Definition of Science/Truth

[Cis.jd]

Science got to where it was because of the church. If you believe that Bible is the only and complete source of truth then you are thinking that God is so small that he fits 1,200+ pages.

The Bible is NOT the only word of God. Just look at Physics and how the universe is accessible due to the readable language (math) behind the laws and systems. These are his words.

The Bible was written by man under the inspiration of the HS.. however, there is no reason to believe that being inspired by God = acquiring all factual knowledge. If that where the case then where are the 8 planets (please don't make excuses about the lights), black holes, white blood cells, which side of the globe experienced the first day? None of that is in there.

God made the Bible to reveal the relationship we had/have with him. It all points to Jesus.

The problem is, there are christians who have a high level of narcism and think that the reason why they appear factually wrong or just absurd is all due to "It's because I am a child of God and you are not".

 

[PaulCyp1]

Science is the study of the natural universe in natural terms. Truth is that which exists objectively, regardless of personal beliefs or opinions.

 

[Dale]

Then it does a really good job of hiding whatever it is trying to do. I don't see science coming up with any answers that say God did it. If you are Unitarian I am not interested in carrying on about anything with you.
The liberal church is the world's best friend.

I am not a Unitarian and I do not go to a liberal church. I do have a degree in the physical sciences. I have taken courses in science at Mercer University in Georgia, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. I have also taken science courses at public universities. There is no difference in how science is taught. Section: " I don't see science coming up with any answers that say God did it." Some would disagree. You have a strange idea of what science does. Isaac Newton is one of the most important physicists who ever lived. He believed in God and spent large amounts of time writing a commentary on the Book of Daniel.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Science got to where it was because of the church.

Give me a break. Science has nearly always had to operate despite the church, unless you believe the church had it's beginning in the 17th century.

you are thinking that God is so small that he fits 1,200+ pages.

Or perhaps you are thinking that God is not able to reveal enough of Himself in 1200+ pages to keep you busy for a lifetime.

there is no reason to believe that being inspired by God = acquiring all factual knowledge.

No sane person claims this straw man.

The problem is, there are christians who have a high level of narcism and think that the reason why they appear factually wrong or just absurd is all due to "It's because I am a child of God and you are not".

Yes, of course, the rallying cry of pluralism. Any appeal to holiness or fidelity to the Bible is drawing first blood.

 

[Cis.jd]

Give me a break. Science has nearly always had to operate despite the church, unless you believe the church had it's beginning in the 17th century.

What? If science got to where it is thanks to the church, then doesn't that mean the church was before the 17th?

Or perhaps you are thinking that God is not able to reveal enough of Himself in 1200+ pages to keep you busy for a lifetime.

He reveals enough in terms of relationships, but that's it. In these 1200+ does God give the equations of how to calculate gravity of why/how/when he made Saturn's rings and how it behaves?

Yes, of course, the rallying cry of pluralism. Any appeal to holiness or fidelity to the Bible is drawing first blood.

If those christians where appealing to the holiness and fidelity to the Bible then they wouldn't be proven factually wrong or countered with simple rationality. They think they are "opened to the incomprehensible" but in reality it's all based on bad bible interpretation.

 

[Woke]

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

The scientific method obviously can only study what it can observe. There are things that are true that it cannot observe, so science has no interest in those things. Scientists are doing jobs, just like everyone earnings a living does. So of course they will not be studying something they can't observe.

God doesn't duplicate contact with individuals to prove he exists to the worldwide population, because God is separating people, those who want to follow him from those who don't. God always has a point in contacting people, and his point is not to provide proof of his existence to skeptical people who don't wish to be directed by him. That's why the majority of scientists will not know he exists until it is detrimentally too late for them.

God has always contacted some people who believe in him, meaning they have a desire to follow him. The fact you or others may not believe our testimonials does not mean our testimonials are not evidence of God's existence. Super natural contacts by God to humans have always been a part of man's history.

One truth is that our testimonials exist. That's one truth scientists cannot logically deny. They cannot deny that we proclaim these experiences. And we have proclaimed them since the beginning.

Without even reading the other comments I can guess that you will see my point played out by commenters on a thread discussion like this. There will be those who deny God, they say because of science. But that's a lie, even if they lie to themselves. Because it is impossible to prove God nonexistent. They deny him out of choice.

Others will rally to God's defense. Thus here you will see how God is separating people. And more profoundly you will see why God is separating people. WHY IT'S BY THEIR CHOICE.

 

[Woke]

When the Bibles speaks of Gods creation heaven and earth (notice the Bible never states God created a universe) and the actions of created to things like sun, moon, stars.

The actions spoken of, that these created things preform. Are in direct opposition to sciences claims/ statements about the sun, moon, stars and how they preform and also actually what they are.

Example Bible the sun and moon are created lights to give light on the earth. Stars are also created lights that also give light, they are assigned a course/circuit that they travel over the earth. As the sun and moon also have a circuit or course that they travel over the earth.

They (sun,moon and stars) are also created as a time keeping system and a navigational system.

