Flood Conundrum

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm using the term in a much broader sense as in the uniformity of natural laws as opposed to non-uniform acts of God.
I thing what you are describing here is metaphysical naturalism. But that is not what the idea of uniformitarianism is about. Uniformitarianism used to be as you realise is uniform rates of processes taking place as opposed to catastrophism which claimed that all geological formations were formed by periodic catastrophic floods. Modern science acknowledges catastrophes like Chicxulub, the snowball earth and vulcanism on scales far greater than we see today, but while the events are on a scale far greater than we see today the same laws of physics were still operating, hence uniformitarianism. Events in the past can be studied with the same laws of physics we use today using science's methodological naturalism. And like methodological naturalism today it simply does not address what God can or cannot do.
 
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
650
✟124,958.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I subscribe to the idea that both Mesopotamian and Israelite accounts of the flood came from a common ancient source.

This is because the many significant differences and omissions between the accounts make it unlikely that either the Mesopotamian or biblical authors borrowed from each other.

It seems more likely that both the Mesopotamian and Israelite accounts reflect a universally preserved knowledge of events that occurred during earth's pre-flood history. The variations in these stories were passed down by different Semitic cultures that developed after the division of the nations in the post-flood ancient Near East.
I believe that, too. For example, I think the genealogies in Genesis 5 and the first part of the Sumerian King's List refer to the same people.

In significant ways the Genesis account of the flood is clearly superior; for example, the ark in Genesis is seaworthy, unlike the Sumerian one.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
777
✟97,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I dont know that I can disagree with any of these. I'm assuming you're pulling this from hebrew tradition, and it may indeed all be true. Yes, I do agree Katura was a 3rd wife of Abraham. I can't tell from the text if he took her before or after Sarah's death. It appears after.

I think the book of Jasher can be somewhat valuable to us, being it is a history book mentioned several times in the Bible.

So what do you think of that, yeshuasavedme? I don't have a single word of disagreement for you.
Good, because I gave you only what the Book of Jasher tells us about those things, and the history of the scattering as one can trace it in the pages of many histories.
I think you mentioned After the Flood, by Bill Cooper, and it is interesting that his work -which was researched in the many local records of the UK over a 30 year period- begins where Jasher leaves off, in the record of "Latinus", I think it is.
Jasher is most interesting in telling us the names of places were named after events or happenings in the lives of persons connected to those names.
One -out of many- that I discovered was the name of the City of Naples, Italy, named for the son of a king who died and was buried there in a war which was over a woman, the daughter of the king of Italy -which king was deified unlawfully after his death, as the history book of the Upright/Jasher records.
How it was named is also understood by the languages all being one tongue, and confounded, for Naples is named after "Nablus" and the P-B are interchangeable, and vowels don't count. -All this is learned from the dictionary written by Isaac Mozeson, "The Word" and the book he also wrote on the science of language, "The Origin Of Speeches".

19 And he came in ships, and they came into the province of Ashtorash, and behold Turnus came toward them, for he went forth to Sardunia, and intended to destroy it and afterward to pass on from there to Angeas to fight with him.

20 And Angeas and Lucus his brother met Turnus in the valley of Canopia, and the battle was strong and mighty between them in that place.

21 And the battle was severe upon Lucus king of Sardunia, and all his army fell, and Niblos his son fell also in that battle.

22 And his uncle Angeas commanded his servants and they made a golden coffin for Niblos and they put him into it, and Angeas again waged battle toward Turnus, and Angeas was stronger than he, and he slew him, and he smote all his people with the edge of the sword, and Angeas avenged the cause of Niblos his brother's son and the cause of the army of his brother Lucus.

23 And when Turnus died, the hands of those that survived the battle became weak, and they fled from before Angeas and Lucus his brother.

24 And Angeas and his brother Lucus pursued them unto the highroad, which is between Alphanu and Romah, and they slew the whole army of Turnus with the edge of the sword.

25 And Lucus king of Sardunia commanded his servants that they should make a coffin of brass, and that they should place therein the body of his son Niblos, and they buried him in that place.

26 And they built upon it a high tower there upon the highroad, and they called its name after the name of Niblos unto this day, and they also buried Turnus king of Bibentu there in that place with Niblos.

27 And behold upon the highroad between Alphanu and Romah the grave of Niblos is on one side and the grave of Turnus on the other, and a pavement between them unto this day.

