[_ Old Earth _] God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

[LittleNipper]

Who exactly thinks so?

Massive generalizations don't exactly help your point...particularly since "Man" would include you as well. *sigh*

Who? Anyone who does not believe there is GOD! That is who.

 

[jwu]

How can someone who does not believe that a God exists believe that he knows more than God? That makes no sense.

 

[LittleNipper]

How can someone who does not believe that a God exists believe that he knows more than God? That makes no sense.

If a man says that there is no GOD, then clearly he is claiming special abilities of discernment. If there is no GOD, where does that move humanity... .

 

[jwu]

If a man says that there is no GOD, then clearly he is claiming special abilities of discernment.

None which God doesn't have too...

 

[LittleNipper]

None which God doesn't have too...

You need to read the book of JOB. GOD put everything else in its place....

 

[jwu]

Could you be a bit more specific? What exactly are you referring to and how does it relate to the point at hand?

Are you suggesting that God isn't omniscient or omnipotent?

 

[LittleNipper]

Could you be a bit more specific? What exactly are you referring to and how does it relate to the point at hand?

Are you suggesting that God isn't omniscient or omnipotent?

You seem to be misreading me. Man knows nothing in comparison to GOD. Man can not create anything from nothing. When a person declares himself an atheist he in essence is saying that he (man) is the highest life form.

 

[jwu]

...which is not the same as saying that one knows more than God, which is impossible by definition.

 

[LittleNipper]

...which is not the same as saying that one knows more than God, which is impossible by definition.

Which is not what I stated. I stated that atheists by way of their rationalization that GOD does not exist, must logically be saying that man is the highest form of life and is answerable to no one higher....

 

[Quath]

Which is not what I stated. I stated that atheists by way of their rationalization that GOD does not exist, must logically be saying that man is the highest form of life and is answerable to no one higher....

By Darwinian evolution, the highest forms of life is everything alive today. So the housecat to the virus to the human are all "winners" of evolution. So "higher" doesn't really have a strong meaning for atheists.

Look at this another way. You have the audacity to suggest that you are higher thah Zeus, whom you do not believe in. You believe you are higher than Odin, Vishnu, Ra, and a host of so many other gods. Does that mean you are arrogant or have you just dismissed fairy tales? The only difference between you and I is that I have just dismissed one more fairy tale than you have.

It must be understood that even in the realm of science, there is bias, as well as, peer pressure. In the case where there are established theories, which are being held in high regard, the instructors of such rationalizations are not going to move over without a fight. Their authority and logic is being questioned...

In science, Mother Nature is the ultimate arbitrator. There is a way to be proven wrong (unlike theology). Evolution stands very strong in both evoidence and its simplicity. In fact, I am working on a shielding design by using evolutionary process.

I think it actually takes a mental block to understand how evolution works and to deny its simplicity. It is like refusing to see that the Earth is a sphere because the Bible is against that concept.

95% of all scientists believe in evolution. When you get to the realm of the life sciences, it is about 99.9% of the scientists believe in evolution. It is well supported.

 

[jwu]

Which is not what I stated. I stated that atheists by way of their rationalization that GOD does not exist, must logically be saying that man is the highest form of life and is answerable to no one higher....

Let me remind you of your earlier statement:

Man thinks he is wise and full of knowledge. He also thinks he knows more than God.

Who exactly thinks so?
Massive generalizations don't exactly help your point...particularly since "Man" would include you as well. *sigh*

Who? Anyone who does not believe there is GOD! That is who.

So you did state that atheists believe that they know more than God.

 

[Salazar]

The question for me is "Can science stand up to the word of God?" Every time someone tries to disprove the Bible using science, all they do is end up proving it to be true. Science cannot disprove the truth.

Amen to that!

 

[Quath]

The question for me is "Can science stand up to the word of God?" Every time someone tries to disprove the Bible using science, all they do is end up proving it to be true. Science cannot disprove the truth.

I would have to disagree with that.

For example, Genesist says that there is a firmament above our heads. This is a dome in which God sits with his treasuries of hail, snow and water to rain down upon our heads. When God floods the Earth, he opens a window in the firmament and floods the Earth.

Science showed this was wrong. Christians just said the story is symbolic or has a different meaning somehow.

Christians said the world was flat because the Bible could not be true if it were round (for example, you can not see the whole Earth from one spot on it).

