Does Science Agree With the Bible?

HitchSlap said:

Mary was pregnant when they were married...

Click to expand...

The reason we know this is because the Bible tells us that she was pregnant when Joseph agreed to marry her. Now that's OK by you. What isn't OK by you of course is that God caused the pregnancy. Instead, you much rather prefer to think that Mary committed fornication and got away with it by lying.

The Cadet said:

Just to give one example of the many "creative" readings here: you're claiming that this is scientifically accurate, and it literally talks about "stretching the sky". Wat. Not to mention that the earth is not "suspended" in space in any meaningful way.

Meanwhile, the bible teaches that humans were created ex nihilo by a deity. It teaches that God could "stop the sun in the sky". It teaches at numerous points that the earth is flat:



Even beyond talking about the ends of the earth, the four corners of the earth, the fact is that in every situation where the bible makes reference to the shape of the earth, the shape it describes is flat. Daniel 4:10-11 says the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds". Matthew 4:8 says "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory". Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him..." None of these are possible on a round earth. Isaiah 40:22 speaks of "the circle of the earth", but the hebraic word used clearly implies a flat circle, not a sphere. Then there's the (non-canonical) book of Enoch, which was explicitly meant to teach, and clearly describes a flat earth.The bible is, from start to finish, a flat-earth book.

Click to expand...

Mankind isn't bound by the Earth's curvature in displaying images from around he world and the Devil is?

The word suspend can be used to describe something that is floating in mid air without any visible means of suspension.
the definition of suspend

People use idiomatic expressions all the time. Idiomatic expressions are not meant to be taken literally.

Idioms are a fixed expression with nonliteral meaning: a fixed distinctive expression whose meaning cannot be deduced from the combined meanings of its actual words. A drop in the bucket is a very small part of something big or whole. All in the same boat is when everyone is facing the same challenges. An axe to grind is to have a dispute with someone. Field day is an enjoyable day or circumstance. Method to my madness is strange or crazy actions that appear meaningless but in the end are done for a good reason. Idioms are by far the most difficult of literature to interpret and translate.
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Click to expand...

dad said:

Sure you can. But you can't post it, or did already and everyone missed it.

Click to expand...

dad, I have started threads on this subject. You may have even participated. As usual, you lost.

Colter said:

People experience God just like they experience Love. Two people who have experienced Love don't need to provide a dissertation to each other when they use the term. Its up to you to do the work to find God.

Click to expand...

One doesn't need to experience an emotion to know emotions exist.

A materialist may view the universe as entirely material, a spirit born religionist may view the same universe as entirely spiritual looking at it from the inside out.

Click to expand...

The difference is that the material doesn't require any "faith".
The material and the physical can be independently demonstrated and doesn't require any "beliefs" to be accepted as existing.

Religion is the right arena for faith

Click to expand...

Only because there is no actual evidence to support it.

Science is the arena for the evaluation of facts.

Click to expand...

Idd. And it makes science a pathway to truth. Unlike religion.

Jesus could appear to you today, have coffee and then leave. You might then concede the existence of this Jesus guy and begin the search for spiritual truth.....but the experience wouldn't prove the existence of the Universal Father to you as "knowledge" provable to another person. In fact you would be left with many of the same questions about the universe.

Click to expand...

Yes. A rational/reasonabl person would consider that a problem.

DogmaHunter said:

One doesn't need to experience an emotion to know emotions exist.



The difference is that the material doesn't require any "faith".
The material and the physical can be independently demonstrated and doesn't require any "beliefs" to be accepted as existing.



Only because there is no actual evidence to support it.




Idd. And it makes science a pathway to truth. Unlike religion.



Yes. A rational/reasonabl person would consider that a problem.

Click to expand...

Science is the pathway to material truth, religion is the pathway to spiritual truth.

I have evidence to support it for me, you would need to find it for yourself.

"Mathematics, material science, is indispensable to the intelligent discussion of the material aspects of the universe, but such knowledge is not necessarily a part of the higher realization of truth or of the personal appreciation of spiritual realities. Not only in the realms of life but even in the world of physical energy, the sum of two or more things is very often something more than, or something different from, the predictable additive consequences of such unions. The entire science of mathematics, the whole domain of philosophy, the highest physics or chemistry, could not predict or know that the union of two gaseous hydrogen atoms with one gaseous oxygen atom would result in a new and qualitatively superadditive substance—liquid water. The understanding knowledge of this one physiochemical phenomenon should have prevented the development of materialistic philosophy and mechanistic cosmology." UB 1955

Colter said:

Science is the pathway to material truth, religion is the pathway to spiritual truth.

Click to expand...

Science teaches: "seeing is believing."

The Bible teaches: "scientists will see and not believe."

AV1611VET said:

Science teaches: "seeing is believing."

The Bible teaches: "scientists will see and not believe."

Click to expand...

"What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic.

