[__ Science __ ] Scientific argument for God's existence

[Clizby]

Yes, context is important.
Let's address your first bias. In parenthesis, you use the word heathens.

The KJV says heathens. NASB says pagans. Most say nations around you.

How do you come to that conclusion? Also, how do you know when slaves refers to goyim ( non-jew) or when it refers to a Jewish slave?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers and enslaved for life Exodus 21:7-11.

Male Hebrews could sell themselves into slavery for a six-year period to eliminate their debts, after which they might go free. However, if the male slave had been given a wife and had children with her, they would remain his master's property. They could only stay with their family by becoming permanent slaves Exodus 21:2-5.

Non-Hebrews, could be subjected to slavery Lev 25:44. The slaves could be bought, sold and inherited when their owner died and Lev 25:44-46 allows slaves to be bought from foreign nations or foreigners living in Israel. Kidnapping of Hebrews to enslave them is a crime per Deut 24:7 but not for non Hebrew slaves. Also, war captives could be mde slaves. Duet 20:10-15.

Hereditary slaves were born into slavery and I don't see any passages that will release them. Unless year of Jubilee frees them I guess.

 

[Clizby]

Then we are in agreement with the understanding that assumptions are made in science which, if later they are found false, the model is shifted to accommodate the new information which can nullify the underlying assumption.

The fundamentals of science can be demonstrated to be true. Science does not assume things to be true. a hypothesis is a guess based on data that then needs to be tested over and over and changed until it can be demonstrated to be true. This is the strength of science to change with new information. A theory is a collection of facts that support a conclusions and has the highest evidentiary support for it. Do you really think that a spherical earth theory will ever be thrown out? or gravitational theory be thrown out as a whole? This is how truth is discovered. As of yet no new information we have gathered has contradicted the theory of evolution.

When investigating said assumptions, we really need to take into consideration ones world view. If one is taught the earth is billions of years old, their assumptions will be in line with that. If on the other hand ones world view is that the earth is under 10,000 years old, his assumptions will be much different.

Both views have the same observational data yet both make different assumptions when investigating.

I can demonstrate that the earth is billions of years old, I cannot demonstrate that the earth is 10,000 years old. The earth being old is not an assumption but demonstrated by science. The earth being 10,000 years old is a claim by faith.

 

[Boaz]

What Darwin thought or didn't think has no bearing on the evidence for evolution. You called me arrogant but it seems you "know" evolution evidence is faulty when I am assuming you don't really know what that evidence is. Have you studied the evidence for evolution and why scientists believe it is true?

Also, whether evolution is true or not does not say anything about the existence of a god. Evolution can be false but that does not prove god did it. Or evolution could be true and god could still exist, but that would preclude viewing the Bible as literal.

You assume wrong.

 

[Clizby]

You assume wrong.

OK, If you have seriously studied evolution from scientists and not apologists and rejected it OK. What are your reasons for rejecting the evidence? How is it falsified?

 

[stovebolts]

Clizby
There are many accredited scientist over at answers in genesis that can show through observational science that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. They have the same facts that old earth scientists have, yet have differing theories.

I myself am not fully equipped to have deep technical discussions on the matter, but I understand my bias.

 

[stovebolts]

The KJV says heathens. NASB says pagans. Most say nations around you.



Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers and enslaved for life Exodus 21:7-11.

Male Hebrews could sell themselves into slavery for a six-year period to eliminate their debts, after which they might go free. However, if the male slave had been given a wife and had children with her, they would remain his master's property. They could only stay with their family by becoming permanent slaves Exodus 21:2-5.

Non-Hebrews, could be subjected to slavery Lev 25:44. The slaves could be bought, sold and inherited when their owner died and Lev 25:44-46 allows slaves to be bought from foreign nations or foreigners living in Israel. Kidnapping of Hebrews to enslave them is a crime per Deut 24:7 but not for non Hebrew slaves. Also, war captives could be mde slaves. Duet 20:10-15.

Hereditary slaves were born into slavery and I don't see any passages that will release them. Unless year of Jubilee frees them I guess.

Have you ever considered that the bias of the kjv got it wrong?

Scripture says that a servant is not greater than it's master. I'm this case we are talking about the Masoretic text.

