|
The virgin birth is a matter of theology. The Bible reckons sin as an inherited defect, passed from generation to generation. However, it is always reckoned through the father's parentage (although Eve sinned first, the Bible always speaks of Adam's sin). By having God as his father, Jesus was born without the human inheritance of sin--thus the importance of a virgin birth.
It is useful to point out that not all of us accept the doctrine of inherent depravity nor the doctrine of original sin. Personally I think the point of the Virgin birth has more to do with showing the uniqueness of Christ as the only begotten Son of God and less to do with the problem of sin. So it is a matter of theology but we do not all agree on the theological implications. :)
Its a silly argument one way or the other.
Yes! That's exactly my point. You're able to dismiss whales =/= literal fish with the greatest of ease. Some people, believe it or not, cannot do so. John Paul II was able to reconcile evolution and an old Earth with Genesis. Many other people, for whatever reason, cannot. Jefferson was able to reconcile the truth of the Sermon on the Mount without the need for a physical resurrection. Most self-proclaimed Christians cannot.
It's all a matter of where you draw the line, and different people all put it in different places. Even established theological think-tanks move the line over time.
|
|
Lots of stuff...
There is a lot that people will argue about until their dying breath -- especially over things that really don't matter. I too have heard that it couldn't be a whale because the bible says "fish". Does it really matter? The end result is still the same. Even if you believe that the whole fish swallowing thing was allegorical, it was still an image of death, burial, and resurrection and he still preached to the Ninevites.
With regard to what difference it makes whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin or that there was a physical resurrection, etc. -- I think that a lot of it goes with the validity of the Bible. There are other verses that seem to point to Mary being a virgin such that being hung up on one word's translation seems a bit much. When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant, his immediate reaction was basically to let her go her separate way. There was absolutely no reason for him to marry her -- in fact, legally, he shouldn't have. The Bible says that he didn't sleep with her until after Jesus was born, etc. Ok, so one word might be translated a slightly different way, but when you look at the rest of scripture, the other translations don't really mesh well.
The physical resurrection of Jesus is a little different. It was physical and it wasn't. When he rose from the dead, people didn't recognize him until after he was gone. He magically appeared in locked rooms and yet people could touch him. The idea is that he conquered death. "Death" could mean physical or spiritual (or both or something else?). But because he conquered death, we don't necessarily have to "die". At the very least, the physical resurrection of Jesus was "proof" that he succeeded.
It's not really a "their team supports" thing, but rather the difference between the Bible being the word of God or a nice paperweight.
Picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are or are not allegorical is a tricky business. And it's entirely possible I am wrong about a number of things. Take Jonah for instance. I personally believe that he was swallowed by -- something big -- and sat in a stinky stomach for 3 days to contemplate the error of his ways. It would have had to have been a miracle to have happened, but I don't have much reason to doubt it because it was written as though it was a miracle. The creation account is different because the miracle presented is that he created everything -- sun, moon, planets, stars, life, people, etc. The "miracle" (I feel) is NOT that it was done in seven days. The seven days makes it nice and easy to tell the story.
It's further difficult when dealing with prophecy. I'm still researching the passage -- especially the Matthew passage -- that CourtFool brought up. Prophecy never happens the way that people expect it to. Which makes it a tricky business. The Jews believed that Jesus would "save" them. They really thought that meant saving them from the Romans at the time. He didn't do that at all. He did save his people but not in a way that his people expected at all. So much of prophecy comes down to -- "What I said was true -- from a certain point of view."
What I've found out about the Matthew passage:
Jesus was answering (at least) three questions asked by his disciples. Who, quite honestly, were given answers that didn't necessarily make a lot of sense to them and may or may not have sounded like they actually answered the question(s) asked. The topic started out talking about the temple and its eventual destruction. Then talked about the second coming and the end times. It's not necessarily easy to figure out where he answered which question and kind of feels like he's answering them all at the same time as though it is all one event. Then he seems to wrap it all up with the "this generation shall not pass until all these things happen." All what things? The things in the past couple of sentences or the past three pages? It looks like "generation" might mean "race" as in the Jewish race or possibly even "line". I'm really not much of a linguist and really don't know about all that. I'm still going to research that passage and see if I can come up with anything new, but all I can really say is that it is entirely possible for many of the words that Jesus used in his answer have double (triple?) meanings and that this prophecy may have happened in a way people were not expecting or that it still will happen in some other way we are not expecting. (For the record, the two "answers" I found to this passage I didn't like. One was basically "this" generation refers to whatever generation all these things happen to. I really don't buy that one. The other was basically saying "it had to have happened, get over it and move on". Which felt rather like a cop-out to me. Especially since it took him 5 pages to get to that conclusion. So I'll keep researching to see what I find out.)
I'm pointing out that disbelief doesn't eliminate God if He does exist.
And the bible does not create him if he does not exist.
Also, there's always the matter of context. You can't look at a part of the Bible and ascribe some monstrous character to God. You should also read the Psalms or the New Testament and discover that mercy and love for His creation are inseparable from His character.
