[_ Old Earth _] Christianity versus Science

[Papa Zoom]

From the OP:
"Christianity is a religion based on God's self revelation."

True. And God has revealed Himself in His written word, in His Creation, and in His Son. We can read His word, observe His creation, and read the eye-witness accounts that testify to Jesus' life. As it pertains to observing God's creation, that act is the doing of science. Science is observing. The purpose isn't so much to investigate God, but to investigate the universe. But since it's God's universe, we are investigating His creation whether we like it or not. And according to Romans 1, since God himself has revealed himself in the created order and created things, science can and does investigate God. The scientists can deny this until they are blue in the face but Romans one is clear. God can be know from observing His creation.

From the OP:
"Science" is the word we use to describe the investigation of the universe."

Yes. This is true. we investigate the universe God created. And according to Romans 1 those investigations will show conclusively God. To deny this is to do so in unrighteousness.

From the OP:
"The God of Christianity is not available for investigation or examination by any method designed by man."

This statement is false. God IS available for investigation by observation as explained in Romans one. The rules of science are such that they try to deny this but Romans one say NO to that. We are without excuse if we don't acknowledge God from what we know of the known universe.

From the OP:
"God is known through His self revelation, predominantly in the words of the Bible but not to the exclusion of illumination of a believer's understanding by the Holy Spirit or through the leading of the Holy spirit."

Not to mention that God can be known from observing what He has made. Romans one.

From the OP:
"The attempt to combine these two fields of knowledge is ill-fated from the onset."

This statement is false. The two fields are inseparable. They intersect. That intersection cannot be ignored nor denied. Not and remain consistent with Romans one.

From the OP:
"The two endeavors, to know God and to know how nature "works", are incompatible."

False. Since God is the creator of all, then studying HIS creation - nature - and how that nature words, is a highly compatible work.

From the OP:
"While either field may provide inspiration for endeavors in the other, the "tools" of each are useful only in their appropriate arena."

Nonsense. Observing and investigations are part and parcel to investigating the probability of God and the claims of any religion.

From the OP:
" Any discovery in the field of science based on "what God revealed to me in the scriptures"
would be immediately and properly rejected by the scientific community just as any "scientific proof" of God's existence would immediately and properly rejected by theologians."

No one is making this argument. I'm certainly not suggesting that the Bible contains scientific proof. I'm making the argument that the two fields intersect. This is a fact. They intersect. They are not mutually exclusive.

From the OP:
"The combining of these two fields is a bit like combining building an automobile engine with cooking a souffle'; an absurdity."

Utterly false. Science grew FROM a perspective of belief in God and an understanding that He is orderly and purposeful. His created order therefore can be studied. Today, scientists from all fields of knowledge operate from this perspective.

"Let us render unto science the things that are scientific and to God the things that are theological, OK?"

No. Because it all belongs to God. All of it. We are not at liberty to take from God what is His. Science is the study of what God created. Like it or not. Christian or not. Being an atheist wouldn't change this simple fact.

 

[Edward]

Science is the study of nature.
Naturalism is a philosophical approach to understanding.

Science is really the study of God, because all things lead back to God, the creator. But they cant say that, for they're trying to disprove God. A philosophical approach to understanding is the application of the knowledge of good and evil. Nothing good came from that tree, and no truth.

 

[Jim Parker]

Christianity is evidential. You can examine the claims of Christianity to find if they are credible or not.

How does one examine the claim of Christianity that Jesus is God?
How does one examine the claim of Christianity that He has been God for all eternity.
How does one examine the claim of Christianity that God is eternal?
Your statement is nonsense.

Jesus preformed miracles, and observable thing, to demonstrate His authority and to verify the claims He made of Himself.

How do you examine them?
What scientific test do you apply to verify that any given miracle was the work of God?

The Bible speaks of the evidence of God.

It is not scientifically verifiable evidence.
The heavens absolutely do declare His glory.
So, define "glory" so that, by using scientific methods, it can be verified to be the glory of God.

Science is investigating. God's existence and activity in creation can be investigated using science methods.

True.
However, science cannot test whether it was or was not God's activity.
Science cannot verify through any test whether God actually exists.

All of your statements are statements of FAITH and, while they contain truth, they do not in any manner demonstrate that God's existence or actions can be scientifically verified.

 

[Jim Parker]

Science is really the study of God, because all things lead back to God, the creator.

That is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one.
Science cannot prove by the application of scientific methods that the is, in fact, a God.
Science is the study of God's creation but not of creation's God.

But they cant say that, for they're trying to disprove God.

That is utter nonsense.
That is precisely the type of statement that all too often tends to suggest to rational, non-believers that Christians might just be a bunch of ignorant fools who believe in invisible beings that do miracles and that Christianity a total scam designed to convince rubes to part with their money by promising them "pie in the sky by and by." (And, yes, I have heard non-believers say exactly that or words to that effect.)