In science, are there disciplines for making conclusions? So far, your bias of interpretation seems to only consider textual context from translations. This type of study is similar to systematic theology to which your bias leans.

So, you trust the kjv. It is a good interpretation. But it does lack understanding from the original text and original understanding.

Is textual context and your own personal bias the only criteria you deem authoritative for discerning the biblical texts?

 

[Clizby]

Clizby
There are many accredited scientist over at answers in genesis that can show through observational science that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. They have the same facts that old earth scientists have, yet have differing theories.

They have a different hypothesis, not a theory. If so, has it been accepted by the scientific community? If not, why? AIG has the answer in search of the solution. Scientists have no agenda to keep the current theory supported. They actually have a motivation to disprove theories, this is how they become famous and unlimited money for research. If the earth was proved to be 10,000 years old by a scientist or group of scientists it would change the world forever, they would win noble prizes, be famous and rich. The problem is AIG only has AIG making these claims. The scientific community has millions of independent diverse scientists and biases that all work together to confirm or reject a hypothesis. They all don't have the same agenda as AIG does, to prove God.

I myself am not fully equipped to have deep technical discussions on the matter, but I understand my bias.

I will say again just because we have an explanation does not mean it is the correct explanation. That has to be demonstrated.

One simple "proof" they have at AIG is population growth. They say that if population doubles every 150 years we would have greater than 10^99 people on earth in just 50,000 years. And if the earth is 6000 years old then we will have approximately the right amount of people as today. The problem is the assumption that population consistently doubles in a time period. This is an assertion that can be shown to be false wit real data. Human population growth is not linear it is exponential and for most of the history of the earth the conditions and limited population growth. AIG never gives the basis for their consistent 150 year doubling. It seems that the 150 was picked to get the result. This is just one proof that they have that can be demonstrated to be false.

How do you determine what is true and what is false?

 

[Clizby]

Have you ever considered that the bias of the kjv got it wrong?

I am not married to the term heathen. We can just go with "from the nations around us"

Scripture says that a servant is not greater than it's master. I'm this case we are talking about the Masoretic text.

In science, are there disciplines for making conclusions? So far, your bias of interpretation seems to only consider textual context from translations. This type of study is similar to systematic theology to which your bias leans.

So, you trust the kjv. It is a good interpretation. But it does lack understanding from the original text and original understanding.

No, I don't trust the KJV at all. It is a bad translation. The term heathen has no bearing on the meaning of the passage. God said slaves were money or property. Do you agree with this? All translations say that you can get slaves from surrounding nations.

Is textual context and your own personal bias the only criteria you deem authoritative for discerning the biblical texts?

When I read the text it says these are gods rules and it says slaves can be beaten and considered property as I showed in the previous post. I even identified the different rules for women, Hebrews and non Hebrews.

Does God condone slavery or not? and why or why not?

 

[Michael74]

...slavery...

Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 1 Corinthians 7:21 NKJV

The Bible says to get free, if you can. Freedom is better.

 

[Clizby]

Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 1 Corinthians 7:21 NKJV

The Bible says to get free, if you can. Freedom is better.

Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.
Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 1 Cor 7:20-21.

It says if you can. If not continue to be a slave. This does not change the fact that God made rules for slavery and God has never said it was wrong. There are commands against eating shellfish but no commands against slavery.

 

[stovebolts]

I am not married to the term heathen. We can just go with "from the nations around us"

No, I don't trust the KJV at all. It is a bad translation. The term heathen has no bearing on the meaning of the passage. God said slaves were money or property. Do you agree with this? All translations say that you can get slaves from surrounding nations.

When I read the text it says these are gods rules and it says slaves can be beaten and considered property as I showed in the previous post. I even identified the different rules for women, Hebrews and non Hebrews.

Does God condone slavery or not? and why or why not?

You want to make the issue about God condoning slavery. That is not my issue and is not the issue I am trying to get you to address.

There are rules for scientific study that act as guidelines for proper research. Don't you think that when we read the biblical text, we should also have some guidelines?

You say the kjv is a bad translation and you dont trust it and you give an example of the word heathen and opt for your own understanding and switch to "nations".

What repeatable rules or method did you use to make that conclusion?