How are you any less guilty of looking at part of the bible and ascribing some loving character to god?
All the geographic and historical accuracy of the Bible, and you're going to compare it to Greek mythology?
Can you share some non-faith based references? Without verifiable proof, the bible does seem as fantastical as Greek mythology. I have never seen a serpant talk, a bush burn without being destroyed or someone return from the dead.
My whole point is, it bears studying and looking into rather than dismissing based on an incomplete understanding.
So, until I believe my understanding is incomplete. I am an anti-christ!
This was longer than I intended
But exceptionally enlightening. My respect for you increases even more. Very few people I've met can reconcile translation vs. other errors and allegory vs. literal fact, while still maintaining a solid faith and still, on top of that, being able to admit that they may need to shift their lines about a bit in the future, as they learn more.
I suspect you'd have made an admirable scientist, under different training and circumstances.
|
|
Its a silly argument one way or the other.Yes! That's exactly my point. You're able to dismiss whales =/= literal fish with the greatest of ease.
I do not dismiss so much as I accept that words can mean different things at different times to different people.
A whale is literally a fish in the sense that when God lists the unclean fish to the Hebrews in the Pentatuech, the whale, as it has no scales, would be an unclean fish.
The whale is literally not a fish in the modern use of the word fish as it is warmblooded.
The same is true of the word wine. Historically wine did not of necessity imply alcohol. The New Wine that Jesus talks about placing in Old Wineskins is obviously unfermented wine. Some ancient Greek guy postulated that the best wine had no alcohol. In modern parlance the idea of unfermented wine is oxymoronic. More people would become better biblical students if they could learn to not read into words meanings that are not there.
(heh. Courtfools hangup on being an antichrist is another example. The word has a lot of modern baggage but the original meaning is just some one who sets themselves against Christ and his word. All unbelievers are, in the original meaning of the word, antichrist. You say that to people today though and they think Damien and the Omen.)
On the other hand, I do not believe it is fair to the writers to try and read out of words meanings that were meant to be there. The story of Jonah is not written as symbolic allegory and it is unfair to the text to make the original account allegorical (Though it is prophetically and allegorically applied by Jesus to the tomb and the story has significant and numerous applications theologically). One should either accept it or reject it as historical fact. The same is true for any of the miracles written by the authors as historical fact. It is dishonest to the text to make the miracles allegory (which some do) when that was not the intent of the author. The words should mean what they originally meant. We should accept them honestly as they are given or honestly reject them.
That's my opinion anyway. :)
There is a lot that people will argue about until their dying breath -- especially over things that really don't matter.
Guilty. But here is my excuse. Christian A asks me why I do not believe the bible. I say it is full of errors and contradictions. Christian A says what errors and contradictions. I provide example A, example B, ect. Some call it attacking. Some say I am nitpicking every little thing.
What is really the big picture? There is a god who loves us and we are all forgiven our sins because of Jesus. I see no proof of god outside of the bible which I find suspect. I see no proof that Jesus is our savior outside of the bible, which, again, I find suspect.
I have no problem with people believing what they want. But if you are going to tell me I am wrong and offer the bible as your reference then I am going to show you where, in my opinion, it is in error.
With regard to what difference it makes whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin or that there was a physical resurrection, etc.
Again, I agree this is not important to the big picture. I do think it goes to motive though. As I see it, and I concede that I may be wrong, early Christians intentionally mistranslated Isaiah in order to give validity to their claim Jesus was the messiah. Why do I think that is more likely than Jesus being the true messiah? Why didn’t all the jews recognize him as the messiah? Does not Isaiah say the messiah is going to lead armies and destroy nations? That did not really seem to happen either, unless you really try to stretch what happened to match the facts afterward.
Who, quite honestly, were given answers that didn't necessarily make a lot of sense to them and may or may not have sounded like they actually answered the question(s) asked.
Like any good oracle would do. It is easier to say that is what you meant after the fact.
(heh. Courtfools hangup on being an antichrist is another example. The word has a lot of modern baggage but the original meaning is just some one who sets themselves against Christ and his word. All unbelievers are, in the original meaning of the word, antichrist. You say that to people today though and they think Damien and the Omen.)
(laughing)
Why is it a hang-up? According you to, all unbelievers are. I am merely embracing it.
|
|
But here is my excuse. Christian A asks me why I do not believe the bible. I say it is full of errors and contradictions. Christian A says what errors and contradictions. I provide example A, example B, ect. Some call it attacking. Some say I am nitpicking every little thing.
What is really the big picture? There is a god who loves us and we are all forgiven our sins because of Jesus. I see no proof of god outside of the bible which I find suspect. I see no proof that Jesus is our savior outside of the bible, which, again, I find suspect.
I have no problem with people believing what they want. But if you are going to tell me I am wrong and offer the bible as your reference then I am going to show you where, in my opinion, it is in error.