28 And when Niblos was buried, Lucus his father returned with his army to his land Sardunia, and Angeas his brother king of Africa went with his people unto the city of Bibentu, that is the city of Turnus.
Modern history, having cast aside Jasher's history, does not have any idea how "Naples" came to be named, and so it goes.
Lots of history is gleaned form that book, of the nations surrounding the middle east, and of the middle east, itself.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I thing what you are describing here is metaphysical naturalism......

Yes, or perhaps methodological naturalism, but this term can get confusing as well and lead to equivocation. Naturalism can be understood in numerous ways and can be very inclusive.

Uniformity is the best term I can see to describe the basic assumption of the uniformity of physical laws. They must be considered uniform in the basic sense that a short time ago they didn't act completely different. They follow patterns, many of which are discernible through observation.

Even in cases of apparent unpredictability in quantum science, we can still depend on that unpredictability in certain situations. They are in essence predictably unpredictable. We can observe this unpredictability via experimentation.

But miracles are the ultimate non-uniform act of God. These are special acts of God in contrast to his normal acts of upholding natural laws. God acts both normally and specially in the case of miracles. Scientists can never, for the sake of methodology embrace a special non-uniform act of God. Hence the problem. If God does act in special ways at times, then scientific presuppositions are not always true. Therefore, all scientific conclusions may not be true, even when its present data is correct. But that's anathema in today's science worshipping society.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Scientists can never, for the sake of methodology embrace a special non-uniform act of God.
Then how is it that so many scientists conclude that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Then how is it that so many scientists conclude that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?

Huh? I don't think you're following the basic concept of miracles. The shroud doesn't make any supernatural claims. It may be an anomaly, but that doesn't mean it supports a miracle. How could it?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Jesus' resurrection was not a miracle? And the Shroud is not evidence of that miracle?



Your whole approach to miracles is unusual. Your definition of a miracle is 'something that can't be detected'. Do you know of any theologians that embrace such a definition of miracles?



I think a more logical definition of a miracle is that it is an unexplainable anomaly with a clearly intelligent impetus. All documented miracles in the past few centuries have followed this pattern.


Your notion of miracles as undetectable is purely an attempt to use God as a fudge fact that leaves no trace. It is an entirely post hoc explanation, an artificial definition of miracles that clearly contradicts the nature of miracles today.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus' resurrection was not a miracle? And the Shroud is not evidence of that miracle?....

How does the shroud alone prove Jesus' resurrection? It's a piece of cloth with an image on it we can't explain. How do you get from that to Jesus' resurrection using the scientific method?

....Do you know of any theologians that embrace such a definition of miracles?

LOL! Yes, all of them. I would bring up Hume's definition but that seems to really confuse you.

This may help, but I'm not holding my breath. From a paper I wrote a couple years ago.

What Are Miracles?

According to philosopher David Hume, “A miracle may accurately be defined, a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."

According to philosopher and former atheist (current deist) Anthony Flew, “a miracle is something which would never have happened had nature, as it were, been left to its own devices.”

Theologian Norm Geisler describes a miracle as “a special act of God that interrupts the natural course of events.”

Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D. Physical Chemist and Creationist) explained it best. He takes issue with the common idea of a miracle being a transgression or violation of natural law.

...Even if normal providence were operating, it would not follow that miracles were not. In fact, there is no miracle in the Bible that does not operate in the midst of normal providence.....A miracle is properly understood not as a “violation” of providence but an addition. So when Jesus turned water into wine (John 2), the other aspects of “providence” were still operating. Perhaps Jesus created the dazzling variety of organic compounds in the water to make the wine, but gravity still held the liquid in the barrels, taste buds were still working in the guests, their hearts pumped blood without skipping a beat, etc....

I think miracles are best understood as additions to natural processes, rather than violations......
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, or perhaps methodological naturalism, but this term can get confusing as well and lead to equivocation. Naturalism can be understood in numerous ways and can be very inclusive.

Uniformity is the best term I can see to describe the basic assumption of the uniformity of physical laws. They must be considered uniform in the basic sense that a short time ago they didn't act completely different. They follow patterns, many of which are discernible through observation.

Even in cases of apparent unpredictability in quantum science, we can still depend on that unpredictability in certain situations. They are in essence predictably unpredictable. We can observe this unpredictability via experimentation.

