Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[ScottA]

Ok if you do not want to prove anything, that is fine of course. But then Christianity (and all other religions) should completely stop involving itself into things that are universally applicable to anyone (that what I call the objective truth). Decisions in societies should be made based on rationale that can be tested, not on faith that cannot be tested. So no trying to explain the universe / earth / life or if men should have sex with men etc. And it should especially not teach children this stuff like it is the truth.

You can think about it and believe whatever of course. But do not get that near children and do not see it as absoute truth for all. In that case, we would agree . I am not sure what you mean with what you have predicted, could you clarify that point a little more?

Your example is more philosophical, there are similar ones with people inside a submarine etc. The answer is we don't know, but for sure the only way you could come anywhere close to the truth that is applicable to everyone, is by the scientific method. I think we agree on that right?

No, your way of testing and rationale, does not serve the whole of society either. But just because we have nothing to prove, doesn't mean we have nothing to offer. In fact, much of what society operates on comes from what we offered. But that whole line of thinking is not realistic: We have heard from beyond. Your version of everyone in one room is really quaint and all, all of us living together in harmony, yadda, yadda. But all bets are off. We have seen God, and the rest of society knows nothing, and will either swim against the current, or be swallow up. Granted, I am aware of the similar claims by wackos, and that doesn't help, but it doesn't change anything either. It is what it is, and it ain't philosophy. And, No, we do not agree that the 1000 people in the room would be best served by the smart ones testing everything. The ONLY way to know the truth is if the information were to come into us from the outside...and it has.

 

[ScottA]

Where is your evidence that there are any spirits?

It's spiritual, it's everywhere.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's spiritual, it's everywhere.

Show us this evidence.

 

[ScottA]

How are any other methods of verification valid? Can you make a case that other methods of verification are reliable?

Do you think that anyone can just make something up and expect it to be accepted as true?

Why would spiritual matters need a different method of verification?

1) They are valid by their own definition. Case example: When in Rome, do what the Romans do.

2) Sure. God made the universe, and even you accept the universe to be true.

3) Because they're different. Would you verify the weight of an elephant by taste?

 

[Loudmouth]

1) They are valid by their own definition.

That is not how validation works. Validation needs to be independent.

2) Sure. God made the universe, and even you accept the universe to be true.

Leprechauns make rainbows, and even you accept rainbows to be true.

Have I just proven that Leprechauns make rainbows?

3) Because they're different. Would you verify the weight of an elephant by taste?

Then what methods do you use that can be validated by others independent of your claims?

 

[ScottA]

Show us this evidence.

Right. People like me have been showing people like you all throughout the history of the world. But we have been all through this...you can't see it, and you have to truly want it. And generation after generation go to the grave only to find out too late, that they should have paid attention, should have listened, should have cared, should have taken it serious.

 

[ScottA]

That is not how validation works. Validation needs to be independent.

Leprechauns make rainbows, and even you accept rainbows to be true.

Have I just proven that Leprechauns make rainbows?

1) Then what methods do you use that can be validated by others independent of your claims?

Oh, contraire. Science self-validates, and knows no other way. Even now you only mean verifiable by you by your own chosen methods.

2) No, you have proven that proof and verification is futile. People only believe what and who they trust, and everyone else is wrong. Just ask them.

 

[Reasoning]

Show us this evidence.

I cannot help hearing the voice of Wendy Wright in my head saying this when I read it .

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, contraire. Science self-validates, and knows no other way.

No, it doesn't. All hypotheses are independent of the evidence.

Even now you only mean verifiable by you by your own chosen methods.

You haven't produced any other method.

2) No, you have proven that proof and verification is futile. People only believe what and who they trust, and everyone else is wrong. Just ask them.

Science is built on distrusting what people claim and believe. That is why it seeks out independent evidence.

 

[JoeyLAnc]

No, it doesn't. All hypotheses are independent of the evidence.



You haven't produced any other method.



Science is built on distrusting what people claim and believe. That is why it seeks out independent evidence.