And as far as I'm concerned, you can keep doing this at least with me. Just know that you are very likely going to ask questions that I don't have good answers for.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As for the above comment about the Ilead. Really. All the geographic and historical accuracy of the Bible, and you're going to compare it to Greek mythology? Cyclops? A giant wooden horse built on the beach without the Trojans knowing? There's a huge distance between the miraculous claims of the Bible (where God enables miracles during an otherwise verifiable historical account, and always to demonstrate His power over the world) and mythology (where fantastic deities and creatures are used to color a story that does not bear prophetic verification and did not survive as a religion these last 2500 years.)
The point is that every work of fiction, including the bible and the Ilead, contains historical fact. I find the cyclops and wooden horses to be every bit as believable as the swarms of locusts, water into wine, and magic apples in a secret garden at the beginning of the world.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sure you can crack open a text book and have someone try to tell you what was going on at 10 to the negative 136 seconds during the big bang...but do you want to contend that believeing in that statement is not an issue of faith?
Except I could, in theory, learn enough about math and science from studying the natural world, build a sufficiently complex instrument to run the necessary experiment, and verify what I read. This is not faith, anyone smart enough could learn the facts contained in the phyiscs book without reading the book or consulting with other scientists. It would be hard, but it could be done.
If you could explain to me what steps exactly I need to take to verify that Jesus really was the son of God, which doesn't require me to rely upon the Bible or the other religious scholars in the world, then that would go a long way towards proving the validity of that assertion.
Now a quanitifiable, historical inaccuracy, I would be interested in someone pointing that out.
Men never walked on water.
There was no flood.
The red sea was never parted.
Jesus was not the son of god.
The problem is that the you parse out the historical inaccuracies from your own holy book (talking snakes, transforming beverages) but insist that other books own theirs (cyclops, wooden horses, etc.)
|
|
(heh. Courtfools hangup on being an antichrist is another example. The word has a lot of modern baggage but the original meaning is just some one who sets themselves against Christ and his word. All unbelievers are, in the original meaning of the word, antichrist. You say that to people today though and they think Damien and the Omen.)(laughing)
Why is it a hang-up? According you to, all unbelievers are. I am merely embracing it.
Perhaps I misread the tone of your post. That happens on the internet.
I find smilies help. :)
|
I don't taste love in mom's cooking. I taste it, associate it with her, and thus experience the emotion. To say that I taste love in the food is just a metaphor, and one that gives the wrong impression.
That is meant to be a half joke... But there are companies that do try to do this very thing. Bringing up fond memories through taste and smell are sure fire ways to get people coming back for more.
Is there a particular perfume or cologne that you like? Is it the same kind that your mother or father wore? Association is huge for fragrance and flavor based industries.
Ok. What? :)
It depends on the definition, like I said. If it is something as simple as that essence that makes us different from one another then its a necessity to human experience. In that case it would be your personal passions, your quirks, and your faith and is a little more understandable if not exclusively provable. If its the metaphysical remnant that glows and is translucent and hovers between planes of existence its a little harder to prove and believe.
And as far as I'm concerned, you can keep doing this at least with me. Just know that you are very likely going to ask questions that I don't have good answers for.
Thank you, Moff. No one has the answers to some of these questions. We are just honest enough to admit it.
If it is something as simple as that essence that makes us different from one another then its a necessity to human experience. In that case it would be your personal passions, your quirks, and your faith and is a little more understandable if not exclusively provable.
I have four cats. Outside of their physical differences, each one of them has a very distinct personality. If you were to observe them for a day and relate your observations of their antics without revealing their appearance, I dare say I would be able to successfully guess who did what 95% of the time.
If I am able to observe these essences which makes these four cats different from one another, do they have souls? If not, why not?
I have four cats.
How do you have time to post, with 4 cats there to chase up a tree? I want your secret to productivity. I'm ready to become a Poodlerian Heretic.
I have four cats.How do you have time to post, with 4 cats there to chase up a tree? I want your secret to productivity. I'm ready to become a Poodlerian Heretic.
Two words for you. Minions.
People often talk about the battle between science and religion. Who's going to win?
Heh. Levity aside, it's sadly true how many people do talk about that. It always seemed to me like going into your tool shed, getting out a shovel and a screwdriver, and then slamming them against each other. Sure, it makes a lot of racket, but it doesn't prove one is "better," and it blunts two perfectly useful tools!
Reading about the crucifixion of Jesus on Wikipedia, this popped out at me.
The Gospel of Mark states that Roman soldiers were also present at the Crucifixion: And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!".[79]
[79] Mark 15:39
Roman soldiers were generally not Jewish, were they? Romans generally believed in many gods. Surely he would not have said ‘Son of God’ unless he was familiar with Jesus’ teachings. And if he were familiar with Jesus’ teachings would he have been casually standing around watching the proceedings?
Or…
Did the author of the Gospel of Mark put this in to add validity to the story. “Look, even some schmuck of a Roman soldier gets it now!”
