The Science Community Acknowledges God??

[WeaponX]

It is not exactly a ringing endorsement but hey, it's a start.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of !@#$%^&*. Andrews.

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org (http://www.infidels.org) Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.

Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.

[TheOtherSide]

community...not so much,its just one man

[XenoWang]

In the very least it's a positive change within the very institution that athiests base their entire lives on.

But to comment on the article: it shouldn't take decades of scientific pondering to conclude that perhaps we could not have originated from scratch /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[psaturn]

It is like, D'UH !!! It was very obvious to me from the beginning that life could not start by itself and that creatures on Earth were far too complicated to have come about by chance alone !!

[TheOtherSide]

[ QUOTE ]
life could not start by itself

[/ QUOTE ]

Even a religious person can't comprehend a "beginning" of anything, it just doesn't make sense with the way we view time.

Lately, ABC has inspired me to really try and become religious, and I really do try to be, but I just have problems (better word would be the made up word: incapabilities) with faith.

edit: This is what I've been feeling the past few weeks:

Whenever two parties are arguing about the existance of [a] God, whether Catholic, Lutheran, or Jewish (or what have you), the end of the religious party's argument is always "Well thats where faith comes in." At first, I used to be annoyed when people would say this, but now I've taken a different look at it. Faith is completely blind, without factual data to back it up, it's the soul's mind. This means, that faith, is quite dependent upon culture and family values. Faith could be placed in Allah, seemingly just as easily as God. So I've reached the conclusion that having faith in a higher being, is what is important, not as much as who it is. I didn't describe my argument for my viewpoint as well as I wish I could have.....but oh well.

note: Yes, I've seen Dogma, it did not assist in coming to this conclusion, this was entirely based upon my own thoughts.

[William Ustav]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
life could not start by itself

[/ QUOTE ]

Even a religious person can't comprehend a "beginning" of anything, it just doesn't make sense with the way we view time.

Lately, ABC has inspired me to really try and become religious, and I really do try to be, but I just have problems (better word would be the made up word: incapabilities) with faith.

edit: This is what I've been feeling the past few weeks:

Whenever two parties are arguing about the existance of [a] God, whether Catholic, Lutheran, or Jewish (or what have you), the end of the religious party's argument is always "Well thats where faith comes in." At first, I used to be annoyed when people would say this, but now I've taken a different look at it. Faith is completely blind, without factual data to back it up, it's the soul's mind. This means, that faith, is quite dependent upon culture and family values. Faith could be placed in Allah, seemingly just as easily as God. So I've reached the conclusion that having faith in a higher being, is what is important, not as much as who it is. I didn't describe my argument for my viewpoint as well as I wish I could have.....but oh well.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem here is, you look at it from the wrong perspective. First of all, you feel that you NEED to believe in a deity for some reason, just because you have to. But you need to research the theological need for a personal savior.

Having faith in a higher being doesn't help you reach salvation. You need to realize WHY you have the faith.

Have you read any Bible studies or something?

[TheOtherSide]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is, you look at it from the wrong perspective. First of all, you feel that you NEED to believe in a deity for some reason, just because you have to. But you need to research the theological need for a personal savior.

Having faith in a higher being doesn't help you reach salvation. You need to realize WHY you have the faith.

Have you read any Bible studies or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, that's how I've felt my whole life up until recently (about d deity)

I went to a catholic church for about the first 14 years or so of my life, including religion class, so I do know a bit about the Bible (though,bit is a key word), along with friends talking to me about it.

Like, I said...I don't really know how to articulate my feelings on this....also, I'm still trying to figure it all out.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[lyle]

DO you look down upon those of us who are non believers?

I would consider myself an athiest for the most part. I believe in being a good person, and try to leave it at that.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
DO you look down upon those of us who are non believers?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one looks down on you for that. Could you tell us why you don't believe though?

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in being a good person, and try to leave it at that.

[/ QUOTE ]


The problem then is, what is good? For me being good may consist of cheating on my wife. If my definition of good includes that, by what right does anyone have to say it is not good?

The problem with this type of thinking is that "good" does not really exist. "good" is defined by each person, on an individual level.

For example Chemical ali believed he was "good". We believe he was "evil". Who is to say who is right by this standard?

The answer is, God has already decided murder is evil. That is the absolute standard.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[lyle]

I believe that most people know what being a good person involves.
I love my wife and my family. I treat people with respect, I am kind, generous, and truly care about the well being of others and our planet. That in my opinion defines good.

As for why I dont believe. I think we are a fluke, a perfect yet lucky combination of circumstance that has led to a great planet with many great life froms.

[MC-JayCore]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem then is, what is good? For me being good may consist of cheating on my wife. If my definition of good includes that, by what right does anyone have to say it is not good?