Science showed this was wrong. Christians now say that this was a misinterpretation or that something else must have been meant by those passages.

Christians said the Earth does not move because God made the Earth fixed. Also God stopped the Sun to lengthen the day. He did not stop the Earth.

Science showed this was wrong. Christians now ignore this or say weird things like Earth is fixed in its movement.

It goes on and on. Christians say disease is the work of demons (science says otherwise). Christians say there was a global flood (science disagrees). Christians say there is no evolution (science says otherwise).

The problem is that some Christians refuse to ever admit to such mistakes. Rather they ignore them and pretend everything is ok.

 

[Salazar]

I would have to disagree with that.

For example, Genesist says that there is a firmament above our heads. This is a dome in which God sits with his treasuries of hail, snow and water to rain down upon our heads. When God floods the Earth, he opens a window in the firmament and floods the Earth.

Science showed this was wrong. Christians just said the story is symbolic or has a different meaning somehow.

I'm not following what you're saying here....does rain/hail/snow not start out above our heads? Are comets not composed of ice?

Christians said the world was flat because the Bible could not be true if it were round (for example, you can not see the whole Earth from one spot on it).

now you're putting words in the Bible that aren't there. The world being flat was a world-wide opinion -- not that of just Christians...but the Bible does not say that the earth is flat.



Christians said the Earth does not move because God made the Earth fixed. Also God stopped the Sun to lengthen the day. He did not stop the Earth.

I know nothing about this....maybe it was meant that the "light" was stopped....but then again I have no idea what you're referring to.



It goes on and on. Christians say disease is the work of demons (science says otherwise). Christians say there was a global flood (science disagrees). Christians say there is no evolution (science says otherwise).


why do you keep using the words of Christians as opposed to the words of God? Christians are not the source of truth. Christians are fallible and sometimes say dumb things.

On the otherhand, darwinian medicine has never cured a single degenerative disease. Not One. And there are thousands of them. Darwinian medicine is a giant failure.


The problem is that some Christians refuse to ever admit to such mistakes. Rather they ignore them and pretend everything is ok.

that is just incorrect. Our faith revolves around admitting mistakes....it requires us to acknowledge that we are sinners. your statement is false.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Any time science disagrees with the Bible, then the science is wrong. Science is just men's personal beliefs, and the Bible is God's holy, inspired word given to man.

 

[jwu]

science is just men's personal beliefs, and the Bible is God's holy, inspired word given to man.

...which still has to be interpreted by fallible men.

now you're putting words in the Bible that aren't there. The world being flat was a world-wide opinion -- not that of just Christians...but the Bible does not say that the earth is flat.

It quite strongly implies so though, by speaking of the firmament being stretched out "like a tent" over the earth, Jesus being taken to a high mountain to be shown all the kingdoms of the earth and so on.

I know nothing about this....maybe it was meant that the "light" was stopped....but then again I have no idea what you're referring to.

From the book of Joshua:

10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

This quite clearly implies that the sun was believed to move over the earth, not the earth moving around the sun while rotating on its own axis.

On the otherhand, darwinian medicine has never cured a single degenerative disease. Not One. And there are thousands of them. Darwinian medicine is a giant failure.

What do you mean by "degenerative disease"? And what is "darwinian medicine" anyway? Is there another type of medicine?

that is just incorrect. Our faith revolves around admitting mistakes....it requires us to acknowledge that we are sinners. your statement is false.

That's a wordplay. It referred to mistakes in the sense of having been wrong about something, not mistakes in the sense of sinning.

 

[Quath]

Jwu pretty much said most of how I would have replied. I just have a few extra comments.

why do you keep using the words of Christians as opposed to the words of God? Christians are not the source of truth. Christians are fallible and sometimes say dumb things.

I am using the words of Christians that are using the word of God. If your claim is correct then Christians do not know the word of God. They are all just guessing.

On the otherhand, darwinian medicine has never cured a single degenerative disease. Not One. And there are thousands of them. Darwinian medicine is a giant failure.

There is no Darwinian medicine as far as I know of. It is a theory of how things adapt to their environment. It helps us understand why conventional medicines fail over time, but iut is not medicine itself. Maybe one day someone will try to design a medicine with natural selection, but that requires a lot more research to attempt that.

that is just incorrect. Our faith revolves around admitting mistakes....it requires us to acknowledge that we are sinners. your statement is false.