But miracles are the ultimate non-uniform act of God. These are special acts of God in contrast to his normal acts of upholding natural laws. God acts both normally and specially in the case of miracles. Scientists can never, for the sake of methodology embrace a special non-uniform act of God. Hence the problem. If God does act in special ways at times, then scientific presuppositions are not always true. Therefore, all scientific conclusions may not be true, even when its present data is correct. But that's anathema in today's science worshipping society.
It sounds like you are treating God as if he was a part of nature, a part where nature acts non uniformly. When God works a miracle we have something from outside the natural world, outside the view of science acting on the natural world. The is not nature acting non uniformly, it is something acting on nature. Experiments are performed to study the laws of nature, by looking at how systems perform when no one is poking at it and great effort is made to exclude the influence on the experimenter on the experiment. A miracle is by biblical description when 'the finger of God' is poking at events, whereas the laws of physics only describe how a non poked system behaves.
edit: Interestingly, I have just read the rest of the thread and in the post above this you seem to say the same thing I just did.

I can understand why you would want to describe your idea in terms of uniformitarianism, and it would be a reasonable if the term wasn't already taken to describe a different idea. As it is it will only bring confusion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
How does the shroud alone prove Jesus' resurrection? It's a piece of cloth with an image on it we can't explain. How do you get from that to Jesus' resurrection using the scientific method?
There is no such thing as proof outside of mathematics. For the physical sciences all there is evidence. You are in need of a basic education in science.

Amongst numerous points of convincing evidence is the fact that 3D information is encoded in the image and that no pigment has ever been detected (it wasn't painted on). Also the fact that it was a perfect negative centuries before anyone knew of such a thing.

In other words the evidence is extremely strong. Do you really believe in the resurrection? :confused:


LOL! Yes, all of them. I would bring up Hume's definition but that seems to really confuse you.
Hume was an atheist. You are going in the wrong direction.

All I'm asking for is one theologian that concurs with your assertion that miracles are by definition imperceptible? That is an argument that an atheist like Hume would embrace, but no one who actually believes in God.


This may help, but I'm not holding my breath. From a paper I wrote a couple years ago.

What Are Miracles?

According to philosopher David Hume, “A miracle may accurately be defined, a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."

According to philosopher and former atheist (current deist) Anthony Flew, “a miracle is something which would never have happened had nature, as it were, been left to its own devices.”

Theologian Norm Geisler describes a miracle as “a special act of God that interrupts the natural course of events.”

Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D. Physical Chemist and Creationist) explained it best. He takes issue with the common idea of a miracle being a transgression or violation of natural law.

...Even if normal providence were operating, it would not follow that miracles were not. In fact, there is no miracle in the Bible that does not operate in the midst of normal providence.....A miracle is properly understood not as a “violation” of providence but an addition. So when Jesus turned water into wine (John 2), the other aspects of “providence” were still operating. Perhaps Jesus created the dazzling variety of organic compounds in the water to make the wine, but gravity still held the liquid in the barrels, taste buds were still working in the guests, their hearts pumped blood without skipping a beat, etc....

I think miracles are best understood as additions to natural processes, rather than violations......
No where does this address your current far out assertion that miracles are by defintion undetectable.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't think he said anything about intermediate survival. Quite to the contrary, he said that many would have to bear their cross too Luke 14:27. When the meek inherit the Earth he was talking about after the Resurrection, not today.

For sure. But why would God create the wrong system to create fit men then take only the meek?


Originally Posted by SkyWriting
DNA is designed to correct all mutations and errors.

Not all. There are an average 40 errors per generation in the human genome.

But it was designed to get them all. I agree, it's not working and we are devolving.

DNA Repair Types: Excision, Postreplication, Recombination
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
We have been devolving over the age of agriculture because selective pressures for anything other than diseases resistance has been low. Average IQ has lowered over that period.

But in the last century there was a marked increase in average IQ, and there are now strong selective pressures that discourage people without a college degree from having children. Having a family has become a luxury of the upper middle class that have gone to college, which means that IQ will possibiliy begin increasing even faster.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We have been devolving over the age of agriculture because selective pressures for anything other than diseases resistance has been low. Average IQ has lowered over that period.

But in the last century there was a marked increase in average IQ, and there are now strong selective pressures that discourage people without a college degree from having children. Having a family has become a luxury of the upper middle class that have gone to college, which means that IQ will possibiliy begin increasing even faster.

Please provide your sources on this revelation.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There is no such thing as proof outside of mathematics. For the physical sciences all there is evidence. You are in need of a basic education in science......

Oh no my friend, you couldn't be more off. You need a basic education in theology, and the Bible.

You see, you are stuck thinking about God scientifically when he transcends science. You are thinking theo-scientifically rather than theologically. You see, outside of science you're thinking is quite poor.

