Is God a liar?

[RickG]

Scientists are dead wrong so much of the time, and yet their theories become so prominent.

Would you mind clarifying a bit more. What field(s) of science are you talking about and would you mind giving a specific example?

 

[SolomonVII]

This is Cra Cra......Do you really not understand what Science is ? LOL, "Science" gave us something, LOL. Science is nothing but mans journey from the UNKNOWN unto the KNOW of God. God gave all the Laws of Nature, Science has given us NOTHING, God commanded the ORDER OF THINGS..........Not Science.............That is Silly also.

The relationship of science to knowledge is analogous to the relationship of a shovel to digging.

It is possible to dig a hole in the hard ground using your fingers. Using a shovel is a much more powerful way to dig that hole.
Science is a tool, a method that has allowed mankind to discover and explore God's creation like no tool or method that has come before.
Underlying the scientific method of course is the idea that God is a rational being who created his universe according to laws and principles that could be discerned. It is no coincidence therefore that the scientific method developed in the Christianized West, where that is how God was understood to be. In Islam, where Allah is portrayed as acting capriciously, according to his own will, blotting out one day what he ordains the previous day, the idea of scientific endeavor does not make as much sense. The universe is according to God's will alone, and not according to rational rules.

At the heart of the scientific endeavor is also doubt. If one accepts the world as it is, as explained to us through the giants of the past, then those who are certain do not endeavor to discover what else there is. The idea that we could kill God without knowing though raises doubt in us. It cannot help but do so. We strive for certainty in a world where the old certitudes did not prevent us from killing God as a criminal and freeing the criminal as if he were the innocent one.

Science is not God of course. Science did not create the world, or us. Science is the method. It enables us to dig deeper, fly higher, see further, and understand and benefit from a more detailed understanding of the ways of God as manifested in the reality of the world.

 

[SolomonVII]

The relationship of science to knowledge is analogous to the relationship of a shovel to digging.

It is possible to dig a hole in the hard ground using your fingers. Using a shovel is a much more powerful way to dig that hole.
Science is a tool, a method that has allowed mankind to discover and explore God's creation like no tool or method that has come before.
Underlying the scientific method of course is the idea that God is a rational being who created his universe according to laws and principles that could be discerned. It is no coincidence therefore that the scientific method developed in the Christianized West, where that is how God was understood to be. In Islam, where Allah is portrayed as acting capriciously, according to his own will, blotting out one day what he ordains the previous day, the idea of scientific endeavor does not make as much sense. The universe is according to God's will alone, and not according to rational rules. In Christianity, God's will is rational and according to the rules.

At the heart of the scientific endeavor is also doubt. If one accepts the world as it is, as explained to us through the giants of the past, then those who are certain do not endeavor to discover what else there is. The idea that we could kill God without knowing though raises doubt in us. It cannot help but do so. We strive for certainty in a world where the old certitudes did not prevent us from killing God as a criminal and freeing the criminal as if he were the innocent one.

Science is not God of course. Science did not create the world, or us. Science is the method. It enables us to dig deeper, fly higher, see further, and understand and benefit from a more detailed understanding of the ways of God as manifested in the reality of the world.

 

[Open Heart]

Scientists are dead wrong so much of the time

Really? It seems to me that science being right so much of the time is what has led to our lives being so much more comfortable than at any other time in human history. cars... computers... lightbulbs... A/C... the microwave oven... the credit card... GPS... the calculator... bar code... TV... the ATM... the refridgerator... phone... planes... internet... anything electric... Hey, let's just talk about modern medicine alone. Life expectancy in the mid-19th century was around 40 years for males and 42 years for females.

 

[Stillicidia]

What technology do you think god gave us? You think man did all of it? I'll talk about modern medicine, because it's what man pollutes. The cure for cancer will come from europe, as a cheap, commonplace thing to be obtained, do you think it's man's doing? How complex is the internet? How many apples have to hit your head? You think it's man? Medicine has been man, toothpaste is as effective as water.

 

[Revealing Times]

The relationship of science to knowledge is analogous to the relationship of a shovel to digging.

It is possible to dig a hole in the hard ground using your fingers. Using a shovel is a much more powerful way to dig that hole.
Science is a tool, a method that has allowed mankind to discover and explore God's creation like no tool or method that has come before.
Underlying the scientific method of course is the idea that God is a rational being who created his universe according to laws and principles that could be discerned. It is no coincidence therefore that the scientific method developed in the Christianized West, where that is how God was understood to be. In Islam, where Allah is portrayed as acting capriciously, according to his own will, blotting out one day what he ordains the previous day, the idea of scientific endeavor does not make as much sense. The universe is according to God's will alone, and not according to rational rules.

