[__ Science __ ] Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview

[Paul E. Michael]

What is the difference between proving that P is true and demonstrating that P is true?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Barbarian, what is the difference between verifying that P is true and proving that P is true?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Barbarian, what is the difference between establishing that P is true and proving that P is true?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

The theory has been confirmed

Barbarian, what is the difference between confirming that P is true and proving that P is true?

Unfortunately for you, professional Darwinist, because you are merely using these words ("prove," "verify," "establish," "demonstrate," "confirm," etc.) meaninglessly, you have no hope of dealing with any of these questions. It's sad that you are apparently deluded into imagining that you can hide your glaring failure regarding these elementary questions by continuing your meaningless chanting of the very words, about your use of which you are failing to answer these questions.

Some people find big words to be just confusing noise.

What do you mean by your phrase, "big words"? Please tell us to which words you are referring by it, and tell us why you call those, particular words, "big"? Since you can't address any of the elementary questions I've asked you about your parrot-like use of the words "prove," "demonstrate," "verify," "establish," "show," "confirm," etc., perhaps you are calling those words, "big words"?

Induction involves observing the particulars and inferring the rules.

Here's a fun example of the irrational thinking to which you are referring by your word, "induction": "I observe that this, particular A is a B, ergo, all A's are B's." The proposition, 'This A is a B,' does not entail the proposition, 'All A's are B's.' Since 'This A is a B' does not entail 'All A's are B's,' nobody ever infers, from 'This A is a B,' that 'All A's are B's.' You'll never infer from one or more proposition(s) what is not entailed by it/them. All inference is deduction. Sorry, but the irrational thinking you call "induction" has nothing to do with inferring, no matter how much you might like to sit there chanting, "therefore!"

So why do so few pastors share the "Answers in Genesis" worldview? Mostly because they have studied this:

I agree with you, there! Those few pastors share the "Answers In Genesis" worldview because, as you say, they have studied the Bible.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, what is the difference between confirming that P is true and proving that P is true?

Let's go back and see what you missed...

It is essentially mathematical. This is why I suggested you learn a little about epistemology. As you may have realized by now, proof is not part of science. Because science is essentially inductive, proofs are difficult at best in science. There are inductive proofs, but they don't work so will with hypotheses and verification. Would you like to learn more about that?

This doesn't seem that difficult to understand. Ideas in science are verified by checking to see if predictions of those ideas are verified. This does not amount to proof, since it only increases our confidence that the ideas are correct. Pretty much everything we know in this world is like that. Proof requires logical certainty, which is rarely possible in science. I don't know how to make it simpler for you.

What do you mean by your phrase, "big words"?

Your difficulty with the word "ontology." If you go back I explained it for you.

Here's a fun example of the irrational thinking to which you are referring by your word, "induction": "I observe that this, particular A is a B, ergo, all A's are B's."

Um, that's not induction. That's merely a logical error. There might be a hypothesis that all A's are B's, but of course, then that would have to be repeatedly verified to consider it true.

Learn about it here:
Induction is extending or generalizing beyond the study to the larger world. It is the basis of exploratory research and scientific discovery as scientists launch studies to find out how the world works. For example, if results of a drug trial indicate effectiveness in a small sample of people, we might infer that the drug would be effective if used in the broader population. If few adverse reactions were found in a study, we would infer there will be few if used on a mass scale. The larger the samples and the more times the investigation is repeated, the more trust we will have in our inductive inference.

Three Types of Scientific Inference

Three types of scientific inference are induction (extending results), abduction (explaining results) and deduction (testing predictions)

paulspector.com

So why do so few pastors share the "Answers in Genesis" worldview? Mostly because they have studied this:
And it's not possible to reconcile "Answer in Genesis" teachings with that book.

I agree with you, there!

 

[Paul E. Michael]

What is the difference between proving that P is true and demonstrating that P is true?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Barbarian, what is the difference between verifying that P is true and proving that P is true?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Barbarian, what is the difference between establishing that P is true and proving that P is true?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Barbarian, what is the difference between confirming that P is true and proving that P is true?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

 

[T. E. Smith]

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Your questions are word games.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Your questions are word games.

You call everything that embarrasses the glaring, self-defeating stupidity of Darwinists, "word games".

proving is demonstrating, demonstrating is establishing, establishing is confirming, confirming is verifying, verifying is proving

Barbarian is advertising his desire to not be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people by telling us that to prove that the proposition, P, is true is not one and the same thing as to demonstrate that the proposition, P, is true.