I think, given enough time, science would eventually reveal everything to us. However, once we know all, would we not be god?
Even though I think science eventually would reveal everything, I do not think humanity will survive to see it.
I wonder how you miss the point that God uses the test of Abraham to illustrate the immensity of His willingness to give His own Son. It's not 'okay because God was just kidding.' It is a grave and serious ilustration. It's a type of things to come.
That's not particularly exculpatory. In fact, it's a bit of an indictment of the moral character of your deity. I don't see how it's any better that he did this horrific thing, terrorizing two people so amazingly, in order to warn them that he would do something similar later. The fact that he's going to do it twice strikes me as twice as bad as just doing it once.
And two other thoughts: you might not believe a creator god exists, but that doesn't mean he doesn't.
Sure it doesn't. No amount of faith moves any mountains. Now a lot of shovels and heavy equipment... :)
I am not justifying my faith by saying you can't prove there's a god, I'm pointing out that disbelief doesn't eliminate God if He does exist. And if He does, He is sovereign, and our attempts to understand Him should start with that, and not at how we think He's not fair to His creation.
Our attempts to understand your deity should start with the notion that he can do whatever he wants because he's got the power? I have to disagree. Even should a deity exist, we cannot abdicate our responsibility to assess its moral character simply because it's very powerful. Indeed, the degree of power involved would necessitate the most rigorous and comprehensive such evaluation. Power without responsibility is no better in gods than it is in government.
Also, there's always the matter of context. You can't look at a part of the Bible and ascribe some monstrous character to God. You should also read the Psalms or the New Testament and discover that mercy and love for His creation are inseparable from His character. So what you think of as unthinkable, I think of as only a timy part of the story.
Actually I think a lot of the stuff believers think is all about mercy is just as bad, hence my reference to substitutionary atonement. That's the belief that Jesus died for all our sins. How's that just? The fact that he may have volunteered doesn't really help it. If someone else wanted to take punishment for one of your misdeeds I can understand how you are well-disposed towards that person. However I cannot understand how the state of affairs itself is anything but a travesty. The innocent are punished and the guilty go free. This is the work of the all-powerful, all-good creator of the universe? If a human court did that, we'd be appalled. Surely omnibenevolence can do better than we can, and must be expected to do so.
And yet millions of non-child-sacrificing, non-prostitute-stoning, non-illiterate do. Do we share the horrible characteristics that your skeptical view of the bible ascribes to God?
I don't think any human being is capable of being bad on the scale of omnipotence, so no. In my experience the religious, of all religions, fall out to about the same moral distribution you would expect for any other population. Some are good people (John Shelby Spong seems like a decent sort.), some are not (Joseph Kony). Some believe horrible things but do not act on them, some do. Some believe good things and act on them, some do not. It's not my position that the religious are comprehensively dumber or meaner than the general run of non-religious humanity.
When I got saved, it was precisely because I stopped slandering what little I knew of God and started actually reading the Bible to see if there was a message there. I also started asking questions rather than telling folks what they believed without spending as much time looking into it as they had. I don't necessarily claim that's your approach, I am saying that's exactly how I thought before I became a Christian.
I've spent a quite a bit of time reading and reading about the Bible, and the history of the Ancient Near East in general. It has only heightened my skepticism. This reaction seems quite common among the well-read nonbelievers I know.
As for the above comment about the Ilead. Really. All the geographic and historical accuracy of the Bible, and you're going to compare it to Greek mythology? Cyclops? A giant wooden horse built on the beach without the Trojans knowing? There's a huge distance between the miraculous claims of the Bible (where God enables miracles during an otherwise verifiable historical account, and always to demonstrate His power over the world) and mythology (where fantastic deities and creatures are used to color a story that does not bear prophetic verification and did not survive as a religion these last 2500 years.)
Geographic accuracy is easily to be had. I suspect the Da Vinci Code is quite geographically accurate. I could write a story about my home town and how I became its twenty-headed god-king (fear my wrath, and all that) and swing an impressive degree of geographic accuracy. The Iliad does not appear, so far as I can tell, confused about the relative locations of the various other Greek city-states and that of Troy. You may recall that this is how Schliemann found Troy.
I don't think it's at all unusual to view myth as myth. The Bible is Hebrew and Christian myth. The Iliad is Greek myth. They're both full of miracles. A cyclops is stranger than a talking snake? The survival of one religion or another says nothing at all about the veracity of its myths, so I really don't see how that's a relevant point. Buddhism has survived for five hundred or so years longer than Christianity, so is it 25% more correct?
Prophetic accuracy might be somewhat convincing, if it could be established. Unfortunately, the Bible is not so generous. We cannot be certain that the prophecies predate the events predicted. Indeed, the current scholarship is generally in favor of dating the compositions in well after their previous accepted dates, and even those were fairly late compared to the ones traditionally believed.