If you can't trust the word heathen, what makes you think you can trust the word slave?

This is where a term we call textual exegesis comes into play. It is similar to etymology, but much, much more when we actually delve into the richness of the Hebrew language.

There are many disciplines within biblical exegesis which is why I also asked you about cultural bias earlier.

And no, bias is not a dirty word. We should all know our bias and readily admit them.

 

[Edward]

Correct. I require evidence that can be substantiated.

Hey wait a minute here, if you require evidence which can be substantiated and the evidence is demonstrable like you say for evolution...then you are either a highly educated college grad or PHD whatever and should be able to give us more than, well you got to study college courses like I did and I have checked all of their work etc...,or you are a non highly educated layperson like most of us here, so you still should be able to lay out a very lay person level summary of exactly what they did to convince such a lay person as your self...right? So which is it?

Because if their demonstration is clear cut it would be irrefutable, and you have not provided any demonstration which even comes close to validating evolution.

And if you have not checked these scientists work for yourself...then there is also no validity here either which would mean that had to at some point think to yourself, hey this guy sounds like he knows what he is talking about, so I don't need to check his work and can have faith in this man that he is correct....

So you have only demonstrated to us so far that you have faith in the evo scientists. You have not backed up your claims. What else you got?

I have substantiated evidence for God's existence, myself. But you would not even believe it because your faith in the PHD's (Permanent Head Damage) is so great already. That, and my evidence is not something that can be reproduced in a lab or sideshow.

 

[stovebolts]

They have a different hypothesis, not a theory. If so, has it been accepted by the scientific community? If not, why? AIG has the answer in search of the solution. Scientists have no agenda to keep the current theory supported. They actually have a motivation to disprove theories, this is how they become famous and unlimited money for research. If the earth was proved to be 10,000 years old by a scientist or group of scientists it would change the world forever, they would win noble prizes, be famous and rich. The problem is AIG only has AIG making these claims. The scientific community has millions of independent diverse scientists and biases that all work together to confirm or reject a hypothesis. They all don't have the same agenda as AIG does, to prove God.

I will say again just because we have an explanation does not mean it is the correct explanation. That has to be demonstrated.

One simple "proof" they have at AIG is population growth. They say that if population doubles every 150 years we would have greater than 10^99 people on earth in just 50,000 years. And if the earth is 6000 years old then we will have approximately the right amount of people as today. The problem is the assumption that population consistently doubles in a time period. This is an assertion that can be shown to be false wit real data. Human population growth is not linear it is exponential and for most of the history of the earth the conditions and limited population growth. AIG never gives the basis for their consistent 150 year doubling. It seems that the 150 was picked to get the result. This is just one proof that they have that can be demonstrated to be false.

How do you determine what is true and what is false?

Assumptions are not bad things and truth can be elusive. Scientists assume that the rate of decay has been consistent across millions of years. Scientists have recently moved some assumptions from tens of millions of years, to millions based on their interpretation of things observed.

AIG has a world view that the earth is young, so they look at science with a different set of eyes than evolutionists. Does that make them wrong, or does it just mean they view things differently than an evolutionist?

Lucy is a prime example. Evolutionists make her look more like a monkey than a human. They assume her height among other things with no physical evidence. We could argue this all day long and both of us could put up some pretty good evidence to support our view, but in the end, we're both making our best guess based on our own personal bias.

Here is truth.
Matthew 7:7
ESV
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you."

 

[Edward]

What @Edward is discussing is the idea that we were single cell organisms that mutated into what we are now. That's historical science.

Exactly. There is Historical science and there is observational science. When he said evolution is demonstrable, then it moves it into the observational science arena and I asked, who what where when why? And all I got is scientific double talk. Mumbo Jumbo, not observational science!

His case here has all sorts of cracks throughout. And being hard headed does not make a man right in what he says.

 

[Clizby]

You want to make the issue about God condoning slavery. That is not my issue and is not the issue I am trying to get you to address.

Ok, are you saying then that you are ok with the rule God made for slavery or that the bible does not say god made rules for it.

There are rules for scientific study that act as guidelines for proper research. Don't you think that when we read the biblical text, we should also have some guidelines?