The scientific community is absolutely not a conspiracy of atheists whose sole purpose in life is to prove that there is no God.
I cannot imagine who would believe such complete nonsense.
Surely you do not.

Many scientists are Christians with absolutely no doubt as to God's existence.

A philosophical approach to understanding is the application of the knowledge of good and evil.
Nothing good came from that tree, and no truth.

I have no idea what you meant to communicate by those two sentences with reference to the relationship between science and Christianity.
Science does not deal with "good and evil;" it deals with "How does this work?".
There is no scientific definition of "good" or "evil."
However, when a scientist figured out that E=MC squared, it was proven to be the truth.
However, Christianity deals extensively with application of the knowledge of good and evil. (1 Cor 6:9-10, Gal 5:19-23, etc.)
And Christianity is a religious system which trains believers to identify evil and to shun it (Job 28:28, Pro 14:16) and to do good. (Psa 34:14; 37:27; Gal 6:10; Eph 2:10; Heb 13:16; etc.)

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

From the OP:
"The God of Christianity is not available for investigation or examination by any method designed by man."
This statement is false. God IS available for investigation by observation as explained in Romans one.

Rom 1:20 (RSV) Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
Please explain exactly how one may apply scientific methods to prove the following:
(1) God has an invisible nature
(2) God has eternal power
(3) God has deity
(4) God exists

 

[Papa Zoom]

How does one examine the claim of Christianity that Jesus is God?
How does one examine the claim of Christianity that He has been God for all eternity.
How does one examine the claim of Christianity that God is eternal?
Your statement is nonsense.

How do you examine them?
What scientific test do you apply to verify that any given miracle was the work of God?

It is not scientifically verifiable evidence.
The heavens absolutely do declare His glory.
So, define "glory" so that, by using scientific methods, it can be verified to be the glory of God.

True.
However, science cannot test whether it was or was not God's activity.
Science cannot verify through any test whether God actually exists.

All of your statements are statements of FAITH and, while they contain truth, they do not in any manner demonstrate that God's existence or actions can be scientifically verified.

easy peasy
https://bible.org/seriespage/10-evidentialist-apologetics-faith-founded-fact
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-reasonable-evidential-nature-of-christian-faith/

And Romans 1 seems to agree with me and not with you.

Romans 1:19-20New International Version (NIV)

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

God has made his eternal power known. Through evidence. It's clearly seen and it can be understood from what has been made. Therefore, the study of the word and the universe, both visible and invisible can be known through observation (an activity of science).

I'm not saying everything can be tested and falsified. But everything can be examined. And just like Darwin, we can made an inference to the best explanation. Darwin did just that. He observed, collected data, studied environments, and made predictions. We call that science. We can do the same with any claim.

I hope you'll take the time to read the two links I provided as they really give a good overview of what I am saying and they will do a better job of it than I. Up to you of course. But I'll say that the Bible too agrees with me in that we can know God from evidence. The Bible tells us exactly this. Faith is believing in what we cannot see and believing in the Hope we have in God through Christ (by the power of the HS). Aside from that, God is not hidden from us in what He has made. My argument goes beyond that and you'll get a clearer picture if you read the links with an open mind.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Rom 1:20 (RSV) Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
Please explain exactly how one may apply scientific methods to prove the following:
(1) God has an invisible nature
(2) God has eternal power
(3) God has deity
(4) God exists

I've answered that. God's eternal can be clearly known by what has been made. Romans one tells us this. If God's eternal power can be known, He must then have this eternal power. He must then also exist. Since we can't physically see Him, his true nature must be invisible to us. If God is all He has claimed to be, he must also be deity.

 

[Jim Parker]

easy peasy
https://bible.org/seriespage/10-evidentialist-apologetics-faith-founded-fact
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-reasonable-evidential-nature-of-christian-faith/

Those do not describe how one used science alone to demonstrate that Jesus is God, etc.

And Romans 1 seems to agree with me and not with you.

You did not answer any of the questions that I asked.

Clearly, you do not understand the issue.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Those do not describe how one used science alone to demonstrate that Jesus is God, etc.

You did not answer any of the questions that I asked.

Clearly, you do not understand the issue.

Yeah cuz I must be stupid. I get it.

 

[Jim Parker]

Yeah cuz I must be stupid. I get it.