The problem with this type of thinking is that "good" does not really exist. "good" is defined by each person, on an individual level.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, reminds me of my moral theory class for philosophy from Uni last year /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[given_to_fly]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that most people know what being a good person involves.
I love my wife and my family. I treat people with respect, I am kind, generous, and truly care about the well being of others and our planet. That in my opinion defines good.

As for why I dont believe. I think we are a fluke, a perfect yet lucky combination of circumstance that has led to a great planet with many great life froms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what you're missing is that if, firstly we don't have a standard by which we know is good, as God gives us the law stating what is good and bad, then who decides it? If we decide it ourselves, then why bother legislating against murder, for it may be "good" to you and who can say that it isn't if thats the case. Hitler didn't think he was wrong and he decided for himself what was good. Of course I'm in no way relating you to Hitler, just an example of one person believing in their own standard of good and the mess that it is.

Secondly, if we arrived by chance, then we don't have purpose. We're just random beings, so then it comes back to the question, "what is good?". If there was no God and no purpose then nothing is good but what we falsely create it to be.

[MC-JayCore]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, if we arrived by chance, then we don't have purpose. We're just random beings, so then it comes back to the question, "what is good?". If there was no God and no purpose then nothing is good but what we falsely create it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this reminds me of The Outsider by Camus... /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[given_to_fly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, if we arrived by chance, then we don't have purpose. We're just random beings, so then it comes back to the question, "what is good?". If there was no God and no purpose then nothing is good but what we falsely create it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this reminds me of The Outsider by Camus... /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

my friend gave me that book to read, is it any good?

[MC-JayCore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, if we arrived by chance, then we don't have purpose. We're just random beings, so then it comes back to the question, "what is good?". If there was no God and no purpose then nothing is good but what we falsely create it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this reminds me of The Outsider by Camus... /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

my friend gave me that book to read, is it any good?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is awesome. Plus it is really short so even if you don't like it, it will be over quick /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

However, you must understand that really the whole point of the book is that "Nothing matters." If you wouldn't like to read a novel with this as it's main point, you may not enjoy it /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that most people know what being a good person involves.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have still not defined what "good" is, so this is a mute point.

[ QUOTE ]
I love my wife and my family. I treat people with respect, I am kind, generous, and truly care about the well being of others and our planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool! But that still does not tell me what "good" is.

[ QUOTE ]
That in my opinion defines good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let say mine (purely an example here) is to cheat on my wife and and neglect my family. Treat people without respect, be unkind, selfish, and care less about the well being of others or the planet.

Who are you to say otherwise? In other words the point I am trying to make is who says your opinion of what is good is better than mine?

Moreover, if you have ever lied, stolen, littered, cursed at someone on the road, ever been selfish, mistreated your family in any way you have broken your own laws. Therefore you are guilty of breaking your own law. So not only is your definition of good baseless, it is has also been corrupted by your own actions.

Furthermore, If you can tell us the above definition is what "good" is, yet can not keep the definition yourself, what would that make you? The same thing it makes the rest of us....hypocrites. Hypocrites to mankind, God and even our own hearts.

Our point is that God established absolute rights and wrongs. None of us are good by God's standard and we are all guilty of breaking His laws. Furthermore, only God can be a perfect judge as He has never broken His own law. He is perfectly Holy.

Regarding being "good" by your terms, If I go to a judge and say, "Judge I know I stole money from the bank, but you know I've been a good person most of my life, I helped old ladies cross the street, I give to United way and I love my kids and my country, so I should get off and go free." If that is your defense you'd be laughed out of the court room. This is the same justice of God's law. We have broken His laws and there is a penalty to pay. The only hope of coming away clean is for someone else to pay the price. That is what Christ did. He paid your fine and mine.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/passion/33.jpg

[ QUOTE ]
As for why I dont believe. I think we are a fluke, a perfect yet lucky combination of circumstance that has led to a great planet with many great life froms.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then you have a faith I admire. The odds of that happening are zero, and that has been proven hundreds of times both with mathematics and emperical science.

[given_to_fly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Now this reminds me of The Outsider by Camus... /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

my friend gave me that book to read, is it any good?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is awesome. Plus it is really short so even if you don't like it, it will be over quick /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

However, you must understand that really the whole point of the book is that "Nothing matters." If you wouldn't like to read a novel with this as it's main point, you may not enjoy it /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

haha, doesn't sound like its for me. but yeah it looks short, so who knows, maybe in between other readings i'll pop through it quickly.

[Kitosho]

The problem here is a lack of differentiation between objective and subjective morality. There IS such a thing as objective good, and it's not simply "the Ten Commandments". Objective morality is based off of respecting and living to our own humanity.