Scientists, unfortunately, are deified in our society, and thus tend to believe the hype and tend to believe that a science degree gives them a de facto theology degree. They then proceed to get into theology and into all kinds of trouble, trying to marry Genesis with naturalism.

You see, scientific thinking is by necessity naturalistic thinking, and does require approaching evidence with certain presuppositions (I know you keep denying this, but it just shows how confuse you are about science and theology). But most scientists don't realize they thinking this way, and just can't believe it when someone tells them. It's almost an insult to their high position in american culture.

But make no mistake, the answer is not getting all theologians a science degree. Nay, the scientists need to sit in the pew and be very quite and listen for a period of time. That's, as I see it, is your only cure.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Good, because I gave you only what the Book of Jasher tells us about those things, and the history of the scattering as one can trace it in the pages of many histories.
I think you mentioned After the Flood, by Bill Cooper, and it is interesting that his work -which was researched in the many local records of the UK over a 30 year period- begins where Jasher leaves off, in the record of "Latinus", I think it is.
Jasher is most interesting in telling us the names of places were named after events or happenings in the lives of persons connected to those names.
One -out of many- that I discovered was the name of the City of Naples, Italy, named for the son of a king who died and was buried there in a war which was over a woman, the daughter of the king of Italy -which king was deified unlawfully after his death, as the history book of the Upright/Jasher records.
How it was named is also understood by the languages all being one tongue, and confounded, for Naples is named after "Nablus" and the P-B are interchangeable, and vowels don't count. -All this is learned from the dictionary written by Isaac Mozeson, "The Word" and the book he also wrote on the science of language, "The Origin Of Speeches".

Well, don't get me wrong. I merely said that you the scenario you mentioned "may be correct." The current Book of Jasher we have (the one that's not an obvious forgery) may or may not be based on an ancient historical document—the one mentioned in the Bible. I have taken in just about the entire book, and do find it interesting. And I don't see too many instances where it flatly contradicts Genesis. There are some problems, but I would expect that if the book was authentic or at least partially authentic. Historians are fallible, and yet their works can be very valuable.

I also do not recall what Bill Cooper has said about the Book of Jasher. I don't remember him mentioning it.

I want to keep a balanced perspective on extra-biblical history sources. I don't want to elevate Jasher to the status of Genesis, yet at the same time don't want to be a book burner and dismiss all non-biblical history accounts. I think Josephus and others do offer some insights into history.

I say this because it seems you've accepted Jasher as scripture. If so I would merely say you are making a very big mistake.

In fact, I'm still not 100% sold that the Book of Jasher is based on an actual historical document, but I must say, I'm suspicioning it may be. I know that Josephus mentioned that there was a book of Jasher that he consulted, but again, historians are fallible, and sometimes their sources are as well. Regardless it's an intriguing read. In fact if you have some insights as to why you think it's authentic, please share.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
777
✟97,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I also do not recall what Bill Cooper has said about the Book of Jasher. I don't remember him mentioning it.
.

Cooper said nothing about Jasher, and I do not even know if he has read it.
I found that his research through the chronicles of Britain and etc, went back to Latinus, who is written of in Jasher; so the two books, together, give us an unbroken record of the descendants of Japheth, anyway, through one line.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
777
✟97,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In fact if you have some insights as to why you think it's authentic, please share.
Another thread, another day.
I'd be happy too.
A few things are already brought to our attention by the preface and introduction @ Book of Jasher

I have lots more of my own, though.
David's psalm 18 is a confirmation of Jasher as history, in that David writes that Psalm prophetically in the first person, of "national Israel as one man", and his Psalm brings in information found in JAsher -Noah and his family and all animals on the ark and their fear in being cast about in the waters of the flood, praying to God, and His hearing them -He remembered them- and the waters were calmed.
Then "by my God have I run through a troop and leaped over a wall" which was done by several sons of Jacob, and Judah, first... which is not in the Genesis account, but is in Jasher, in the six days war with the Canaanite kings, chapters 36- or 37 -40. Indeed they "ran through a troop and leaped over a wall" -more than once in more than one city of Canaan and fought "giants =mighty men" in Jasher.

There's lots more, like Moses' life in Cush -modern Sudan, but named Ethiopia in English, and after that.
The names of the magicians in Egypt which Paul names in the NT, but they are the sons of the great magician who challenged Moses from the beginning, and who was the seer who was forced to prophecy good for Israel, in Numbers 24???gotta go look, am tired...back later. -Oh, and the names and dates and ages of the men and women in the patriarchial line all add up, with very few typos that I know of, and most are self correcting within the book, in other places.