 

[T. E. Smith]

You call everything that embarrasses the glaring, self-defeating stupidity of Darwinists, "word games".

proving is demonstrating, demonstrating is establishing, establishing is confirming, confirming is verifying, verifying is proving

Barbarian is advertising his desire to not be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people by telling us that to prove that the proposition, P, is true is not one and the same thing as to demonstrate that the proposition, P, is true.

Barbarian is applying the wrong definition of proof here.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Barbarian is applying the wrong definition of proof here.

You're supposed to tag his name when you refer to Barbarian.

 

[T. E. Smith]

You're supposed to tag his name when you refer to Barbarian.

No, that's only important when he's not already receiving notifications for the thread. The point of tagging is to make sure he'll see it. He will see my post.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

No, that's only important when he's not already receiving notifications for the thread. The point of tagging is to make sure he'll see it.

No, that's not what we find in the TOS.

1.2: Always tag a member that you mention in any thread.; (@ plus name)

You mentioned Barbarian, you were expected to tag him. See?

He will see my post.

Or not.

 

[Barbarian]

@Barbarian is advertising his desire to not be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people by telling us that to prove that the proposition, P, is true is not one and the same thing as to demonstrate that the proposition, P, is true.

I did? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out that I didn't. You're back to inventing things you want me to say.

Paul E. Michael said:
What is the difference between proving that P is true and demonstrating that P is true?

When I showed you, it seems you completely forgot. Remember when I explained the difference between logical certainty and knowledge from inference? Would you like me to show you that, again?

As you seemed to realize earlier, most of what we know is demonstrated by inductive reasoning. For example, we know that John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence. We can't prove that it wasn't an imposter who was able to fool all the other founders into thinking it was him. But we have enough evidence to infer that the signature thereupon and the statements of the other founders are correct.

Inductive reasoning strongly demonstrates that John Hancock signed the document, even if it can't give us logical certainty. If we knew that only John Hancock could sign his name, and "John Hancock" is on the declaration, then it would be proven that he signed it, rather than merely inferred from the evidence. This seems to be a very difficult issue for you. And I don't see why.

In case you missed it, here it is, again:
Induction is extending or generalizing beyond the study to the larger world. It is the basis of exploratory research and scientific discovery as scientists launch studies to find out how the world works. For example, if results of a drug trial indicate effectiveness in a small sample of people, we might infer that the drug would be effective if used in the broader population. If few adverse reactions were found in a study, we would infer there will be few if used on a mass scale. The larger the samples and the more times the investigation is repeated, the more trust we will have in our inductive inference.

As in your former opinion that birds are not dinosaurs, you've assumed things not in evidence.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

And when did I write "prove" or "proof?" Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?

No, I'm not confusing you with someone else. Maybe you're confusing yourself with someone else?

Among other times, here's when you wrote "prove":

For example, we know that John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence. We can't prove that it wasn't an imposter who was able to fool all the other founders into thinking it was him. But we have enough evidence to infer that the signature thereupon and the statements of the other founders are correct.

Also, here's when you wrote "prove":

Still, after all that, there never is 100% proof of a theory. Even a hundred million successful tests and observations cannot prove a theory; they can validate a theory, they can demonstrate the robustness of a theory, but a single irreconcilable, reproducible observation is enough to show that a theory is not correct in all regimes, everywhere. This is likely true of all theories, by the way: that they have a range-of-validity, and outside of that range their validity breaks down.

Why can't you tell us what, according to you, proving is? What, according to you, would it be to prove the proposition, P? To prove the proposition, P, is to ____________________________________________________?

Of course, you've never answered the question I've repeatedly asked you: "Barbarian, what is the difference between demonstrating that P is true and proving that P is true?"

Obviously, as you and I both know, you can't touch that one with a ten-foot pole, so long as you wish to try to avoid further embarrassing yourself by your own self-incoherence. I mean, all you have to do is go to the dictionary entry for the verb, "prove," to learn that to prove is to "demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument."

You love to chant that "in science" one "cannot prove a theory". Well, congratulations, professional Darwinist: if that's the case, then, "in science," one "cannot [demonstrate the truth of] a theory [by evidence or argument]." Bravo.