Your words - not mine

 

[calvin]

Calvin here,
Jim and papa zoom, please step back a tad.
It has been said a few times here that science is concerned with the physical....is it restricted to the physical? what about psychiatry and psychology? are these not scientific disciplines too? We can't titrate two test tubes of personality dysfunctions and derive a serenity of existence, nor can we load a feeling of self harm into the hadron accelerator and produce harmony and inner peace.
However surly the fact that we have all tried Christianity and found that it works is a scientifically tested reality.
if this is so, then there must exist a bridge, tenuous as it might be, between 'science' and Christianity.....just a thought before breakfast.

 

[Jim Parker]

It has been said a few times here that science is concerned with the physical....is it restricted to the physical?

Yes.
Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

what about psychiatry and psychology? are these not scientific disciplines too?

As I have a masters degree in psychology, I can state that it's not science. It's mainly common sense.

However surly the fact that we have all tried Christianity and found that it works is a scientifically tested reality.

Sorry. Finding THAT something works is not science.
Science is finding out WHAT something is and HOW something works.
So far, no one has figured out HOW God works even though many have actually observed THAT God works.
And we only know WHAT God is by what He has revealed to us. Nothing about God has been determined through observation and experiment.

if this is so, then there must exist a bridge, tenuous as it might be, between 'science' and Christianity.....just a thought before breakfast.

Unfortunately it is NOT so.
BUT!!! There is a bridge between faith and science. A scientist can make extensive measurements and analysis of nature resulting in his discovering the composition of a thing and how it works. That's science. Then the scientist, with reference to his discoveries, can say, "God does amazing things!" That's NOT science.
Both are true.
Just like you cant use an apple pie to change a tire, you can't use science to define God.

 

[calvin]

As I have a masters degree in psychology, I can state that it's not science. It's mainly common sense.

G'day, calvin here.
Well it would be foolish of one such as myself to debate psychology with you as I only have a Phd in nothing , I would think that the fairly well defined principles used in transactional analysis would qualify as a science of a type....no?
But I do not want to argue, I was merely trying to;
1.defuse a potential hot spot.
2. broaden the scope of the discussion to include those things which can be subjected to a disciplined investigation, regardless of the tools used.

 

[Jim Parker]

I would think that the fairly well defined principles used in transactional analysis would qualify as a science of a type....no?

Transactional analysis is the observation of behaviors. It is the observation of WHAT happens but it cannot explain WHY "it" happens.
It's like noting the response you get when you answer the question, "Does this dress make my butt look big?" and deciding if you want to answer the same way in the future or if you want to answer the question differently.

But I do not want to argue, I was merely trying to;
1.defuse a potential hot spot.

Yeah. I have rewritten and edited my replies in an attempt to not provoke.

2. broaden the scope of the discussion to include those things which can be subjected to a disciplined investigation, regardless of the tools used.

That would be introducing a different topic.

My point is that science is concerned with the way nature works.
Christianity is concerned with the creator of nature and His interactions with mankind.
Information is gained in science by analysis (direct observation, weighing, measuring, counting,)
Information is gained in Christianity first by God's self-revelation and second, by our subjective (not measurable) responses to our interactions with God and the application of His teachings. (indirect observation of results)

The Bible is the wrong book to use for information on how to do science and a science book is the wrong book to use for information on how to have eternal life.

that's all

iakov the fool

 

[Papa Zoom]

G'day, calvin here.
Well it would be foolish of one such as myself to debate psychology with you as I only have a Phd in nothing , I would think that the fairly well defined principles used in transactional analysis would qualify as a science of a type....no?
But I do not want to argue, I was merely trying to;
1.defuse a potential hot spot.
2. broaden the scope of the discussion to include those things which can be subjected to a disciplined investigation, regardless of the tools used.

It's all good. I respect Jim's viewpoint on this and don't mind having my view challenged. We may have been coming at this from two different angles.

 

[Jim Parker]

We may have been coming at this from two different angles.

I believe that is the case.
IMO, Your angel is correct but not quite what the thread was supposed to be about.

iakov the fool

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Rom 1:20 (RSV) Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
Please explain exactly how one may apply scientific methods to prove the following:
(1) God has an invisible nature
(2) God has eternal power
(3) God has deity
(4) God exists

The way to test for God's qualities is to be the test yourself. I believe the scientific term calls this anecdotal evidence and is largely thrown out by the scientific community. Search for God and be the test to see if He's found.

The issue here is that God calls for individual search for Him, but the way science is orginized it's a community set knowledge base. What one person knows another can test. To justify or disprove. Jesus when questioned about why he doesn't teach the world, Jesus replied that His message is not for the world because the world is not looking for Him.

 

[Jim Parker]

The way to test for God's qualities is to be the test yourself.

Please describe this test so that any scientist, anywhere in the world can repeat if and get the exact same results.

I believe the scientific term calls this anecdotal evidence and is largely thrown out by the scientific community.

You are correct. Anecdotal evidence is not accepted by the scientific community because it is not science.