At the heart of the scientific endeavor is also doubt. If one accepts the world as it is, as explained to us through the giants of the past, then those who are certain do not endeavor to discover what else there is. The idea that we could kill God without knowing though raises doubt in us. It cannot help but do so. We strive for certainty in a world where the old certitudes did not prevent us from killing God as a criminal and freeing the criminal as if he were the innocent one.

Science is not God of course. Science did not create the world, or us. Science is the method. It enables us to dig deeper, fly higher, see further, and understand and benefit from a more detailed understanding of the ways of God as manifested in the reality of the world.

You totally do not understand what I stated, at all. Science is nothing but the FACTS........That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. God Created everything and commanded all the Laws of Nature. Thus all science is, is God. Because He knows everything, you don't know squat. Now I can understand your point if you do not believe in God, but that still doesn't make you right.

Like I stated, all science is is a journey from that not known to that which is known. If we already knew everything like God does it wouldn't be called Science, it would be called the Laws of Nature/God.

 

[Open Heart]

What technology do you think god gave us? You think man did all of it? I'll talk about modern medicine, because it's what man pollutes. The cure for cancer will come from europe, as a cheap, commonplace thing to be obtained, do you think it's man's doing? How complex is the internet? How many apples have to hit your head? You think it's man? Medicine has been man, toothpaste is as effective as water.

God gave us brains. Our brains gave us Science. And science gave us the comforts and longevity. And yes, whether the flouride is in water or toothpaste, science has helped us fight tooth decay (now if only we'll stop eating sugar )

 

[Stillicidia]

I for one will hold onto sugar, speaking of it makes me want to eat it plainly.

Also, please don't neglect that the flesh cannot see the spirit, should the spirit affect the flesh. Our "brains" are our minds, our minds are our souls, our souls are not flesh. Brains are a means to little in comparison. If one of the spiritual moves knowledge into our soul we will know it.

 

[Open Heart]

Our "brains" are our minds, our minds are our souls, our souls are not flesh.

I don't think we know where brains end and our immortal souls begin, but clearly they are not the same.

 

[Stillicidia]

I don't think we know where brains end and our immortal souls begin, but clearly they are not the same.

Awesome, that's what I'm saying.

 

[SolomonVII]

You totally do not understand what I stated, at all. Science is nothing but the FACTS........That's all.

It would be more correct to say that science is a means of discerning the facts.

Nothing more, nothing less. God Created everything and commanded all the Laws of Nature.

God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth of all things visible and invisible. His Creation is a world that he has given us dominion over; which is to say, it is a lawful one that is within our ability to master.

Thus all science is, is God.

Here we are in disagreement. God is personal. Science is not. God is good. Science is neither good nor bad. It is only how people use the what is discovered through scientific method that makes science an instrument of good, or bad.

Because He knows everything, you don't know squat.

I am going to assume that this is not a personal statement against me alone, but was meant to include humans in general, as in we do not know squat.
It is true enough that in comparison to the unlimited understanding and knowledge and wisdom of God, we by comparison are limited. That means that we can only know more, or less, but science, which is a method, has made available to us a vast body of knowledge that has provided us with much of value.
God's Creation is a source of great value, and more that science reveals to us, the more of God's Creation is available to us to benefit from.
That is not nothing. It is not everything. But it is something. It is more than just squat. Further, it may be a blessing or a curse. It is our role as co-creators, as images of God himself, capable of good and bad, moral agents in the universe as it were, that will determine the extent that the discoveries that we make through science will be blessings or curses.

Now I can understand your point if you do not believe in God, but that still doesn't make you right.

It has nothing to do with belief in God at this point. This is the Christians-only section. The assumption that we all ought to make is that we are all operating from the shared belief in a Creator.

Like I stated, all science is is a journey from that not known to that which is known. If we already knew everything like God does it wouldn't be called Science, it would be called the Laws of Nature/God.

I doubt that people here are in disagreement with that. Science is a method through which the unknown becomes revealed to us. The metaphor of a journey is not a point of disagreement. It refutes nothing that anybody else here has said.
Science is not God, and I would hope that you misspoke when you said that it was, as above.
People believed in God long before the scientific method became such a major part of our lives, and believing that science has been a tool that has enhanced our lives hardly means that people who state as much somehow do not believe in God.
That being said, and relating back to the question posed by the OP, it is also true that science has been so successful in having many people believe that the idea of God is now redundant.
While it would not make God a liar, it is within the range of Divine behavior that God would make the revelations of science only sparkle a little more(harden people's hearts) in order to eventually bring forth his glory over those who oppose him into fuller relief.

 

[Revealing Times]

Here we are in disagreement. God is personal. Science is not. God is good. Science is neither good nor bad. It is only how people use the what is discovered through scientific method that makes science an instrument of good, or bad.