LOL @ your nonsense phrase, "the robustness of a theory". Every theory is either true or false. Truth is a property of some theories, and falsehood is a property of all other theories. (And, whatever is neither true nor false is no theory.) Robustness is not a property of any theory. Rather, robustness is a property of living things. Duh. Your phrase, "the robustness of a theory," is yet one more of many, many examples of how you, a professional Darwinist, love to just string words together meaninglessly, hoping that you will somehow awe and be overestimated by your marks and your critics on account of your penchant for using inflated verbiage to say little or nothing. (Remember, you're the same guy who tries to plume yourself by calling your utterances as (and I quote you) "big words". How can you not see how silly you make yourself to appear by resorting to such juvenile, pompous performances as that? Sad.)

 

[Barbarian]

You love to chant that "in science" one "cannot prove a theory". Well, congratulations, professional Darwinist: if that's the case, then, "in science," one "cannot [demonstrate the truth of] a theory [by evidence or argument]." Bravo.

But we can demonstrate the truth of the theory by evidence. That's how it works. You just confused truth and provability again.

LOL @ your nonsense phrase, "the robustness of a theory". Truth is a property of some theories, and falsehood is a property of all other theories.

And that's another delusion you have about theories. Philosophers of science refer to the robustness of a theory in it's usefulness in explaining a range of phenomena.

Every theory is either true or false.

No. Every theory is only provisionally true.

Theories can only survive, and are only provisionally valid, for as long as they are not shown to be false by empirical reality (when a single black swan is found), and subsequently replaced by a new, better theory.

1.1 The Principles of Science Theory

Science theory concerns itself with the possibilities and the limits of scientific knowledge.

answersingenesis.org

Remember when I suggested that it would be good to read up on what you were talking about? Here's an example.

Newton's theory of gravitation remains a useful and robust theory. It's used by NASA to navigate the solar system. But relativity is a more precise theory that explains some phenomena that Newton's theory does not. It's a very naive view of science to suppose that theories are "either true of false." Here's a knowledgeable YE creationist explaining some of it for you:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

 

[Paul E. Michael]

And that's another delusion you have about theories. Philosophers of science refer to the robustness of a theory in it's [sic] usefulness in explaining a range of phenomena.

And that's another delusion you have about your use of words. You imagine that because you string some words together, as in your nonsense phrase, "the robustness of a theory," you are referring.

But we can demonstrate the truth of the theory by evidence.

As you've learned, according to the dictionary, and all rationally-thinking people, to demonstrate the truth of the theory, T, is to prove the truth of the theory, T. Demonstrating T is proving T; proving T is demonstrating T.

By all means, feel free to try to prove your asinine assertion that demonstrating T is not proving T/that proving T is not demonstrating T.

By all means, feel free to try to demonstrate your asinine assertion that demonstrating T is not proving T/that proving T is not demonstrating T.

That's how it works.

What's how what works?

You just confused truth and provability again.

By your word, "provability," are you referring to a property of truth?

No.

Yes. Every theory is either true or false. Every theory that is true is not false, and every theory that is not false is true. Every thing that is neither true nor false is something that is not cognitively meaningful, and is, thus, no theory.

Every theory is only provisionally true.

By your phrase, "provisionally true," do you mean untrue?

And what about every false theory? Do you mean that every false theory is "only provisionally true"?

(BTW, you've already made it clear that your non-theory, what you call "the theory of evolution," is untrue.)

 

[Paul E. Michael]

There is evidence for evolution

Evolution itself is not....without evidence.

Here, in those two excerpts, you are (purportedly, at least) quoting someone else, someone who is not you. Yet, somehow, you seem to admire the confused person whom you are quoting, therein.

It is always abjectly stupid to say, "X is supported by evidence, but I do not believe X." That seems essentially to be what the guy you are quoting is saying.

If X is supported by evidence, and one knows X is supported by evidence, then he/she is a deranged fool if he is able to, nevertheless, not believe X.

But, the guy whom you are quoting has another, insurmountable problem, in addition to that. A problem, too, that he shares, with you, and which neither you nor he has any hope of overcoming. Y'all repeatedly assert that evidence supports the nonsense and falsehood you call "evolution"/"the theory of evolution"; yet, you never support that assertion (because you cannot support it). Instead of supporting that assertion, you just continue reiterating that assertion, and calling your reiterated assertion "evidence" for itself.

Also, whenever you call something "evidence," it's up to you (not me) to support your claim that what you are calling "evidence" is evidence. Do you expect me to just believe your assertion that what you call "evidence" is evidence, just because you are asserting that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

 

[Barbarian]

Here, in those two excerpts, you are (purportedly, at least) quoting someone else, someone who is not you. Yet, somehow, you seem to admire the confused person whom you are quoting, therein.

