The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

truthuprootsevil said:

No one has all the answers, God didn't give them to us in scriptures.

Click to expand...

But lots of people add their own ideas like a 6000 YO Earth. If one focuses on those things, one misses the entire message God is giving us.

truthuprootsevil said:

According to the theologies of unbelieving humans today if it's unprovable it's not factual, and if it's not factual it's not truth.

Click to expand...

How would an unbelieving human have a theology? Contradiction in terms. And there are many things that are true, that are not provable. In science, at least, facts have to be demonstrated by observation.

The Barbarian said:

How would an unbelieving human have a theology? Contradiction in terms. And there are many things that are true, that are not provable. In science, at least, facts have to be demonstrated by observation.

Click to expand...

Opinion | Wanted: A Theology of Atheism - The New York Times https://share.google/Eq4mzOlFIfjcNNQmT


Atheology | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion https://share.google/VWTK7dpqCSnCfDB8S

Systematic Atheology: Atheism's Reasoning with Theology | Reviews | Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews | University of Notre Dame Systematic Atheology: Atheism's Reasoning with Theology

My comment is solely on the belief of unbelieving people who identify as atheists. And the first thing they will say is prove the existence of God.

Are you speaking of things that are true that can't be proven such as mathematical conjectures, moral truths,
Physiological axioms, extensional claims.

In science some of what they think they've proven as fact there are still other scientists that refute the analysis, and they're always finding new evidence to change earlier analysis / hypotheses / theories. Science and their determinations has far too many things that is always changing, with their continual observation, and in some cases completely different theories. Like many things they thought was fact a hundred years ago has been proven wrong, and a hundred years ago is not that far back, the 20th century.

The National Academies Press | Decoding Science: How does science know what it knows? Decoding Science: How does science know what it knows?

Even theories change Even theories change

I will take an 8 or beyond. I see no reason to take anything from Genesis literally nor to try and retrofit it into some form of contemporary theory with science. In fact I think that distracts us from the real beauty and message of the linguistic art of Genesis.

Contemporary science certainly does not have all the answers. But it does have freedom to question, speculate and theorize without the influence of religion.

truthuprootsevil said:

Are you speaking of things that are true that can't be proven such as mathematical conjectures, moral truths,
Physiological axioms, extensional claims.

Click to expand...

For example, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. It's not logically certain, but it's true.

truthuprootsevil said:

In science some of what they think they've proven as fact

Click to expand...

Since science is inductive, there is no "proof" in science. We might use the word in the colloquial sense of "enough evidence to make dissent unreasonable." But that's not what proof is.

truthuprootsevil said:

they're always finding new evidence to change earlier analysis / hypotheses / theories.

Click to expand...

Yeah. All science is provisional on future evidence. Which might seem flimsy to you. But nothing else humans can do, works better for understanding the physical universe.

And yes, even theories change. The atom, for example.
Hard, indivisible (hence "atom") - Democritus.
Indivisible object with a specific weight for each element - Dalton
Plum Pudding Model with discrete electrons embedded in the atom - Thompson
Planetary Model with electrons orbiting a center - Lamor, Nicholson, et al.
Planetary Model with Nucleus - Rutherford
Bohr Model with quantum states- Neils Bohr
Nucleus with protons and neutrons - Prouf
Probability waves for electons - Schroedinger
And so on...

Notice that theories, over time, don't go from wrong to right, but from wrong to more subtly wrong.

Akita Suggagaki said:

I will take an 8 or beyond. I see no reason to take anything from Genesis literally nor to try and retrofit it into some form of contemporary theory with science. In fact I think that distracts us from the real beauty and message of the linguistic art of Genesis.

Click to expand...

Today's winner.

truthuprootsevil said:

My comment is solely on the belief of unbelieving people who identify as atheists. And the first thing they will say is prove the existence of God.

Click to expand...

There are Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God. But they aren't universally accepted.

I would suggest that they prove the existence of electrons. We have abundant evidence to show that they exist, but we cannot prove them with logical certainty.