Who comes up with the guidelines?

You say the kjv is a bad translation and you dont trust it and you give an example of the word heathen and opt for your own understanding and switch to "nations".

What repeatable rules or method did you use to make that conclusion?

Like I said only the KJV uses heathen most other use other nations. The fact is that God said to get slaves from other nations.

If you can't trust the word heathen, what makes you think you can trust the word slave?

So if I cannot trust the translation do I need to know the original language to understand the text?

So even if the word does not mean slave (which I am unconvinced) it still says you can beat and own that person no matter what you call it.

This is where a term we call textual exegesis comes into play. It is similar to etymology, but much, much more when we actually delve into the richness of the Hebrew language.

So again, someone needs to know the Hebrew language to know what God is saying? Why is your God so elusive?

There are many disciplines within biblical exegesis which is why I also asked you about cultural bias earlier.

So God cannot be understood by reading the book?

And no, bias is not a dirty word. We should all know our bias and readily admit them.

I never said bias is a dirty word. The scientific method minimized bias through reputability and demonstration.

 

[Clizby]

Assumptions are not bad things and truth can be elusive. Scientists assume that the rate of decay has been consistent across millions of years. Scientists have recently moved some assumptions from tens of millions of years, to millions based on their interpretation of things observed.

They don't assume this. They have good reason to believe this in many cases.

AIG has a world view that the earth is young, so they look at science with a different set of eyes than evolutionists. Does that make them wrong, or does it just mean they view things differently than an evolutionist?

AIG has an assumption that the earth is young. This is nothing more than a hypothesis. Every claim they make has been refuted by actual science and demonstrated to be false. If their conclusions contradict actual demonstrated science then yes, they are wrong.

Just because a solution explains something does not mean that it is the explanation. It must be demonstrated to be the explanation.

If I dropped a 1 lb rock from 10 feet I could calculate the force in which it hit from an assumed equation. Then I could demonstrate that calculation is correct by repeated measurements by independent people. Would you say this is an interpretation of the equation or demonstration of the equation? So when something is demonstrated to be true it can be verified by anyone and no interpretation is required.

Lucy is a prime example. Evolutionists make her look more like a monkey than a human. They assume her height among other things with no physical evidence. We could argue this all day long and both of us could put up some pretty good evidence to support our view, but in the end, we're both making our best guess based on our own personal bias.

No because the findings can be demonstrated. It can be demonstrated that she is 3 million years old, that she was an adult, that she was a female, that she walked upright.

Here is truth.
Matthew 7:7
ESV
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you."

This could be true, can you give sufficient evidence that it is?

 

[Clizby]

Exactly. There is Historical science and there is observational science. When he said evolution is demonstrable, then it moves it into the observational science arena and I asked, who what where when why? And all I got is scientific double talk. Mumbo Jumbo, not observational science!

This is untrue. Please stop misrepresenting me. Go back and read what I said.

I showed you where to find the evidence and how to find it. Do you really think evolution can be demonstrated in just one post on the internet? Are you willing to learn what the actual theory is and why it is actual science that is falsifiable, predictive, testable etc?

His case here has all sorts of cracks throughout. And being hard headed does not make a man right in what he says.

Do you even care about truth or the morality of your god?

 

[stovebolts]

They don't assume this. They have good reason to believe this in many cases.

AIG has an assumption that the earth is young. This is nothing more than a hypothesis. Every claim they make has been refuted by actual science and demonstrated to be false. If their conclusions contradict actual demonstrated science then yes, they are wrong.

Just because a solution explains something does not mean that it is the explanation. It must be demonstrated to be the explanation.

If I dropped a 1 lb rock from 10 feet I could calculate the force in which it hit from an assumed equation. Then I could demonstrate that calculation is correct by repeated measurements by independent people. Would you say this is an interpretation of the equation or demonstration of the equation? So when something is demonstrated to be true it can be verified by anyone and no interpretation is required.

No because the findings can be demonstrated. It can be demonstrated that she is 3 million years old, that she was an adult, that she was a female, that she walked upright.

This could be true, can you give sufficient evidence that it is?

I think your evolutionary bias is showing.
Simply asserting that "your tribe" is right simply because you have basis to refute is no better than "my tribe" is right because we can refute.