As you discovered, even honest and knowledgeable YE creationists admit that there is much evidence for evolution. Would you like me to show you again?

It is always abjectly stupid to say, "X is supported by evidence, but I do not believe X."

It's just honesty. Kurt Wise, for example, admits that he prefers his interpretation of Genesis rather than the evidence. He correctly points out that just because there is "very good evidence" for macroevolutionary theory, that does not mean that someday more evidence might change things. Think back about what you learned of the epistemic nature of evidence. Think about it a little.

But, the guy whom you are quoting has another, insurmountable problem, in addition to that. A problem, too, that he shares, with you, and which neither you nor he has any hope of overcoming. Y'all repeatedly assert that evidence supports the nonsense and falsehood you call "evolution"/"the theory of evolution"; yet, you never support that assertion (because you cannot support it).

As you also learned, we directly observe evolution constantly. Think back. Do you remember what the scientific definition of biological evolution is? "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time." So evolution is an observed fact. You're likely confusing the fact of evolution, with consequences of evolution, like common descent.

Also, whenever you call something "evidence," it's up to you (not me) to support your claim that what you are calling "evidence" is evidence.

The observed changes in allele frequencies for example, are evidence, since they are directly observed. As your fellow YE creationists point out, the fossil record is evidence, since it is observable. Dr. Wise points out that the many stratographic series of transitional fossils is "very good evidence." He just thinks that there may someday be a YE creationist explanation for it:

At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales. On the other hand, clues that an
alternative solution might be forthcoming comes from the following considerations:

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

It's worth reading. So far, the things Dr. Wise has suggested have not been demonstrated, but they aren't wholly unreasonable.

Do you expect me to just believe your assertion that what you call "evidence" is evidence, just because you are asserting that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

It's there for anyone to see. No point in denying the fact.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood, The Truth About Evolution

"Don't idolize your own ability to reason." - Good advice here. For all of us.

 

[Barbarian]

And that's another delusion you have about your use of words. You imagine that because you string some words together, as in your nonsense phrase, "the robustness of a theory," you are referring.

When we string words together, most of us are expressing ideas. That's the nature of language. What are you trying to do?

By your word, "provability," are you referring to a property of truth?

I'm speaking of logical certainty. Would you like me to show you some examples again?

Yes. Every theory is either true or false.

No, you're wrong about that. You're still caught up in essentialism. Theories are merely idea that are useful to the extent that they accurately explain natural phenomena. As you learned, Newton's theory of gravitation is still a valid theory that is successfully used by NASA to navigate space craft, but has been shown to be not strictly true, due to relativity. All theories are like that, only provisionally true, and always subject to new evidence.

By your phrase, "provisionally true," do you mean untrue?

I mean considered true, subject to future evidence. That's how it works. Do you remember what I showed you about theories and how they work? Should I show you again?

And what about every false theory? Do you mean that every false theory is "only provisionally true"?

Like Newton's theory of gravitation? It works rather well. Except in cases of very high speed or huge masses, it's extremely accurate. But there are a few cases in planetary astronomy where relativistic effects have to be considered.

(BTW, you've already made it clear that your non-theory, what you call "the theory of evolution," is untrue.)

As you learned, your fellow YE creationists who actually know about the theory, disagree with you.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
Dr, Todd Wood
ibid

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

But of course, they understand the evidence, and you're still struggling with it.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I asked Barbarian:

By your word, "provability," are you referring to a property of truth?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

It's a Yes/No question, Barbarian. By your word, "provability," either you are referring to a property of truth, or you are not.

By your word, "provability," are you referring to a property of truth? Yes or No?

Every theory is only provisionally true.

I mean considered true, subject to future evidence.

LOL

So, by "only provisionally true," you mean considered true, rather than true.

So, according to you, "Every theory is [considered true]".

Your dismal confusion at even the most elementary level is astonishing! Every theory is true or false independently of whether or not it is considered true, and independently of whether or not it is considered false, and independently of whether or not considered at all.

The rank subjectivism you're trying to hand us is self-destroying. "Every theory is [considered true]" by whom?

But, at least you are admitting that the non-theory you call "the theory of evolution" is not true, but is only considered true.......by Darwinists. LOLOL

I asked Barbarian:

By your phrase, "provisionally true," do you mean untrue?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

It's a Yes/No question, Barbarian. By your phrase, "provisionally true," either you mean untrue, or you do not.