To be a convincing fulfilled prophecy, I think you'd need at least the following things. (Phrasing borrowed from here
1) The prophecy must be clear and unambiguous
2) The event must be a fulfillment of the prediction
3) The event must have actually happened
4) The prophecy must have happened before the event
5) The event must not have been artificially created
6) The prophecy must not have been a logical guess
Given the dating of, for example, the Book of Daniel is contentious at best, its prophecies must be taken with skepticism. Certain passages of the Gospels suggest incidences of #5 as well.
Archaeology has likewise been unkind to the Bible's stories. At the time we are to have expected a global flood given the Bible's internal chronology, it seems nobody in any other culture noticed their cities being drowned or even the fact that they had all died. Chinese and Egyptian civilization goes on just as if nothing had happened, which is quite problematic. The Exodus, which would have left a rather huge footprint for archaeology to find in midden heaps and the like, apparently left none. We've found middens that likely predate human language and we didn't even know where to look for those with any precision. The Bible tells us the precise area in which to search for evidence of the Exodus. We found none, despite a century or more of searching.
The present scholarly consensus is that more or less everything prior to David must be treated with great caution, and the historicity of David himself is tenuous and ambiguous. He may have been a real life hill chieftain ruling over a small kingdom in the Judean outback or he may be some kind of cultural hero from whom the eventual rulers claimed descent. This was very common in the ancient world. The field has moved dramatically in the past century from the viewpoint that most all of the Torah must have been historical steadily towards greater skepticism. And I say this of a field largely dominated by believers, as most historians and archaeologists who aren't believers prefer not to operate in a field where religious passions burn so hot and proclamations that would be entirely ordinary in any other area (such as the notion that some of the chronicles we have are quite a bit less than honest with us, like the Sumerian kings lists or Mantheo's chronology of Egypt) are treated as though they were extremely controversial. I find the area interesting myself, but I don't blame them for choosing to avoid it on those grounds.
Heh. If the soul is an invisible, immaterial object then looking for physical evidence of it would be pretty silly. I am quite comfortable in admitting I accept the existence of the soul almost entirely on my faith in the truthfulness of God.
That's fair. I've got no trouble with people taking certain things as axioms so long as they admit that they are doing so.
My question though was based on the statement that he had personal experience with evidence that denied the existence of a soul. I am curious as to the nature of this experience. You must admit it is a novel claim and worth exploring.
I understand that (and yeah I'm randomly butting in again :) ), but you yourself have described the soul as invisible and immaterial. How could we have any experience of such a thing? Our sensory apparatus is excluded by definition. We can't see it, touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, or anything of the like. I don't know how we would know that we had any such thing, save that we assume it to be the case on faith.
Ok. What? :)It depends on the definition, like I said. If it is something as simple as that essence that makes us different from one another then its a necessity to human experience.
If you mean to say that the soul is no more than a metaphor for our different life experiences and our DNA, I suppose that's fine. To me the introduction of the additional and baggage-laden vocabulary is unhelpful. As such, I generally exclude such definitions until someone else wishes to bring them up.
Metaphors and the like are fine when we're making art, but they can be very misleading when we're trying to talk about the universe we all share. Which probably makes me sound like a grumpy old man. :)
Science tries to explain how the universe works. Faith is interested in answering the question of why things are the way they are. Conflict arises when science tries to compete answering the 'why' question.
|
|
Heh. The reason the dating for the book of Daniel is contentious is because the prophecies in it are so clear. Liberal biblical scholars assume that there is no prophecy and therefore assume that Daniel could not have been written when the evidence points to it being written. Having discarded the historical evidence they then create a system of criticism to point to a later date. There are few ways to legitimately argue with such circular reasoning.
However, Daniel was clearly translated into Greek in the LXX. Josephus records that Jaddua the high priest used it to keep Alexander from attacking Jerusaelm in 334 BC. Josephus also records that the whole of the old testament cannon was completed by the reign of Artaxerxes 465 BC. If it was not for the clear and concise prophecies contained in Daniel, few people would have a hard time accepting that it was written by Daniel during the days of the Babylonians and then the Persians.
Science tries to explain how the universe works. Faith is interested in answering the question of why things are the way they are. Conflict arises when science tries to compete answering the 'why' question.
Or -- as is more often the case -- when religion claims to answer the "how" questions, but does so poorly.
EDIT: Ninja'd Paul! Ha!|
|
Science tries to explain how the universe works. Faith is interested in answering the question of why things are the way they are. Conflict arises when science tries to compete answering the 'why' question.
Conflict also arises when faith pretends it is science and can explain how the world works, in defiance if evidence, i.e. creationism, ID, young Earth, flood geology. Perhaps both sides should keep to their spheres a bit better?
|
|
If it is something as simple as that essence that makes us different from one another then its a necessity to human experience. In that case it would be your personal passions, your quirks, and your faith and is a little more understandable if not exclusively provable.I have four cats. Outside of their physical differences, each one of them has a very distinct personality. If you were to observe them for a day and relate your observations of their antics without revealing their appearance, I dare say I would be able to successfully guess who did what 95% of the time.