One such mistake is making the claim that the Bible demonstrates good science. In the Joshua example, God stops the Sun. We know that if God wanted to lenghten the day, he would have to stop the Earth from spinning and then cancel out inertia to keep the oceans from spilling over the land. And then after all the bloodshed was over, God would have to restart the Earth spinning and once again cancel out inertia to get it going. Also, ever other literate nation would not write about this special event.

Now if I were God and I wanted to help light up the battlefield so the bloodshed could continue, I would just use floodlights or a mirror to reflect sunlight. Then again I wouldn't have put much glory on killing as God does, so maybe that is a bad response.

In the end, people that are scientifically literate see such stories and have a hard time accpeting them. It serves the Christian religion better if they are taken as symbolic stories or part truth - part myth.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Much of the Bible is very easy to understand. What isn't probably isn't meant for us to understand at this time, and God will reveal the truth as it's needed. The gospel is so simple that even a child can understand that, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." John 3:16. And that, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13.

Yes, man is fallible, but God and His word are infallible. God says that His word will not return onto Him void, but it will accomplish what He intends. Isaiah 55:11. That means that if it's quoted it will be heard or read, and His plan will be accomplished because, "The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.

Actually, we are not supposed to "interpret" God's word, but we are to allow the Holy spirit to speak to us and interpret for us. If we are open to Him, He will teach us the truth.

 

[Quath]

Much of the Bible is very easy to understand. What isn't probably isn't meant for us to understand at this time, and God will reveal the truth as it's needed. The gospel is so simple that even a child can understand that, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." John 3:16. And that, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13.

I would disagree. It makes no sense for God to have to kill his son to change his mind. God could just decide to forgive everyone without resorting to violence or death. If you believe otherwise, then you are limiting God's ability.

Yes, man is fallible, but God and His word are infallible. God says that His word will not return onto Him void, but it will accomplish what He intends. Isaiah 55:11. That means that if it's quoted it will be heard or read, and His plan will be accomplished because, "The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.

Every religion claims their holy book reveals the truth and proper understanding of it leads to truth. When this fails (as it eventually does for every religon) the believers just claim that people misinterpreted the divine word. If the word is good, it should stand on its own and not need constant re-interpretation to make it work with reality.

Actually, we are not supposed to "interpret" God's word, but we are to allow the Holy spirit to speak to us and interpret for us. If we are open to Him, He will teach us the truth.

If that is the truth, then why can't Christians agree? After all, they are all praying to God and they all believe they have the Holy Spirit in them. However, they all arrive at different interpretations. Just some of the many differences in interpretations:

1. If you are once saved, are you always saved?
2. Can you be saved from hell?
3. Is hell a place of torment or seperation from God?
4. Do Muslim children go to hell?
5. Is interracial marriage acceptable?
6. Is slavery acceptable?
7. Is baptism required for salvation?
8. Are only a few thousand going to heaven?

And so on.

So if different Christians are getting different messages, that means that either the Holy Spirit lies or that people are easily tricked into thinking they have the Holy Spirit. If it is the first, then God lies. If it is the second, then how can a person really tell if they have the Holy Spirit. Most Christians answer that if people believe as they do, then they have the Holy Spirit. However, I guess they can not see the inherient problem in such a statement.

 

[stranger]

If that is the truth, then why can't Christians agree? After all, they are all praying to God and they all believe they have the Holy Spirit in them. However, they all arrive at different interpretations. Just some of the many differences in interpretations:

1. If you are once saved, are you always saved?
2. Can you be saved from hell?
3. Is hell a place of torment or seperation from God?
4. Do Muslim children go to hell?
5. Is interracial marriage acceptable?
6. Is slavery acceptable?
7. Is baptism required for salvation?
8. Are only a few thousand going to heaven?

And so on.

So if different Christians are getting different messages, that means that either the Holy Spirit lies or that people are easily tricked into thinking they have the Holy Spirit.

If it is the first, then God lies.
* a creature now reasons that the Creator lies if he (the creature) reasons thus? *

If it is the second, then how can a person really tell if they have the Holy Spirit.

* The question hints at: How do we know anything? The Christian answers he knows because God knows ie the Christians knowledge is derivative of God's knowledge insofar as he has understood what God has revealed in scripture correctly. Plenty of room for fallibilty here but also room to learn what is true and even eternally so *

* comments by Stranger inserted *