From: noonan@icd3.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Noonan )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: How do you know God is good? (was Re: God does exist!)
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:28:49 GMT

In article <Oct.16.03.52.05.1992.27600@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
ajg00@ccc.amdahl.com (Aerin Gabrielli) writes:

}While absolute evidence in the existance of God is not possible there is
}strong evidence in science to suggest his existance.  

Below, you show "circumstancial" evidence for a creator-diety, not
necessarily the benevolent Christian God.  I am definitely interested
in hearing what you believe to be strong evidence.  Believe me when
I say that I am not posting to antagonize; I have a fervent interest
in this subject, and I find logic getting in the way of belief.

}You may find it
}interesting to note that it was on this evidence that Einstien came to a
}conclusion that there must be a God.  

From the alt.atheism FAQ:
>...Remember also that atheists do not look to famous scientists or
>philosophers in the way that theists look upon gods or prophets.  Famous
>men are humans; with knowledge in certain areas, but still humans.  In an
>area where they lack special knowledge, an atheist doesn't give any more
>credence to their words than to the words of an ordinary human.  Many
>scientists have made themselves look foolish when speaking outside of
>their area of expertise.
>
>Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the
>universe]". This quote is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein
>believed in the Christian God.  Used this way, it is out of context; it
>refers to Einstein's refusal to accept the uncertainties indicated by
>quantum theory.
>.....
>A better quote showing what Einstein thought about God is the following:
>"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of
>what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of
>human beings."

Take that for what it is worth.

Aerin Gabrielli continues...
}Science contains a great deal of
}evidence which could be classified as circumstantial evedence.  While not
}absolute in and of itself, it does provide good reason to suggest his
}existance.  To research this for yourself I would suggest the book "The
}Finger Print of God, written by two astrophysisist.  Thier
}primary proof rests in the big bang theory, which virtually all
}scientist have accepted.  Many accepted it hesitantly, because the
}implication was that if there was a beginning to the Universe there had
}to be a beginner, by the law of cause and effect, hence the existance of
}a supreme being.  They go into this in much detail.  

My question for you is the same one that I had for Stephen Baillie in
a previous post:  I can understand how people see a need to explain
the "first cause" as a diety because science has not had an
oppurtunity to explain "creation" as of yet.  This is much the same
way that people believed in fire gods and wind gods when science
had a hard time explaining those particular phenomena.  But now to my
question.  You say the scientists indicate the need for a creator,
and that is all well and good.  Did they also indicate that the
creator must necessarily be a *benevolant* one?  What circumstancial
evidence has *science* provided for this?  In my search, I have found
no evidence of a benign god; in fact, I have found just the opposite.
There is too much of unneccessary suffering in the world.  If the
scientific evidence is enough to show the probability of a god, then
from what I have seen of this world that we live in, I can only
assume it does not care.

}They also provide
}evidence, from the forces of nature ie. strong nuclear force, weak nuclear
}force, electromagnetic force etc..  Since, it appears that these forces
}and many others have been finely tuned to allow the existance of life, and
}since the odds suggest that simply random occurances cannot fully explain
}their occurance, then this implies a supreme design to all things.

I'm not sure I understand your argument of "the odds".  I think you are
assuming there was only one try at a universe, and if that didn't work,
there never would have been a universe.  I don't think that that can be
safely assumed.  Perhaps there were a million (or a million million) 
random universal occurances.  In this situation, the odds become much more
likely that a universe would have "enough order" to be "finely tuned to
allow the existance of life.  If we are talking about odds, then we must
be talking about multiple tries.

}If nothing else you'll find the material interesting.  Good luck.

Thanks, it appears that I will need it.

To sum up:  What led you to believe in an all-good, all-powerful god?

Yours in cluelessness,
-Mike Noonan