The issue here is that God calls for individual search for Him,

Since Jesus said that God s not available for observation, (Jhn 1:18) science cannot be used in any manner to discover anything about God.

I don't know why you insist in beating this dead horse.
Science is a methodology used to discover information about the universe. (Creation)
God is not part of the universe.
Using science to discover anything about God is like trying to knit a sweater with a dump truck.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I don't know why you insist in beating this dead horse.
Science is a methodology used to discover information about the universe. (Creation)
God is not part of the universe.
Using science to discover anything about God is like trying to knit a sweater with a dump truck.

Not sure how I've beaten the dead horse. That was my first response to this thread, with this being my second. what I've said agrees with your conclusion from a different angle. Science can't discover God. Not because God can't be seen or proven, but because 1) science as a practice doesn't look for God, and 2) because the most of the evidence available is dynamic experiences, not static repeatable experiments. In fact if it's anecdotal, even if they are many anecdotes showing a statistic phenomon, they are ignored and thrown away. The evidance is there though. To say otherwise is at best a mistake, at worst active and voluntary denial.

The rest of what you have said I've already addressed in my first post.

--------------------------------
First statement:

The way to test for God's qualities is to be the test yourself. I believe the scientific term calls this anecdotal evidence and is largely thrown out by the scientific community.

Jim's challenge:

Please describe this test so that any scientist, anywhere in the world can repeat if and get the exact same results.

Answered already:

Search for God and be the test to see if He's found.

--------------------------------
Statement:

the scientific term calls this anecdotal evidence and is largely thrown out by the scientific community.

Jim's challenge (or agreement?):

You are correct. Anecdotal evidence is not accepted by the scientific community because it is not science.

Already agreed that it is not accepted by the science community:

The issue here is that God calls for individual search for Him, but the way science is organized it's a community set knowledge base. What one person knows another can test. To justify or disprove.

-------------------------------------------------------

Jim's challenge:

Since Jesus said that God s not available for observation, (Jhn 1:18) science cannot be used in any manner to discover anything about God.

Not true. Look again at John 1:18. (KJV). No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Jesus has also said to His disciples that the only one who knows the Father is the Son, as well as saying to the disciples that since they've seen Jesus, they've seen God. The way you've described that science can't be used isn't because there is no evidance, but because the evidance is tossed aside and ignored as unimportant.

The real reason science doesn't discover God:

Jesus when questioned about why he doesn't teach the world, Jesus replied that His message is not for the world because the world is not looking for Him.

---------------------------------

Hopefully that clears up any misunderstanding.

 

[Jim Parker]

In fact if it's anecdotal, even if they are many anecdotes showing a statistic phenomon, they are ignored and thrown away.

It's not "thrown away" by scientists.
It is not usable for the purpose of doing science so they do not attempt to use what is not usable.
That's very different from "thrown away."

The evidance is there though. To say otherwise is at best a mistake, at worst active and voluntary denial.

Yes the evidence IS definitely there.
All I said is that it is not SCIENTIFIC evidence and, therefore, not useful for scientific investigation.

I said: Since Jesus said that God s not available for observation, (Jhn 1:18) science cannot be used in any manner to discover anything about God.
TO which you replied:

Not true. Look again at John 1:18. (KJV). No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

A declaration is not even in the same ball park as being "available for observation."
The two descriptions are totally different but you have attempted to make them an identity.
That is a complete breakdown of logic.

Jesus has also said to His disciples that the only one who knows the Father is the Son,

Which means that the Father is available for observation to no one but the Son.

as well as saying to the disciples that since they've seen Jesus, they've seen God.

You are again attempting to establish an identity (perfect equality) between The Father and the Son.
The Father does not have flesh and bones as does the son.
The Father did not become man and dwell among us.
The Father and the Son are the same in essence (they are both of divine nature) and, as such "are one."
Your argument is similar (but not identical) to stating that, if there are twins Joe and Bob, I can examine Bob to determine if Joe has a cavity in one of his teeth.
Deu 29:29 says (KJV) "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us..."
Therefore, what the disciples saw, when they saw Jesus, was what the Father had revealed but not "the secret things."

The way you've described that science can't be used isn't because there is no evidance, but because the evidance is tossed aside and ignored as unimportant.

That is not the way I described it. I never said that there was no evidence. I said that the evidence could not be used for scientific examination and analysis.
The evidence is unimportant but is also not of any use for scientific analysis.

The real reason science doesn't discover God:

Really??? That's what you really believe???
The real reason that science can't discover God is because they are not looking for Him?
From such a comment, I am led to wonder if you have any grasp at all of exactly what science actually is.

Hopefully that clears up any misunderstanding.

It makes it very clear to me that you seem to have very serious misunderstandings as to what science is and is not.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.