The Rod of God is most interesting, too, which was Adam's Rod/staff to rule by, that came to Moses in a miraculous way, and which Moses delivered Israel by.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Another thread, another day.
I'd be happy too.
A few things are already brought to our attention by the preface and introduction @ Book of Jasher

I have lots more of my own, though.
David's psalm 18 is a confirmation of Jasher as history, in that David writes that Psalm prophetically in the first person, of "national Israel as one man", and his Psalm brings in information found in JAsher -Noah and his family and all animals on the ark and their fear in being cast about in the waters of the flood, praying to God, and His hearing them -He remembered them- and the waters were calmed.
Then "by my God have I run through a troop and leaped over a wall" which was done by several sons of Jacob, and Judah, first... which is not in the Genesis account, but is in Jasher, in the six days war with the Canaanite kings, chapters 36- or 37 -40. Indeed they "ran through a troop and leaped over a wall" -more than once in more than one city of Canaan and fought "giants =mighty men" in Jasher.

There's lots more, like Moses' life in Cush -modern Sudan, but named Ethiopia in English, and after that.
The names of the magicians in Egypt which Paul names in the NT, but they are the sons of the great magician who challenged Moses from the beginning, and who was the seer who was forced to prophecy good for Israel, in Numbers 24???gotta go look, am tired...back later. -Oh, and the names and dates and ages of the men and women in the patriarchial line all add up, with very few typos that I know of, and most are self correcting within the book, in other places.



The Rod of God is most interesting, too, which was Adam's Rod/staff to rule by, that came to Moses in a miraculous way, and which Moses delivered Israel by.

I don't think you're following what I'm asking for. I'm not disputing there was a historical book of Jasher that the Bible referred too. I'm looking for evidence the book we have today is based on that same ancient document. For we don't have any ancient manuscripts of it, just an 18th century translation.

What evidence do you have this 18th century translation was based on an ancient manuscript, and more specifically the one mentioned in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
777
✟97,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think you're following what I'm asking for. I'm not disputing there was a historical book of Jasher that the Bible referred too. I'm looking for evidence the book we have today is based on that same ancient document. For we don't have any ancient manuscripts of it, just an 18th century translation.

What evidence do you have this 18th century translation was based on an ancient manuscript, and more specifically the one mentioned in the Bible.
As much as we have of the Masoretic text being based on an ancient manuscript's original writing, because we do not have any ancient manuscripts of the Torah, the prophets, or the writings, but in 1948 [?], the DSS were discovered in the Qumran caves, and we found that at least the Masoretic Isaiah is reliable based on the Greater Isaiah manuscript scorll there. Otherwise, we have "zilch" ancient texts; only copies of copies of copies.
So we compare the evidence within Jasher with what we have in the Tenach and NT, and we see a total corroboration of Jasher with those -and many things are brought to light by it that are not repeated in the Tenach, because "behold! is it ... written in Jasher!"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Originally Posted by Fascinated With God
There is no such thing as proof outside of mathematics. For the physical sciences all there is evidence.
Oh no my friend, you couldn't be more off. You need a basic education in theology, and the Bible.

You see, you are stuck thinking about God scientifically when he transcends science. You are thinking theo-scientifically rather than theologically. You see, outside of science you're thinking is quite poor.

Scientists, unfortunately, are deified in our society, and thus tend to believe the hype and tend to believe that a science degree gives them a de facto theology degree. They then proceed to get into theology and into all kinds of trouble, trying to marry Genesis with naturalism.

You see, scientific thinking is by necessity naturalistic thinking, and does require approaching evidence with certain presuppositions (I know you keep denying this, but it just shows how confuse you are about science and theology). But most scientists don't realize they thinking this way, and just can't believe it when someone tells them. It's almost an insult to their high position in american culture.

But make no mistake, the answer is not getting all theologians a science degree. Nay, the scientists need to sit in the pew and be very quite and listen for a period of time. That's, as I see it, is your only cure.
Absolutely none of these ramblings addresses the original statement that you are supposedly responding to. Ironically you end it with a call for the other side to shut up and listen, in the midst of your own demonstrating that you are not listening with the slightest bit of attentiveness.

Now if you really want to talk about my original statement about proof vs. evidence the place to look is the legal system, not science. With all the different levels of standards of proof in the legal system clearly the word proof is a dicey concept, much more like a sliding scale than an absolute threshold.

But you've pretty well demonstrated that you weren't really interested in what I was talking about at all, you just used the first line to launch off into your usual tirade.
 
Upvote 0