Biblical science arguments versus worldly scientific argument

So I was looking at Michael Shermer, (A skeptic that talks about all the reasons he thinks God couldn’t exist.) and I read something about how if there’s no God murder isn’t morally wrong, and mostly how that’s inaccurate. I’ll link it at the bottom, but I understand where he’s coming from. I’ve been raised Christian and I’ve done a lot of research, so most things I can confidently defend, and I’ve learned about how without a God, immaterial things cannot exist, which seems logical, like the entire Bible for me at this point, but I’ve been thinking about it, and if I didn’t believe in God, I would still totally think murder is wrong. So I get the sense of how God created all laws and I (at least think) I believe it, but I can’t seem to put together a valid argument or find one either. I think that there is a question in there but I also can’t seem to word that in an actual question?

He also said that how can one religion say that they are right out of hundreds of religions. I mean, I know I’m right, but how does one prove that?

Also, atheism isn’t a religion, but they have beliefs in the beginning, the end, and morality. At what point does it become a religion based on Darwin?

So I suppose people say the best thing to do is question everything to find the real answer, which in one sense is great, however, in this video I’m watching(also linked) he says that even if evolution is wrong, the next theory might be right. At what point is that no longer searching for the truth but trying to deny it?

He also said that there are multiple theories of evolution, and to say THE theory of evolution is wrong is a fallacy. I don’t understand that at all. Can someone explain that please?

I’m going to quote this from Michael Shermer and I don’t know how to cite it so…“Being a skeptic just means being rational and empirical: thinking and seeing before believing. Skepticism is the rigorous application of science and reason to test the validity of any and all claims.” Which I do…all the time…but “Faith is the assurance of things not seen.” So yes there is an extent to archeological proof of the Bible, but some things will always be faith, that’s what religion is right?

Apparently, science is “observable, testable, and repeatable.” Or so says my teacher. Is evolution that? No. Is the Bible that, hmm. Yes and no I suppose. What do you think? If its not, that doesn’t mean I don’t believe it, it just means I rely on the ways that I’ve seen God in my life more than straight physical evidence.

And on that note. I suppose I’m like a junior skeptic by definition considering I’m not out of college or high school for that matter, but that’s totally my personality. If I wasn’t raised Christian, I know that I would definitely be a hardcore atheist, and because of my personality, most of my friends are atheists who say they look at all the evidence but don’t actually listen to me. How do I talk to them?


To start:
If God doesn’t exist, is murder wrong?
That is easy, of course murder is wrong.
Consider a world or society where murder is entirely acceptable, no excuses required. We would no longer have any use for the entire justice system. Laws would be unenforceable. It would be impossible to have anyone willing to lead us in any way because that would be an automatic death sentence. No one could risk becoming an heir without the willingness to murder multiple relatives. Would we risk having families? Owning property would be very dangerous. All of this is mute, we would have died out centeries ago.

What we are living with now is that murder can be accepted under certain conditions. This is a harsh way to live. It’s painful both to live and to watch others who suffer. We as humans haven’t the power to change this by ourselves. We need God.

Laws revealed by God help us to develop and mature. They force us to find other more rational ways to solve, or accept our problems and challenges.

You asked about how one religion out of all can be right. In truth, Christianity is the only religion in which God became man. In every other religion man attempts to become God. Do we really want everyone to be God? I refer you to the first paragraph.

Theories. These consider all, or a selected portion of all, available knowledge and fit that into an understanding according to personal or group worldviews, or the acceptable understandings already prevalent and conditioned to.

Theories work best under finite conditions where all variables and outcomes can be controlled and observed. This explains why so many theories on the same subject can exit.

It is contentious to say this but I believe science by it’s very nature is prone to error.

I hope this proves to be helpful.

1 Like

Thank you for your thoughts!
If God isn’t real, that means immaterial things could not exist, such as in emotions, ideas, and laws, including moral laws. So if God wasn’t real yes it would be wrong, but would the very idea of it exist? Or would it just be the physical thing?

I didn’t think about how it’s the only religion where God became man.

I would agree about science.

If God is not real would creation still exist? If creation could exist without God, what would that be? We see God in His creation everywhere. If all of creation that reveals God were missing what would be left? Certainly not humans who are made to be the image bearers of God.

1 Like

Oh. I was just overthinking it and then you just completely blew away my entire thought…
That’s really helpful:)