If I am able to observe these essences which makes these four cats different from one another, do they have souls? If not, why not?
Well, see the big thing there is that its not provable at all. Its a matter of interpretation as to what you're seeing there as well. For some its going to be the significance of a soul, for others its going to be the result of firings of neurons in a specific pattern. I didn't bother giving a definition for a soul, so I won't judge if cats have them or not. All I am asking is that perhaps it should be defined.
|
If you get down to it the belief in alot of science is just another expresion of faith. We are told things and expected to believe them even though we ourselves have no proof but what someone set out to prove. I think anyone could agree that if you set out to prove a theory you can design the test to prove it. Remember science has "proven" many theories just to later "prove" something else.
Lets not forget that at one time man KNEW the world to be flat, all the great scientific minds of the time said so. I find the use of science to dispute the exsistance of a Divine Creator to be rather weak. But heh... to each his own I guess.
Well, see the big thing there is that its not provable at all.
Strictly scientifically-speaking, nothing is.
There are two types of science:
One type (that I love) is concerned with observing the universe and trying to quantify the 'laws' it operates by. Such science does not conflict with the Bible.
The other type of science wants to weigh in on things that cannot be directly observed or measured, because of significant elapsed time. Such science relies on unprovable assumptions (i.e., all natural processes observed today have always operated in exactly the same way during all of time and throughout all of space). This is speculative science, and it offers opinions on things it can never prove (funny, that sounds like religion!)
If you get down to it the belief in alot of science is just another expresion of faith. We are told things and expected to believe them even though we ourselves have no proof but what someone set out to prove. I think anyone could agree that if you set out to prove a theory you can design the test to prove it.
No. In science, there is no "proof." Ever. No test can ever "prove" anything. Hypotheses that are tested scientifically are either disproven, shown to be lacking in some area, or withstand that test and await the next one. Theories are constantly being refined and improved. All discoveries are subject to peer review by a bunch of guys who can win great fame by showing that your explanation doesn't work. Those are integral parts of the scientific method; anything without them isn't "science."
Being told something isn't science. Testing hypotheses is.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If you get down to it the belief in alot of science is just another expresion of faith. We are told things and expected to believe them even though we ourselves have no proof but what someone set out to prove. I think anyone could agree that if you set out to prove a theory you can design the test to prove it. Remember science has "proven" many theories just to later "prove" something else.
Lets not forget that at one time man KNEW the world to be flat, all the great scientific minds of the time said so. I find the use of science to dispute the exsistance of a Divine Creator to be rather weak. But heh... to each his own I guess.
I don't agree with any such thing. I have a theory that if I point my finger at someone and yell "OMG you're a bat!" they will turn into a bat. It doesn't matter how many tests I design to prove this theory, I cannot turn anyone into a bat.
The rest of your post shows a lack of understanding of the scientific process.
|
|
If you get down to it the belief in alot of science is just another expresion of faith. We are told things and expected to believe them even though we ourselves have no proof but what someone set out to prove. I think anyone could agree that if you set out to prove a theory you can design the test to prove it. Remember science has "proven" many theories just to later "prove" something else.
Lets not forget that at one time man KNEW the world to be flat, all the great scientific minds of the time said so. I find the use of science to dispute the exsistance of a Divine Creator to be rather weak. But heh... to each his own I guess.
Moorluck,
This speaks to a misunderstanding of how science works and what science does.Science never proves anything. It only gets to "there is a lot of observable evidence and it agrees with the theory/law". That's the best science can really do. Please look back about five-10 pages (this thread is getting large fast so I've lost the exact place) for an excellent post from Kirth about the different world views that science and faith bring to this discussion which contributes to the misunderstandings.
EDIT: Double ninjaed. And we're not picking on you, honest.
If you get down to it the belief in alot of science is just another expresion of faith. We are told things and expected to believe them even though we ourselves have no proof but what someone set out to prove. I think anyone could agree that if you set out to prove a theory you can design the test to prove it. Remember science has "proven" many theories just to later "prove" something else.
Lets not forget that at one time man KNEW the world to be flat, all the great scientific minds of the time said so. I find the use of science to dispute the exsistance of a Divine Creator to be rather weak. But heh... to each his own I guess.I don't agree with any such thing. I have a theory that if I point my finger at someone and yell "OMG you're a bat!" they will turn into a bat. It doesn't matter how many tests I design to prove this theory, I cannot turn anyone into a bat.
The rest of your post shows a lack of understanding of the scientific process.
How many times did you try this before you ruled the possibility out?
|
|
Except I could, in theory, learn enough about math and science from studying the natural world, build a sufficiently complex instrument to run the necessary experiment, and verify what I read. This is not faith, anyone smart enough could learn the facts contained in the phyiscs book without reading the book or consulting with other scientists. It would be hard, but it could be done.quote]
The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe. It is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.