Really the Bible and science's descriptions have nothing in common. Except they both speak of a sun, moon and stars, science adds in planets and an outer space and many more science so called truths that are in direct opposition of the Bible.

With regard to the relationship of the sun, moon, and stars to humans living on Earth the Genesis account can be interpreted as accurate. It would only be inaccurate if humans lived on another planet, away from our sun and moon. Just because God defines those things as providing light, and sources to measure time by, doesn't mean it states that's the only purpose they serve. And the Bible doesn't claim the sun and stars rotate the Earth at all. On one hand your interpretation is too restrictive, and in your other hand it goes beyond what the biblical words state.

 

[Mountainmike]

Admittedly enough, it's merely my opinion but I think Hawking, for obvious reasons, spent entirely to much time in his own head and is therefore suspect in his ability to grasp practical reality. He struck me as expressing himself very much like a spoiled child genius run amok, at least in his TV documentaries.

That’s university professors for you!
Many of them have only a tenuous contact with and grasp of the world outside their bubble!

 

[d taylor]

With regard to the relationship of the sun, moon, and stars to humans living on Earth the Genesis account can be interpreted as accurate. It would only be inaccurate if humans lived on another planet, away from our sun and moon. Just because God defines those things as providing light, and sources to measure time by, doesn't mean it states that's the only purpose they serve. And the Bible doesn't claim the sun and stars rotate the Earth at all. On one hand your interpretation is too restrictive, and in your other hand it goes beyond what the biblical words state.

You say the Bible does not say the sun and stars rotate the earth, that is true because they do not. But they do move over the earth and the Bible states that, the sun and stars have a circuit/course (highway) and move over the earth.

They fought from the heavens; The stars from their courses fought against Sisera.

In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.
Its rising is from one end of heaven,
And its circuit to the other end;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

And Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stop moving in Joshua 10:12-15.

 

[-57]

What does the process of protein synthesis have to do with the definitions of "science" and "truth?"

The question was asked....How do you define science? How do you define truth?

This is a creation thread, so I replied to the question....How do you define science? How do you define truth?....wondering if what they thought about the video. Was science presented? Was truth presented.

 

[AvisG]

I am new here so .

How do you define science? How do you define truth?

I am asking in Creationism because responses from people who accept a direct supernatural creation of life as we know it would be particularly welcome. I am not seeking debate about the definitions, more, if possible a collection of ideas about this.

Science is the study of that which man is capable of studying. Humans find themselves in a universe that is largely susceptible to investigation and analysis, blessed with minds capable of such investigation and analysis. That investigation and analysis should carry humans as far as it possibly can - to the origin of life and the origin of the universe, if that is possible. I understand truth as ontological truth - i.e., the nature of reality as it actually is, which science may or may not be capable of determining.

So far, there is not a compelling scientific answer to questions such as "Why is there anything rather than nothing at all?" and "How did life originate?" Those questions - certainly the first one - almost defy scientific certainty, but not scientific theories. "A Creator God" is certainly a legitimate theory. So far, all science has been able to do is approach the answers to those questions via the same sort of investigation and analysis by which it approaches other questions. For some, that investigation and analysis points toward a creative intelligence as the most likely answer.

Every unproven (and perhaps unproveable) theory requires some leap of faith by those who adopt it. Based on my experiences, observations, pretty extensive studies, reflection and intuition, I don't believe that science has provided compelling naturalistic/materialistic answers to the ultimate metaphysical questions. It seems to me that a creative intelligence is a better fit with the available data, simple as that.

 

[Aussie Pete]

As a scientist, I view science as...the practice of the scientific method.

When you can see, touch, taste, hear and smell, are all things that other people can touch, taste, smell, hear and see too.

People from all over the world can go to Rome and can see Michaelangelo's sistine chapel. And we can objectively agree, scientifically, that there is a building with paint in it, and nobody can disagree because it is physical reality.

Now, with that said, truth involves things beyond what we can see. For example, dark matter appears to exist. We can't see it, we can only see it's affects. But this is just an example of things that exist that we cannot see. Ultra violet light is another example. Radon gas is another. All things we cannot see which we know exist.

We use other forms of observation to determine they exist. For example, computer sensors can detect radon. And anyone around planet Earth can make computer sensors to detect radon or ultraviolet light.

God hypothetically can exist beyond sciences ability to detect Him. He can be truthfully existent without direct observation. And so we faithfully believe without science and without true knowledge, until He returns.

Those who are born again have an ability that unbelievers do not have. It is spiritual eyesight. God is Spirit. Spiritual things are spiritually understood, not by natural means. The natural world can be understood by natural means. The realm of the Spirit cannot be comprehended by natural means.

This divide between the natural and spiritual is so wide and deep that the natural man is blind to spiritual reality. Until and unless God removes the blindness, no one can understand spiritual reality. The spiritual realm is even more concrete than the natural realm. The spiritual realm is eternal. The natural in temporary. We may not realise that we have spiritual eyesight but it is real.

 

[Cis.jd]

Those who are born again have an ability that unbelievers do not have. It is spiritual eyesight. God is Spirit..