By your phrase, "provisionally true," do you mean untrue? Yes or No?

As you learned, your fellow YE creationists who actually know about the theory, disagree with you.

I don't consider clowns that write stuff like what you (at least purportedly) quoted to be YE creationists. Duh. Like you, either they are speaking out of shameful ignorance and dismal confusion, or they are lying through their teeth.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

As you also learned, we directly observe evolution constantly.

As you also learned, we directly observe your frantic meltdown constantly, as you keep exhibiting it by writing things like what you have written, here, because you can't deal rationally with any of my criticism and questions about your war against truth and logic. What a tangled web you weave, Barbarian, when first you practice to try to create and/or maintain the illusion of prestige you wish to project on behalf of your sorry racket as a professional Darwinist.

 

[Barbarian]

As you also learned, we directly observe your frantic meltdown constantly,

And we have projection. You're perfect, Paul.

you keep exhibiting it by writing things like what you have written, here, because you can't deal rationally with any of my criticism

Most people think citing evidence of the sort I showed you, is a rational thing. I'll just have to disagree with you on that.

What a tangled web you weave, Barbarian, when first you practice to try to create and/or maintain the illusion of prestige you wish to project on behalf of your sorry racket as a professional Darwinist.

You're frothing again. Calm yourself and try to find a rational response.

As you learned, even your fellow YE creationists understand the nature of scientific theories. They are honest enough to admit that they are well-confirmed, but take their understanding of the Bible to be more convincing. If you would be able to do that, the evidence we discussed would no longer trouble you so.

Perhaps, you might talk to a religious counselor to deal with some of these issues. I'm clearly not doing you any good at all here. I'll correct any misconceptions I see, but I'll try to avoid making anything worse with you.

 

[GodsGrace]

A couple of questions .

1 . Definition of a Biblical Worldview ? I have not seen a consensus on this so far .

2. Why would a Biblical Worldview be a bad thing ? It does sound like a good thing :neutral

A couple of links on what a Biblical Worldview is thought to be .

What Is A Biblical Worldview?

SIX IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW

Hi Hawkman

I'm taking the liberty to post the following which was written by a new member who may not have seen this thread.
It's very good.

It's regarding your 1st question...definition of worldview.
We all know what it is, but her explanation/definition is very clear.

A model apple on the table is viewed by several people. A botanist looking at an apple classifies it. An artist sees the existence of life and paints it. A trader sees an asset and inventory. A child sees lunch and eats it. How we see the situation is influenced by how we view the world as a whole. Everyone's worldview is different. Let's explore the relationship between Christianity and people's worldview below


Worldview is the basic cognitive orientation of an individual or society that includes all knowledge and views of individuals or society. The worldview may include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, feelings, and morals.

The worldview represents an overview of the world in our consciousness. Including the outside world, people, and the relationship between people and that world. It is the guideline for all our attitudes and behaviors towards the outside world.

The Christian worldview is a holistic concept of the world from the Christian point of view. An individual's worldview is his or her "big picture". A harmony of all his or her beliefs about the world. That is his true understanding. One's worldview is the basis for daily decision-making and is therefore extremely important.
The Christian worldview answers three biblical questions:
1) We are God's creatures, created to rule the world and have fellowship with Him (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:15).
2) We sin against God and incur a worldwide curse (Genesis 3).
3) It was God who redeemed the world through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ (Genesis 3:15; Luke 19:10), and will one day restore creation back to life. return to its former perfect state (Is 65:17-25).
A Christian worldview leads us to believe in absolute morality, miracles, human dignity, and the possibility of salvation.

It is important to remember that a worldview is inclusive. It greatly affects all areas of life, from money to morality, from politics to art. True Christianity gathers ideas more than for church use. Christianity taught in the Bible is itself a worldview. The Bible never distinguishes between a "religious" and "secular" life. The Christian life is the life of God alone. Jesus declared Himself to be “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) and in that way, He became our worldview.

source: Jennifer Rogers
Forum: Christianity and Science

[__ Science __ ] - The relationship between Christianity and human worldview

A model apple on the table is viewed by several people. A botanist looking at an apple classifies it. An artist sees the existence of life and paints it. A trader sees an asset and inventory. A child sees lunch and eats it. How we see the situation is influenced by how we view the world as a...

christianforums.net