is a difference between God and GØD. Belief in God requires faith. But GØD can be understood through reason and patient research.
Rev,
You are off topic.
The difference between God and GØD is irrelevant to this thread topic.
And for a retired minister there is so much wrong with your understanding of mainstream Christian theology that it defies belief - however this is not the place to discuss it.
On a science forum, there can only be one interpretation of the title 'Evidence for God'. It is about whether there is anything that supports or points to a non-naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe within our body of scientific knowledge.
For example, Flew has said that the complex design found in the human genome and certain aspects of cosmology 'presents an overwhelming argument to design'.
Now the questions are something like:
Is there any scientific evidence that would be accepted as evidence for a designer?
Is that evidence there?
Are we interpreting it in the right way?
And so on...
The argument is nothing to do with the nature of that God, and therefore presents no opportunity for evangelism, because a designer may be nothing more than an impersonal force or a deistic non-personal, non-involved intelligence. The argument leads to no definition of God.
Blacknad.