The scientist and Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space). The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, as suggested by Lemaître in 1927, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[3] If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
The other type of science wants to weigh in on things that cannot be directly observed or measured, because of significant elapsed time. Such science relies on unprovable assumptions (i.e., all natural processes observed today have always operated in exactly the same way during all of time and throughout all of space). This is speculative science, and it offers opinions on things it can never prove (funny, that sounds like religion!)
I'm a geologist. Everything I look at has elapsed time. Nothing that I do hinges on the assumption you mentioned.
Example: Say I measure a spreading rate of the sea floor by satellite displacement of known points on opposite shores. Assuming that spreading rate is constant, and using it to calculate the age of the Atlantic, yields an incorrect age, as you point out.
But I also correct for varying thicknesses and compositions of the resulting rocks. And I also look at magnetic polarity reversals in the rocks, and compare those with other magnetic signatures on earth. And I also use radiometric dating for the rocks. Not one type of dating, but at least two that are independent of each other. And I also look at fission tracks in minerals forming the rocks. And the ages I get from ALL of these techniques agree with one another. The age I get is pretty good, unless God changed all of those processes in EXACLTY such a way as to make them agree with each other to point to an incorrect assumption.
I don't directly criticize any part of the Bible unless I've read it and studied it in context -- and even then I listen to people with greater experience. You might extend the same courtesy to geology and paleontology, given that you seem to have no idea at all how they work.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
How many times did you try this before you ruled the possibility out?
I don't know. How many times have you tested whether gravity actually causes things to fall to earth? It's entirely possible that you could design a test which somehow, amazingly, shows that if you drop something very near the earth's surface it won't drop to earth and disprove the existence of gravity. So, I guess that means the theory of gravity is up in the air too (pardon the pun).
However, the assertion to which I responded was that you could invent a test to prove any theory. I'd be hard pressed to invent a test to prove my theory, and I'm not sure that repeating the same action over and over again expecting a different result is really a "test." I think that's actually the definition of insanity.
|
|
I knew I was gonna get blasted for this but Oh Well. I don't see how I was getting uncivil at all, but I do like the assuption that I must be lacking in understanding. My point was many scientist set out to reach a certain result, if this is your intent you can reach the point you wish. I never said that any of you were lacking in intellegence or said, no mater how politly, that you don't know what your talking about. The debate between faith and science is one that nobody can win, I can't prove the exsistance of God to you, and you can't disprove it to me. Many of todays theories that many people accept as fact will be disproven in the future. I've never attacked someone for believing differently from me and I don't intend to start now. What I was saying about belief in science being faith stands, not many of us have the knowledge to test these theories ourselves so we accept that they are true because we are told so.
What I was saying about belief in science being faith stands, not many of us have the knowledge to test these theories ourselves so we accept that they are true because we are told so.
I do. I'm a scientist. I've tested a number of those theories personally.
How many times did you try this before you ruled the possibility out?I don't know. How many times have you tested whether gravity actually causes things to fall to earth? It's entirely possible that you could design a test which somehow, amazingly, shows that if you drop something very near the earth's surface it won't drop to earth and disprove the existence of gravity. So, I guess that means the theory of gravity is up in the air too (pardon the pun).
However, the assertion to which I responded was that you could invent a test to prove any theory. I'd be hard pressed to invent a test to prove my theory, and I'm not sure that repeating the same action over and over again expecting a different result is really a "test." I think that's actually the definition of insanity.
My reply was intended as smart-alecky, but since you deign to debate...
If a person believes powered flight is impossible, he won't test ways to try and get Wilbur or Orville into the air, and human flight will remain 'impossible.' My point is that your 'bat' example implies an inherent assumption of impossibility that was never actually tested. Inherent assumptions cripple scientific inquiry (although if you look at some of the silly experiments our government supports with grant money...)
|
|
What I was saying about belief in science being faith stands, not many of us have the knowledge to test these theories ourselves so we accept that they are true because we are told so.I do. I'm a scientist. I test those theories personally.
Note my statment of "not many of us"
I would like to ask you a question though.As a scientist dont you ever come across things that your training cannot explain? (no this isn't anything but an honest question)
As a scientist dont you ever come across things that your training cannot explain? (no this isn't anything but an honest question)
Constantly! For example, anything medical is a total mystery to me.
I had sudden hearing loss in one ear last year (thankfully temporary). I don't know anything, from training or experience, about the workings of the ear. Any explanation I'd come up with for it was bound to be wrong. So I went to one guy, had some tests run, and then took the results to another specialist who didn't know, and wasn't affiliated with, the first guy. When they gave gobbledigook explanations that agreed with each other, I followed their recommendations.
I'm a geologist. Everything I look at has elapsed time. Nothing that I do hinges on the assumption you mentioned.
Example: Say I measure a spreading rate of the sea floor by satellite displacement of known points on opposite shores. Assuming that spreading rate is constant, and using it to calculate the age of the Atlantic, yields an incorrect age, as you point out.