It is nothing but the study of the physical and natural world, so TRUE SCIENCE is nothing more that the facts not yet understood, because if we knew all the facts we wouldn't have to study it. My exact point, if we knew all that God knows we would not have to study anything, so all science is in reality, is a journey from the unknown to that which God knows. I can't explain it any better. Men don't know a damned thing in reality. But many pompous people think they know a lots. We can both think of a few.

No, this isn't against you, I just point out the obvious in drastic terms sometimes.

 

[BobRyan]

Fairhaven Baptist College Online offers a very informative course on creation science presented from a conservative, young earth perspective. The link to the playlist is Creation Science - YouTube

Fairhaven Baptist College Online

Fairhaven Baptist College has been training servants for the Lord's service for over forty years. We are now excited to be launching our online program.


On our YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/c/fairhavenclasses) you will find hundreds of videos lectures which correspond to particular classes being offered. All classroom lectures have been recorded during a live version of the class. Every class on our YouTube channel can be taken for college credit toward a bachelors, masters, or even a Bible certificate.


Outside work for each class is assigned and submitted completely online through “Schoology,” an online learning management system (LMS). Papers, quizzes, tests, and discussions that correspond to the YouTube video lectures will be found here.


Whether you are a pastor or a layman wanting to increase your Bible knowledge, a teacher desiring to refine your teaching methods, or someone who is curious about a certain course being offered, we encourage you to register today and begin working toward your degree, and more importantly, furthering your knowledge of the Bible.


Current Promotion Classes Offered

Fundamentals of Education: A study of the issues rudimentary to Christian education. The course will include a philosophy of each area of education and the theoretical implementation of a Christian philosophy of education.

(Professor: Dr. Jeff Voegtlin)

Defining Biblical Leadership: This class will present key principles for godly leadership, essential for those training to be in the ministry. Featured topics include: the cost of leadership, the qualities and criteria of leadership, the art of reproducing leaders, and others.

(Professor: Pastor Steve Damron)

Pastoral Epistles: An expositional study of the Pastoral Epistles; I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus. The purpose of this class is to gain a good understanding of how the Pastoral Epistles are distinct, and how they fit into the overall canon, as well as proper interpretation of content via verse by verse exegetical study, making practical application to modern times.

(Professor: Clint Schreiber)

Thanks -

 

[BobRyan]

God gave us brains. Our brains gave us Science.

Gave us our brains from a fish??

It it the creatonists that say God made us and gave us our brains.

But blind faith evolutionism claims we crawled out of the ocean.

A not-so-subtle difference.

 

[mindlight]

All the scientific evidence points to an ancient earth. Furthermore, the fossil records support the slow change of species over time, such as dinosaurs to birds. *IF* these things are not true, it would follow that God deliberately created a world with false scientific data. Right? So then this begs the questions...

Did God lie?
And if God lied, why?

What do you believe?

God cannot by definition be a liar and everything we know about Him refutes that.

The evidence is always interpreted through a presuppositional grid. The dominant scientific paradigm of the moment being a sort of materialistic naturalism. However if we allow for the possibility of miracles and discount argumentation by analogy with things that we can demonstrate then it becomes clear that what can be consistently observed today may not actually answer the questions we raise about how we came to be at all.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

God cannot by definition be a liar and everything we know about Him refutes that.

Absolutely correct. If God lies, then the entire structure of revealed and experiential knowledge of God falls into ruin. That hasn't happened yet and I have no reason to expect it.

The evidence is always interpreted through a presuppositional grid.

I presume by 'evidence' here cited, you refer to 'scientific evidence'. Also correct. The presupposition is all the laws of nature are reliable and operate without flaw.

Which is to be expected, is it not? IF (and I use 'if' in the logical argument sense) God created the Universe, God then also created the laws which govern the Universe. To claim God created the Universe and the laws of nature were established by some other agency, or the laws of the Universe weren't created or established at all is self-contradictory.

To word the concept to please those who object to 'if': SINCE God created the Universe, then the laws of nature were created by God at the same time.

Does anyone have an argument that God did not in fact create the laws of nature? I've kicked it around and cannot. Other than if God did not create the laws of nature, then He could not have created the rest of the Universe. Which follows, but I reject the premise.

The dominant scientific paradigm of the moment being a sort of materialistic naturalism.

A bit of an over reach. There are those who have a prior objection to the existence of God, who try to claim God cannot exist because God does not appear in a test tube or equation, be seen with a telescope in any wavelength, or appear on command to be photographed, weighed, fingerprinted or any of a myriad of physical experiments or examinations.

There are many scientists of various disciplines who leave the idea of God - as mainstream Christianity rather than Hindu (for instance)teaching believes - could quite possibly exist and cannot be ruled out due to the aforementioned experimental concerns.