This mentality leads to argument and quarreling that only serves to reinforce tribalism. This mentality is not a disease I want to saturate my forum.

If we are both to be intellectually honest, we must expose our assumptions.

I assume God is real and the Bible is true. For me, this is truth.

For you, you assume our God does not exist and for you, that is truth.

What measure do we use to stake these claims?

You are on a Christian Forum, which assumes followers of Christ.

Science assumes both carbon dating and radio active decay has been consistent across millions of years. However, based on the half life of carbon, it is only valid for 10,000 years and radioactive decay must be used to age fossils.

But the truth is that we have not been following the rate of decay so we assume it is consistent in a world of change.

So, your tribe argues this and our tribe argues that. Really, what does it matter if it causes us to put up walls against one another. In this case, you affirming your superior intellect over us uneducated Christians.

Here is truth
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.


If Christ was not raised from the dead, then our faith is in vain.

You see, our tribe has a great hope, but it is not simply for ourselves, but for others as well.

As far as slaves in the OT, you have only shown that you understand a piece of text with your own understanding with no desire to truly understand what is being written.

In regard to Gods laws,
Deuteronomy 4:6
Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

So the question isn't, Does God condone slavery but rather, how does slavery fit into being considered wise and understanding to other nations. Especially if those slaves are from other nations?

Secondly, it has always been agreed that all of the laws hinge on the two greatest commandments.

So the question is, how does owning a slave in ancient times fulfil the royal law of loving your neighbor as yourself.

If you studied these things within their full and proper context, you would see this.

 

[stovebolts]

Exactly. There is Historical science and there is observational science. When he said evolution is demonstrable, then it moves it into the observational science arena and I asked, who what where when why? And all I got is scientific double talk. Mumbo Jumbo, not observational science!

His case here has all sorts of cracks throughout. And being hard headed does not make a man right in what he says.

I agree. That is why it is so important to understand not only our Bias, but our assumptions as well.

Faith is not blind, regardless if one has faith in God or one has faith in Science. All followers have assumptions regardless who or what your following.

Look at Peter as an example. As he grew in Christ, his assumptions of who Jesus was and what His purpose was changed. Our faith is no different...

 

[Clizby]

Hey wait a minute here, if you require evidence which can be substantiated and the evidence is demonstrable like you say for evolution...then you are either a highly educated college grad or PHD whatever and should be able to give us more than, well you got to study college courses like I did and I have checked all of their work etc...,or you are a non highly educated layperson like most of us here, so you still should be able to lay out a very lay person level summary of exactly what they did to convince such a lay person as your self...right? So which is it?

I spent 6 months off and on studying evolution. I could give a summary of how evolution works but that is not the same as demonstrating it is true.

Evolution is not just one thing it is a comprehensive theory that includes genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry and geology. You need to learn what natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, theory of speciation and horizontal genetic transfer are. You need to know taxonomy and cladistics. These all support the theory of evolution and can be demonstrated. It may not be easy to understand but all can understand it if they are willing to do the work.

I can start a new thread next week and start on some of the evidences for evolution that convinced me if you want. One post will not do it.

And if you have not checked these scientists work for yourself...then there is also no validity here either which would mean that had to at some point think to yourself, hey this guy sounds like he knows what he is talking about, so I don't need to check his work and can have faith in this man that he is correct....

This is not how science works. I don't have to do the actual experiments to know something is true. If a hypothesis is tested over and over by independent scientists in the field of study and they all can demonstrate that it is true then it should be believed. You can find the papers out there for free on whatever kind of verification that has been done. A lot of universities will have this information if you want it.

So you have only demonstrated to us so far that you have faith in the evo scientists. You have not backed up your claims. What else you got?

You want an easy answer of which there is none. Like I said I can start a thread with evidences next week, but it will take many posts to get the evidence to come together. Creationism is easy, God did it, the real world is not easy.

I have substantiated evidence for God's existence, myself. But you would not even believe it because your faith in the PHD's (Permanent Head Damage) is so great already. That, and my evidence is not something that can be reproduced in a lab or sideshow.

Why the insult to PHD holders? I have no faith in science, I believe things that can be demonstrated.