What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] The Christianity In Science

Doulos Iesou said:
No, not even a Christian scientist would view that as a valid basis.

1. The Bible is not a scientific book, it is a theological book.
2. Scientists practice methodological naturalism, and therefore cannot comment on the metaphysical and supernatural.
Click to expand...
Could the supernatural be the natural that we do not understand?
 
So your saying that man's search for the truth in science is limited to his own understanding.
Therefore, if man fails to search the supernatural, he will never know if he has found the truth or not.
 
Rollo Tamasi said:
So your saying that man's search for the truth in science is limited to his own understanding.
Therefore, if man fails to search the supernatural, he will never know if he has found the truth or not.
Click to expand...
Presupposes that there is a 'truth' that resides only in the supernatural. Interestingly, those who have gone searching critically for some 'truth' in proponents of the supernatural - Harry Houdini and James Randi spring to mind as two examples - have uncovered only charlatans, rascals and the deluded.
 
Rollo Tamasi said:
So your saying that man's search for the truth in science is limited to his own understanding.
Therefore, if man fails to search the supernatural, he will never know if he has found the truth or not.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that science can only deal with what is empirically verifiable.

There are other means of seeking the supernatural.
 
lordkalvan said:
Presupposes that there is a 'truth' that resides only in the supernatural. Interestingly, those who have gone searching critically for some 'truth' in proponents of the supernatural - Harry Houdini and James Randi spring to mind as two examples - have uncovered only charlatans, rascals and the deluded.
Click to expand...
I don't understand your purpose for saying this.
 
lordkalvan said:
I understood you to be suggesting an undiscovered truth residing in the supernatural. I was offering a differing perspective. I thought that was part of what discussion forums are about.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't know anything about Houdini and Randi and what they have done in the supernatural realm.
 
Doulos Iesou said:
I'm saying that science can only deal with what is empirically verifiable.

There are other means of seeking the supernatural.
Click to expand...
Okay, so if the Bible says that God created man on the 6th day, and God named that man Adam, then one of three things can happen.
1. Science can call God a liar.
2. Science can somehow fit that statement in with what they believe to be true.
3. Or they can change the meaning of Scripture. And that's a no-no.
 
Rollo Tamasi said:
Okay, so if the Bible says that God created man on the 6th day, and God named that man Adam, then one of three things can happen.
1. Science can call God a liar.
2. Science can somehow fit that statement in with what they believe to be true.
3. Or they can change the meaning of Scripture. And that's a no-no.
Click to expand...
theistic evolutionist have said that jesus didn't know science and was in err on a few things.
 
Rollo Tamasi said:
That doesn't surprise me.
Click to expand...
logical conclusion if you ask me. a day isn't a day and yet moses and the whole nation of isreal and to include jesus would know that the day of rest is literally one day and here is this in the torah which is the command of what day to do it and how long.

for in six days god created the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested
Click to expand...
the shabat is one day.
 
Rollo Tamasi said:
Okay, so if the Bible says that God created man on the 6th day, and God named that man Adam, then one of three things can happen.
1. Science can call God a liar.
2. Science can somehow fit that statement in with what they believe to be true.
3. Or they can change the meaning of Scripture. And that's a no-no.
Click to expand...
Of course, you can't even consider that your literal interpretation could be in error.

Option 4?
 
Doulos Iesou said:
Jesus as a man probably didn't know much about science.
Click to expand...
so whom told him what to say? the father? you have made the kenotic error.

god told moses, which is where I got that. not jesus. and you often say that god doesn't cause confusion. right so who wrote exodus and genesis? god said six days and jesus was told what to say by the father. he said nothing of his own. how does a god loose knowledge. he cant. jesus didn't have to die. he allowed that, he could have not chosen death, he also said at the age of 12 and taught the torah to the priests, how does a 12 year old male that wasn't bar mitzvahed know that?
 
Doulos Iesou said:
No, not even a Christian scientist would view that as a valid basis.

1. The Bible is not a scientific book, it is a theological book.
2. Scientists practice methodological naturalism, and therefore cannot comment on the metaphysical and supernatural.
Click to expand...

The Bible is not a scientific book, it is a theological book.

Sounds like it disqualifies scripture from being used as evidence doesn't it? But that's simply not the case.
It describes events as well. As we record events so has the bible. I've even read "science" books that record events that in many cases is the very basis of the "scientific" subject at hand. And as you know, events of creation are not confined solely to the OT but are also recorded events in the NT.

But here again, the word "scientific" (science) is being used as if it's some kind of being of it's own. Say "science" and all else is supposed to be disqualified like "science" is the end all of everything. But science is the tool that gathers data. And has been used to record events no less. And man makes the conclusions. Besides, scientific texts have assuredly used events to make conclusions. I see no reason to disregard events recorded in scripture. After all, scientists do it. So for some reason biblical events are off limits? That seems a bit biased to me.
 
Doulos Iesou said:
Of course, you can't even consider that your literal interpretation could be in error.

Option 4?
Click to expand...
Of course I might be in error.
I may also not be alive.
I may simply be some computer program coming out of a spaceship somewhere.

But that won't change my belief that God gave this to Moses, and he gave it to the Jewish people, and what they believe has been passed down to us forever since then.

And if God wanted them to believe something else, he would of said so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top