You know loudmouth on your basis of evidence I can say there is no evidence that you will find sufficient enough to believe. I however do find enough evidence for myself to believe. I guess some of us are different in that regards than others.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know loudmouth on your basis of evidence I can say there is no evidence that you will find sufficient enough to believe. I however do find enough evidence for myself to believe. I guess some of us are different in that regards than others.

Would you find this evidence sufficient for something you currently don't believe in? Would the type of evidence you are talking of convince you that Bigfoot exists? If someone said that they have experienced the Bigfoot universe, and that is all the evidence they need, wouldn't you doubt that they have anything like real evidence?

 

[ScottA]

No, it doesn't. All hypotheses are independent of the evidence.

You haven't produced any other method.

Science is built on distrusting what people claim and believe. That is why it seeks out independent evidence.

Even if any of that were true, and not just according to self-analysis...we have produced a world of evidence, and you ate it up and became it.

 

[Reasoning]

Oh, contraire. Science self-validates, and knows no other way. Even now you only mean verifiable by you by your own chosen methods.

2) No, you have proven that proof and verification is futile. People only believe what and who they trust, and everyone else is wrong. Just ask them.

I am not saying there cannot be any benefit from religion. People might derive moral values from it, find cohesion in groups, or find comfort in it. Or maybe try and answer difficult questions. That does not make it any more true though, and that is what I care about. Religion can occupy itself with going about doing these things with the people that want to listen. But as a matter of explaining the real world, that what is applicable to everything and everybody, should be explained objectively. And the only way to do things objectively, is through science. By the way, if you find a way to objectively test spirituality, that will just be added to the discipline of science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Even if any of that were true, and not just according to self-analysis...we have produced a world of evidence, and you ate it up and became it.

Huh?

 

[JoeyLAnc]

Would you find this evidence sufficient for something you currently don't believe in? Would the type of evidence you are talking of convince you that Bigfoot exists? If someone said that they have experienced the Bigfoot universe, and that is all the evidence they need, wouldn't you doubt that they have anything like real evidence?

I have no interest or desire in believing in Bigfoot therfore someones claim to the existence of Bigfoot will bring no affect to me. What I am trying to say is that in the regard of the existence of God I have been given all the evidence I need to believe. For you that is not the case sadly. You need more and that is not wrong or right, it simply is how you function.

 

[Reasoning]

I have no interest or desire in believing in Bigfoot therfore someones claim to the existence of Bigfoot will bring no affect to me. What I am trying to say is that in the regard of the existence of God I have been given all the evidence I need to believe. For you that is not the case sadly. You need more and that is not wrong or right, it simply is how you function.

But, the desire in believing something should not be relevant in explaining if something is true or not. It either is or it is not, what someone believes is completely irrelevant to the truth.

 

[ScottA]

I am not saying there cannot be any benefit from religion. People might derive moral values from it, find cohesion in groups, or find comfort in it. Or maybe try and answer difficult questions. That does not make it any more true though, and that is what I care about. Religion can occupy itself with going about doing these things with the people that want to listen. But as a matter of explaining the real world, that what is applicable to everything and everybody, should be explained objectively. And the only way to do things objectively, is through science. By the way, if you find a way to objectively test spirituality, that will just be added to the discipline of science.

It has been done objectively. But it is not your test that you are living in, it's God's. And the way of testing spirituality has already been determined, it is by the spirit. But it is not scientific, it is the end of science.

 

[ScottA]

Huh?

The world was your proof, your objective evidence. By you moved in, and made your home there, totally oblivious to the whole matter. And when we tried to tell you, you sent us away.

 

[Loudmouth]

The world was your proof, your objective evidence. By you moved in, and made your home there, totally oblivious to the whole matter. And when we tried to tell you, you sent us away.

I didn't send you anywhere. Still waiting for you to present evidence.

 

[Michael]

Nor was Israel expecting a child...though they were told.

More pure cop-out. Faith in Christ is not predicated on the validity of YEC.