There are also many scientists who believe in God and yet understand there is no accepted notation for 'miracle' in mathematical formulations nor physical experiments.

However if we allow for the possibility of miracles...

C. S. Lewis wrote a book about miracles, called - by a great cosmic coincidence - Miracles. One of the early points he covers is nothing can be considered a miracle UNLESS that event seems to circumvent or deny the normal, regular, commonly observed, i.e. the laws of nature.

... and discount argumentation by analogy with things that we can demonstrate...

A method constantly used in Christian instruction, by the way.

...then it becomes clear that what can be consistently observed today may not actually answer the questions we raise about how we came to be at all.

That is my bolding, but your words. "What can be consistently observed" is NOT the analogy to which you object.

 

[mindlight]

Absolutely correct. If God lies, then the entire structure of revealed and experiential knowledge of God falls into ruin. That hasn't happened yet and I have no reason to expect it.

I presume by 'evidence' here cited, you refer to 'scientific evidence'. Also correct. The presupposition is all the laws of nature are reliable and operate without flaw.

Which is to be expected, is it not? IF (and I use 'if' in the logical argument sense) God created the Universe, God then also created the laws which govern the Universe. To claim God created the Universe and the laws of nature were established by some other agency, or the laws of the Universe weren't created or established at all is self-contradictory.

To word the concept to please those who object to 'if': SINCE God created the Universe, then the laws of nature were created by God at the same time.

Does anyone have an argument that God did not in fact create the laws of nature? I've kicked it around and cannot. Other than if God did not create the laws of nature, then He could not have created the rest of the Universe. Which follows, but I reject the premise.

A bit of an over reach. There are those who have a prior objection to the existence of God, who try to claim God cannot exist because God does not appear in a test tube or equation, be seen with a telescope in any wavelength, or appear on command to be photographed, weighed, fingerprinted or any of a myriad of physical experiments or examinations.

There are many scientists of various disciplines who leave the idea of God - as mainstream Christianity rather than Hindu (for instance)teaching believes - could quite possibly exist and cannot be ruled out due to the aforementioned experimental concerns.

There are also many scientists who believe in God and yet understand there is no accepted notation for 'miracle' in mathematical formulations nor physical experiments.
C. S. Lewis wrote a book about miracles, called - by a great cosmic coincidence - Miracles. One of the early points he covers is nothing can be considered a miracle UNLESS that event seems to circumvent or deny the normal, regular, commonly observed, i.e. the laws of nature.

A method constantly used in Christian instruction, by the way.That is my bolding, but your words. "What can be consistently observed" is NOT the analogy to which you object.

I take a literal view of scripture which gives me some answers to your arguments.

We share the view that God is the Creator, that He does not lie and that what he has created has a certain consistency regarding natural laws which we can observe today.

But when Jesus created water out of wine he in effect created carbon atoms out of nothing. When he fed 3000 with a few loaves and fishes or walked on water , calmed the storm or ascended into the sky he stepped outside what is normally regarded as the laws of nature.

Both the creation and flood are unanalogous events that altered the previous state of being. The first brought natural laws into existence which had previously not existed. The second by supernatural intervention massively altered the configuration of the planet and indeed our own ability to thrive on it. Human life spans declined dramatically following the flood and have never recovered.

When we look at biology we can see analogous patterns that some interpret to show common descent and others to show the same Intelligent Designer was at work in all cases. When we look at remote electromagnetic signatures from distant stars we can guess at distances and timescales from these based on local and demonstrable experiments and observations as to the speed of light for instance. We can then draw analogies with the patterns in the more distant lights we observe to suggest space time dimensions. But with both miracle or catastrophe lurking in the background we cannot explain or know for sure what we see about either origins or remote cosmology. At the end of the day an argument from analogy is not a proof.

There is no certainty here on which to base scepticism as to the trustworthiness of God.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I take a literal view of scripture which gives me some answers to your arguments.

The problem with this statement is, far too many people who say this have no clue as to the 'literal meaning' in the original manuscripts.

There is no certainty here on which to base scepticism as to the trustworthiness of God.

Nor is there any reason for skepticism or flat out denial of scientific inquiry. Except it doesn't agree with your presumption.

 

[Open Heart]

Gave us our brains from a fish??

God created evolution, which he used to bring brains into being, from simply nerves, to spinal chords, to fish brains, to reptilian brains, to bird brains, to mammal brains.

I can't believe you are still asking these type of questions. I would think you could predict the answers by now.

 

[Open Heart]

God cannot by definition be a liar and everything we know about Him refutes that

That's the whole point. God is not a liar. The evidence placed within the earth is TRUE. Therefore evolution is true and the earth is over 5 billion years old.