But I also correct for varying thicknesses and compositions of the resulting rocks. And I also look at magnetic polarity reversals in the rocks, and compare those with other magnetic signatures on earth. And I also use radiometric dating for the rocks. Not one type of dating, but at least two that are independent of each other. And I also look at fission tracks in minerals forming the rocks. And the ages I get from ALL of these techniques agree with one another. The age I get is pretty good, unless God changed all of those processes in EXACLTY such a way as to make them agree with each other to point to an incorrect assumption.
I don't directly criticize any part of the Bible unless I've read it and studied it in context -- and even then I listen to people with greater experience. You might extend the same courtesy to geology and paleontology, given that you seem to have no idea at all how they work.
My apologies if I offended. From what I've read of things like Carbon dating, I (falsely?) believed that science assumes a pretty standard rate of atomic decay. From what I've read on geology and fossil records, it's been my understanding that rocks are used to date fossils imbedded in them, and fossils are used to date the rocks they are found in--which sounds like one hand washing the other. There are other assumptions too--that since the speed of light is pretty much constant (can that be proven to have never changed?), the size and age of the universe can be dated.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What I was saying about belief in science being faith stands, not many of us have the knowledge to test these theories ourselves so we accept that they are true because we are told so.
But, some of us do have the knowledge to test scientific theories.
None of us have the knowledge to test religious assertions.
Thus, the difference. Science can be discerned by people with sufficient knowledge and independent experiments can be made verifying those theories. No test can be manufactured to prove that god exists.
That is the difference between reason and faith.
So, what you have said does not stand. The fact that I personally can't prove that the Earth orbits the Sun right now doesn't mean I couldn't if I had to. However, you will never be able to prove that God exists. Ever. I need to take your word for it (or the word of the Bible).
From what I've read of things like Carbon dating, I (falsely?) believed that science assumes a pretty standard rate of atomic decay. From what I've read on geology and fossil records, it's been my understanding that rocks are used to date fossils imbedded in them, and fossils are used to date the rocks they are found in--which sounds like one hand washing the other. There are other assumptions too--that since the speed of light is pretty much constant (can that be proven to have never changed?), the size and age of the universe can be dated.
I see those same incorrect statements all over Answers In Genesis; they're very popular misconceptions. I'm led to believe that a lot of them are thoroughly debunked on TalkOrigins, so if any of my explanations are unclear, hopefully they cover the same thing and do a better job of it; I'm speaking here from personal training.
OK, first radiometric dating. The assumption is that decay rates are roughly constant, but carbon dating is useless for anything as old as most rocks. We use potassium-argon dating, rubidium-strontium dating, uranium-thorium dating, and several others, all relying on different elements with different decay rates. We also look at fission tracks from radioactive decay, but that's a slightly different deal. Dates from all these methods generally match. If one decay rate varied, the others would have to vary by a different proportions, but all by exactly the right proportions, in order for the dates to match but still be incorrect. People are looking into some mechnism that might make that possible, but so far no one has come up with one.
Think of it this way: if I hear a shot and see a guy with a smoking gun, that's subject to misinterpretation. But if the video camera also shows him firing it, and eyewitnesses independently give the same story, and the guy confesses, and the ballistics match, and the powder tests come up positive, and the area was cordoned off... well, the event becomes a lot less certain. It isn't "proved" still, but it's a damn sight better than a random guess. Pointing out that "eyewitnesses are often unreliable" doesn't negate the congruence of multiple lines of evidence.
Regarding index fossils, the rocks are dated with other methods. If the same fossils are found in the same narrow age range, then those are often used in the field as indicators of age. However, any serious study would require corroboration from some other method like the ones I've described.
Re: the size and age of the Universe, I have no idea. I can get a pretty good age for the Earth, that's all. Anything beyond that, I'd have to defer to an astrophysicist. But I wouldn't "believe" him. I'd expect corroborating evidence from multiple, independent lines of research. Fortunately, the age and size of the universe have never impacted any of my work on Earth, that I know of.
Hope that helps.
|
|
I have a theory that if I point my finger at someone and yell "OMG you're a bat!" they will turn into a bat. It doesn't matter how many tests I design to prove this theory, I cannot turn anyone into a bat.
Maybe, maybe not. As I understand it, it's just a "simple" matter of rearranging and rewriting a person's DNA coding or some such. There's certainly enough sci-fi about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if in a number of years, that people will be able to do just that. (Of course I'm assuming an animal "bat" and not the baseball variety.)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I have a theory that if I point my finger at someone and yell "OMG you're a bat!" they will turn into a bat. It doesn't matter how many tests I design to prove this theory, I cannot turn anyone into a bat.Maybe, maybe not. As I understand it, it's just a "simple" matter of rearranging and rewriting a person's DNA coding or some such. There's certainly enough sci-fi about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if in a number of years, that people will be able to do just that. (Of course I'm assuming an animal "bat" and not the baseball variety.)
But that's not part of my thoery. My theory is that I can do it just by saying "OMG you're a bat." The challenge is to build a test that proves that theory, not to change the theory.