The truth—an understanding of cosmic relationships, universe facts, and spiritual values—can best be had through the ministry of the Spirit of Truth and can best be criticized by revelation. But revelation originates neither a science nor a religion; its function is to co-ordinate both science and religion with the truth of reality. Always, in the absence of revelation or in the failure to accept or grasp it, has mortal man resorted to his futile gesture of metaphysics, that being the only human substitute for the revelation of truth or for the mota of morontia personality." Urantia revelation 1955

Colter said:

Science is the pathway to material truth, religion is the pathway to spiritual truth.

Click to expand...

You can't even demonstrate that anything "spiritual" (whatever that means) even exists.
Let alone if there is any "truth" to it.

You're just calling it "truth" and pretty much merely defining it into existance.

I have evidence to support it for me, you would need to find it for yourself.

Click to expand...

Evidence doesn't work that way.

"Mathematics, material science, is indispensable to the intelligent discussion of the material aspects of the universe, but such knowledge is not necessarily a part of the higher realization of truth or of the personal appreciation of spiritual realities. Not only in the realms of life but even in the world of physical energy, the sum of two or more things is very often something more than, or something different from, the predictable additive consequences of such unions. The entire science of mathematics, the whole domain of philosophy, the highest physics or chemistry, could not predict or know that the union of two gaseous hydrogen atoms with one gaseous oxygen atom would result in a new and qualitatively superadditive substance—liquid water. The understanding knowledge of this one physiochemical phenomenon should have prevented the development of materialistic philosophy and mechanistic cosmology." UB 1955

Click to expand...

If you want, I can go and cite a book that says the exact opposite.
But I'm not gonna bother, because the nature of reality isn't determined by whatever any book has to say.

DogmaHunter said:

You can't even demonstrate that anything "spiritual" (whatever that means) even exists.
Let alone if there is any "truth" to it.

You're just calling it "truth" and pretty much merely defining it into existance.



Evidence doesn't work that way.



If you want, I can go and cite a book that says the exact opposite.
But I'm not gonna bother, because the nature of reality isn't determined by whatever any book has to say.

Click to expand...

We've discussed this before, it's the routine, self satisfying cop-out of the Atheist belief system. I can't prove my experience with the spiritual Father to you, so that becomes your foundation for the claim that such a reality doesn't exist. You will need to find spiritual realty in order to realize that it exist's for yourself.

Consciousness exists, it transcends the purely material realm, we don't "define it into existence" but this fact conflicts with the very claim of the materialist so they ignore it.

Colter, how old are you?

AV1611VET said:

Colter, how old are you?

Click to expand...

fiddy-three materially. 11747 days since my spiritual rebirth. Not so sure about my emotional age

Colter said:

fiddy-three materially. 11747 days since my spiritual rebirth. Not so sure about my emotional age

Click to expand...

sixta-three materially. 12978 days since my spiritual rebirth. 17 years old emotionally

Colter said:

We've discussed this before, it's the routine, self satisfying cop-out of the Atheist belief system.

Click to expand...

No. It's just what the facts are. You demonstrably believe in things of which the truth value can't rationally be determined. It's just what it is. That's what "faith" is.

Obviously, it doesn't bother you.
It certainly bothers me. I can't justify such beliefs to myself. Nore do I find such things convincing in any way. By any and all accounts, such beliefs are what I mean when I talk about "irrational beliefs". Irrational beliefs are beliefs that are not in evidence, or worse: contradicted by the actual evidence and yet still believed.

I can't prove my experience with the spiritual Father to you, so that becomes your foundation for the claim that such a reality doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

I never claimed that such a reality doesn't exist.
I said that such a reality can't be shown to be actual reality. It is indistinguishable from a reality that does not exist. The point exactly.

Why would I take such claims seriously?
Why would anyone?

You will need to find spiritual realty in order to realize that it exist's for yourself.

Click to expand...

Don't ask me to do your homework. You are the one claiming this reality, not me.
If you can't meet the burden of your own claims, I'm just gonna shrug my shoulders and walk away.

Consciousness exists, it transcends the purely material realm

Click to expand...

Does it, really?
How did you determine that?

I have never seen an "immaterial" consiousness. Quite the opposite in fact. EVERY "consiousness" or even just "awareness" I have ever observed, was a physical thing.

we don't "define it into existence" but this fact conflicts with the very claim of the materialist so they ignore it.

Click to expand...

You mean that bare assertion. It's not a fact.

The actual fact is that every consiousness or awareness that has ever been observed anywhere, was a material, physical thing.

Just claiming that somehow, for some reason, it "transcends" the physical, does not make it so.

Colter said:

fiddy-three materially. 11747 days since my spiritual rebirth. Not so sure about my emotional age

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

sixta-three materially. 12978 days since my spiritual rebirth. 17 years old emotionally

Click to expand...

I'm just 37 and a couple months.
In earth-years, that is.

DogmaHunter said:

No. It's just what the facts are. You demonstrably believe in things of which the truth value can't rationally be determined. It's just what it is. That's what "faith" is.