For example: Did jews deserve to be put in gas chambers? No. No matter what Hitler THOUGHT, it wasn't right because of the simple fact that they are humans, just as much as any other human is a human, and their humanity is something only we, and NO OTHER species on earth, have. Humanity is the posession of an ego, the ability to create a personally validated conscience. Sharks and tigers most likely do not feel guilt or hold grudges. Humans do. Ducks probably don't spend time pondering their own personal character. Humans do.

So the real question is: Where did our humanity come from? In my opinion, it came from God.

Then again, maybe it's all just my subjective opinion? :P

-Kitosho

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Kitosho]

Okay.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Coz]

[ QUOTE ]
You are presenting the mindset of secular humanism. I should know - I was one! /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Secular humanism is a cult that is striving to eradicate society of the very notion of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you change your views? Was anything or anyone responsible? Just curious.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is a lack of differentiation between objective and subjective morality. There IS such a thing as objective good, and it's not simply "the Ten Commandments". Objective morality is based off of respecting and living to our own humanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This still does not answer the question however. Define whom sets the perimeters for "subjective and objective good"?

‘There is no truth’—this would mean that this sentence itself is not true.

‘We can never know anything for certain’—so how could we know that for certain?

‘A statement is only meaningful if it is either a necessary truth of logic or can be tested empirically’ (the once popular verification criterion for meaning of the ‘Logical Positivists’)—this statement itself is neither a necessary truth of logic nor can it be tested empirically, so it is meaningless by its own criteria.

‘There are no moral absolutes, so we ought to be tolerant of other people’s morals’—but ‘ought’ implies a moral absolute that toleration is good.

[ QUOTE ]
For example: Did jews deserve to be put in gas chambers? No. No matter what Hitler THOUGHT, it wasn't right because of the simple fact that they are humans, just as much as any other human is a human, and their humanity is something only we, and NO OTHER species on earth, have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it is not a good thing to murder. But I have a basis for that, the absolute morality of God. You still have not presented any base for your belief that would make your opinion any more valid than Hitlers.

[ QUOTE ]
Humanity is the posession of an ego, the ability to create a personally validated conscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now the conscience evolved? /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Explain how the conscience evolved.

Moreover, even with your theory, you just validated my point. A "personally validating conscience", ie. what is considered right in your eyes, has no validity over what is considered right in my eyes.

[ QUOTE ]
Sharks and tigers most likely do not feel guilt or hold grudges.

[/ QUOTE ]

They also do not have a conscience. Humans do, a completely unexplainable event.

[ QUOTE ]
Humans do.

[/ QUOTE ]

And as you noted, create their own ideas of right and wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Ducks probably don't spend time pondering their own personal character. Humans do.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this still does not show how your opinion of good is more valid than mine.

[ QUOTE ]
So the real question is: Where did our humanity come from? In my opinion, it came from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and the laws of God, which we can either chose to follow or not, must be held in account.

Argueing for relative morality is a dead-end.

There are only two options,

1. You believe you are a god and your perimeters of good and evil are right because you said so. This is also inherently hypocritical as I showed earlier as noone can live by their own creed to "respect humanity". Anyone who says they've never had a vain thought toward another human being is a liar. This makes the "god" a hypocrite to their own law. Furthermore, anyone claiming this, is also judging others, as they can not live according to their own law.
So while these types will typically say to Christians, Stop judging me, they are the ones judging, as they are imposing their self-made mandates on others, when they themselves can not keep them.

2. You believe God set absoulutes, in which case we have a clear line for morality and sin. Christ never had a vain thought, and lived in perfect accordance to God's law. Therefore He is a worthy Judge to execute His Law. Moreover, He is allowed to bestow Grace on Behalf of His Son who fulfilled the Law.

[Kitosho]

Yu - I am? I was trying to argue from the standpoint of the natural law theory, actually, but apparently I did a bad job on it.

This covers most of what I meant, articulated much better than I am capable of:

http://radicalacademy.com/philnaturallaw.htm

I just believe that God granted us with such an internalized idea of morality, and that our relationship with God adds a vertical dimension to an otherwise horizontal moral plane.

[given_to_fly]

so when someone tries to tell me, our laws are created by humans, and the majority rules in such a country like the United States and Canada, is it solid to say that those laws originally did come from the Bible. Or at least based off it as is evidenced by the American constitution? So in fact, our whole basis for what is right and wrong originally in these two countries, came from God's Law. Am I correct or off the mark?

I guess now a days, those who do not believe in God in politics, are trying to create laws through their own version of morality? This would be an interesting topic to write about.

On an unrelated matter, we had this guy on our university campus start up a campaign that was titled "I agree with Graydon." It wasn't exactly anything personal with him but it was an interesting way of going about it. It was meant to draw attention to the Lord, to associate this saying with Jesus and bring attention to Jesus on our campus. A lot of people were outraged needless to say, and he set up a website www.iagreewithgraydon.com (http://www.iagreewithgraydon.com) . He managed to stir up a lot of debate. Anyway have a look.

[Adam Knowlden]

The problem with pure natural law is the same problem with the ID theory...they have no clear origin, therefore absolutes and the consequences of breaking those absolutes have no real essence.

Essentially natural law has no law giver.

[ QUOTE ]
To sum it up, then, we can say that the natural law:

is not made by human beings;
is based on the structure of reality itself;
is the same for all human beings and at all times;
is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover;
is the naturally knowable moral law;
is a means by which human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here are the flaws,

[ QUOTE ]
is not made by human beings;

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Fail to identify the law giver, thus the question of whose "law" is correct unanswered.

[ QUOTE ]
is based on the structure of reality itself;

[/ QUOTE ]

2. Whose reality? Again this does not answer the question.

[ QUOTE ]
is the same for all human beings and at all times;

[/ QUOTE ]

Overall what good is the theory? in other words, what is a consequence we can test.

In absoute morality, we can test our standard to the laws of God and the judgements rendered for breaking those laws. With this, we still can render no absolute moral judgement.

[ QUOTE ]
is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover;

[/ QUOTE ]

This is essentially deifying nature.

[ QUOTE ]
is the naturally knowable moral law;


[/ QUOTE ]

Knowable based upon what? Again there is no base. This "law" is omnipresent, yet has no originator, and no standard of accountability?

[ QUOTE ]
is a means by which human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good.


[/ QUOTE ]

They have used the word "good" in their definition without defining what the word "good" means, again this is a mute clause.

[ QUOTE ]
It is interesting to note that virtually everyone seems to have some knowledge of natural law even before such knowledge is codified and formalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stating "Virtually everyone" has just ommitted the very essence of natural law. It is either universally absolute or it is not.

This is neat little package in a country like America where law is established, but what about other cultures, like tribes in Africa or the Atzecs sacrifing humans to their gods.

Demonstrate by natural law that it was wrong for the Atzecs to sacrifice humans.

[ QUOTE ]
Even young children make an appeal to "fair play," demand that things be "fair and square," and older children and adults often apply the "golden rule."

[/ QUOTE ]

So now fair play and the golden rule are part of natural law? based upon what! Children are taught to share and play fair. Put a few toddlers in a room with no supervision and lets see the "natural law" in action.

[ QUOTE ]
When doing so, they are spontaneously invoking the natural law.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's neat but fails to consider the origin or originator of the law.

[ QUOTE ]
This is why many proponents of the natural law theory say it is the law which is "written upon the hearts of men."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what The Lord said would happen when people accept the Holy Spirit. It is only by conviction of the Holy Spirit that people even know they are living in sin.

Natural law is to live in the flesh, the opposite of this theory. Living in the spirit is not natural to the flesh as Paul clearly taught.

<font color="red"> 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.


18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.


19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,


20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,


21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,


23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.


24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.


25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

</font>

[ QUOTE ]
The obvious conclusion here is that our knowledge of natural law, particularly regarding its secondary precepts, is incomplete, and probably will always be incomplete.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes because no originator of the law is identified, therefore again, as we have said, it goes right back to the same principle of relative morality, ie it is up to each individual person to decide what is right and wrong for their lives. Therefore making the opinion of another no more valid.

This article has answered nothing aside from psuedo philosophical comments to the arguements.

Here is what the bible says,

there is an absolute law, which whether one is ignorant or not of that law, they are accountable.

<font color="red">2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:

3If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.
</font>

Under the new dispensation, the High Priest Christ, makes attonement for the sins of the ignorant, however that does not mean God's law is unbroken. It is broken even though they are ignorant of the law, however Christ makes attonement for their ignorance.

<font color="green"> 13And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;


14When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.


15And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.

</font>

Note even though the sin was done in ignorance they are held accountable to the absolute law of God. However when they come to the knowledge of their sin they are to come to Christ to attone.

<font color="red"> 4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
</font>

As Christians we are to obey the Holy Spirit. We can hear His voice by the discernment of His peace. If we pray over an issue and have no peace, to pursue that non-peace is sin. If we do have peace, we can pursue. This is why this definiton of sin applies only to Christians,

<font color="blue"> 21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.


22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.


23And he that doubteth is ****ed if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
</font>

We have faith in God bestowed by Christ and manifested by the Spirit of God.

Moreover the Holy Spirit writes the law upon our hearts, this is not a natural law that evolution created, but a gift of the Holy Spirit to reveal to the Children of God the fruits of sin and the desperate cry of a fallen world:

<font color="red"> 17Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. </font>