Obviously, it doesn't bother you.
It certainly bothers me. I can't justify such beliefs to myself. Nore do I find such things convincing in any way. By any and all accounts, such beliefs are what I mean when I talk about "irrational beliefs". Irrational beliefs are beliefs that are not in evidence, or worse: contradicted by the actual evidence and yet still believed.


I never claimed that such a reality doesn't exist.
I said that such a reality can't be shown to be actual reality. It is indistinguishable from a reality that does not exist. The point exactly.

Why would I take such claims seriously?
Why would anyone?



Don't ask me to do your homework. You are the one claiming this reality, not me.
If you can't meet the burden of your own claims, I'm just gonna shrug my shoulders and walk away.



Does it, really?
How did you determine that?

I have never seen an "immaterial" consiousness. Quite the opposite in fact. EVERY "consiousness" or even just "awareness" I have ever observed, was a physical thing.



You mean that bare assertion. It's not a fact.

The actual fact is that every consiousness or awareness that has ever been observed anywhere, was a material, physical thing.

Just claiming that somehow, for some reason, it "transcends" the physical, does not make it so.

Click to expand...

Apart from revelation finite minds cant help but to create an irrational universe.

Promoting yourself as the arbiter of what is "rational" is unimpressive.

I've done my homework, gone beyond the walls of the animal ego. It's you who needs to do your own work of finding your heavenly Father. Concluding that the Father is irrational doesn't make that so. Many former Atheist who find God realize the limitations of their former obstinacy.

Consciousness isn't a physical thing, it's not responsive to gravity. Only the electrochemical platform on which consciousness rests (material mind) is subject to gravity, not consciousness itself.

Subduction Zone said:

dad, I have started threads on this subject. You may have even participated. As usual, you lost.

Click to expand...

Sure.

Colter said:

Apart from revelation finite minds cant help but to create an irrational universe.

Click to expand...

How and/or why would "revelation" be a solution for that?
How do you go about demonstrating such?

Because it seems to me that no "revelation" has ever overturned empirical knowledge, nore has "revelation" ever succeeded in finding demonstrable accurate answers. Ever.


Seems like just a statement completely out of touch with actual demonstrable reality.

Promoting yourself as the arbiter of what is "rational" is unimpressive.

Click to expand...

I haven't promoted myself to anything. I just explained what I consider the difference between rational beliefs and irrational beliefs.

I don't see how a belief based on "faith" instead of empirical evidence could ever be considered "rational".

You are welcome to find me a single example of such a belief (that isn't your religion, obviously)

It's you who needs to do your own work of finding your heavenly Father.

Click to expand...

I have about as much motivation to do that, as you have to find the aliens that are abducting people. Or whatever else that people believe in for no good reason that you don't believe in or have no need to believe in.

Concluding that the Father is irrational doesn't make that so.

Click to expand...

I didn't conclude that "the father" is irrational. I concluded that belief on faith is irrational. It doesn't matter what is being believed. What matters is the reasoning behind the belief. And a belief based on "faith" instead of evidence, is not a rational belief.

Sorry, that's just the way it is. It's what "irrational" means.

Many former Atheist who find God realize the limitations of their former obstinacy.

Click to expand...

Many former theists who stop believing things on faith, realise the gullibility of their former beliefs.

Consciousness isn't a physical thing, it's not responsive to gravity. Only the electrochemical platform on which consciousness rests (material mind) is subject to gravity, not consciousness itself.

Click to expand...

You are claiming that it is some thing that exists apart from material things. That's just an assertion that you can not motivate.

Wherever there is awareness, there is a physical organism that has that property.

All the evidence indicates that awareness/consiousness is a property of a material thing.

joshua 1 9 said:

This is a basic 101 Bible College Question.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Bible is comprised of 66 Books written over a period of about 1,500 years by over 40 authors from all walks of life, with different kinds of personalities, and in all sorts of situations. It was written in three languages on three continents, and it covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme. The authors agree with each other and they all agree with Moses the man that gave us the first five books in the Bible.

Click to expand...

So the bible says what the bible says.

Revelation is a solution to error. Separated from the support of our celestial superiors man can really only speculate.

"Partial, incomplete, and evolving intellects would be helpless in the master universe, would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern, were it not for the innate ability of all mind, high or low, to form a universe frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree.

Conceptual frames of the universe are only relatively true; they are serviceable scaffolding which must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension. The understandings of truth, beauty, and goodness, morality, ethics, duty, love, divinity, origin, existence, purpose, destiny, time, space, even Deity, are only relatively true. God is much, much more than a Father, but the Father is man's highest concept of God; nonetheless, the Father-Son portrayal of Creator-creature relationship will be augmented by those supermortal conceptions of Deity which will be attained in Orvonton, in Havona, and on Paradise. Man must think in a mortal universe frame, but that does not mean that he cannot envision other and higher frames within which thought can take place."

HitchSlap said:

So the bible says what the bible says.

Click to expand...

The Bible says what God says. The Bible is the written word of God. That is why the Bible is 100% accurate and true.