These common born agains who rep themselves to be "on god's side and you are not" more-so confuse stubbornness with spiritual eyesight. If your views are not only refuted by facts but just by plain reason, then you don't have any spiritual eyesight.

 

[d taylor]

There is not much truth in the physical visible church. Which has brought in many pagan beliefs and practices and ideas.

 

[MrsFoundit]

This is a creation thread, so I replied to the question....How do you define science? How do you define truth?....wondering if what they thought about the video. Was science presented? Was truth presented.

Both were presented, but neither were defined.

 

[Woke]

You say the Bible does not say the sun and stars rotate the earth, that is true because they do not. But they do move over the earth and the Bible states that, the sun and stars have a circuit/course (highway) and move over the earth.

They fought from the heavens; The stars from their courses fought against Sisera.

In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.
Its rising is from one end of heaven,
And its circuit to the other end;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

And Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stop moving in Joshua 10:12-15.

I'm glad that you responded, because your position illustrates my point. The import of my comment is in the post I made right above addressing you the first time. In it I stated:

"Without even reading the other comments I can guess that you will see my point played out by commenters on a thread discussion like this. There will be those who deny God, they say because of science. But that's a lie, even if they lie to themselves. Because it is impossible to prove God nonexistent. They deny him out of choice.

Others will rally to God's defense. Thus here you will see how God is separating people. And more profoundly you will see why God is separating people. WHY IT'S BY THEIR CHOICE."

I wrote that entire post prior to reading any comment except the opening comment on this thread. Then after writing it I went back to skim read all comments up to and including yours. Yours appeared to me to be the only comment that definitely argued against the truth of the Bible, and therefore the existence of a biblical god. This response to my comment further illustrates my point that some people out of choice will argue against God's existence simply as a matter of their own will.

Let me further explain. In your original comment you stated: ["Example Bible the sun and moon are created lights to give light on the earth. Stars are also created lights that also give light, they are assigned a course/circuit that they travel over the earth. As the sun and moon also have a circuit or course that they travel over the earth."]

You made that comment to support your assertion that the Bible contradicts what science has discovered. You had to have formed your assumption from the account of creation in Genesis, where the creation account is formed. Now after you read what I stated in a comment, which I will repeat below this statement, you evidently believed you cannot adequately defend your previous claim based on the biblical account of creation. So instead you turned to another account in the Bible, thus attempting to prove a different biblical fallacy (in your mind), which you assert as unscientific. You took that position only after reading my statement here:

[" With regard to the relationship of the sun, moon, and stars to humans living on Earth the Genesis account can be interpreted as accurate. It would only be inaccurate if humans lived on another planet, away from our sun and moon. Just because God defines those things as providing light, and sources to measure time by, doesn't mean it states that's the only purpose they serve. And the Bible doesn't claim the sun and stars rotate the Earth at all. On one hand your interpretation is too restrictive, and in your other hand it goes beyond what the biblical words state,"]


My point is that if your first point had any logical merit at all you would have been able to defend it with logical reason. Because you didn't even attempt to do so, proves my point that those who do not believe in God do not because they choose not to believe in God. Thus, my second main point is suggested by your behavior, that God is separating people on that basis; and because he is using choice to separate people he has no intention to reveal himself to the worldwide population.

Since you added another argument (your argument about the sun stopping) let me briefly address that before leaving. Many people have been contacted miraculously by God, not just those named in the Bible. Not only does the Bible claim that people share such experiences, I personally have had such experiences, and so can speak to them accurately. Because you speak against the existence of a biblical God I know you have not. Therefore, your comments about them are based on assumptions about them, not observable events.

God communicates in ways that are superior to human communication. He sometimes enters into the minds of people and takes them in dreams to actual future events, not some vague hazy dreams that coincidentally mirror future events, but instead God takes them to places that are the future events, which they experience in exact detail. God can also present real objects to some people he desires to present those things to, objects that exist in dimensions we don't exist in, and so these objects defy natural scientific laws in our world, because they are from another world. Bible characters have experienced both of those things. I have experienced both of those things. If you don't believe us, your denial, like I previously said, is because you choose not to.

Personally I have never read that Bible characters, like Jesus, who experienced the type of supernatural events I speak of were considered crazy by anyone in their day or in our day. If they were considered mentally deficient then why is that not common knowledge? I also never read that Jesus or other biblical characters experiencing supernatural events were lying. If many people consider that they were then why don't they write about it?

So my original statement that those who don't believe us don't believe out of choice is based on facts that are observably relevant to my statements. A scientific process has been applied to reach my conclusions. And what is science but to discover truths through events that are observably relevant. Observing humanity's response to our testimonials shows that humans believe or do not believe our testimonies out of choice. They don't call us crazy. They don't say we are lying. They instead choose to believe or choose not to believe. Their choice is what God uses to separate them. Because the reason for their choice is born out of desire, more than it is facts. It is impossible to prove God does not exist. No one can do that. What can be proven about God through observation is what people want. Some people have a more scientifically compelling reason to believe in God because they have seen his miracles. But most of the people who experience God's miracles already believed in him. So maybe he contacts them more for your benefit than theirs.

John 3:16-18

" 16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

 

[Elisha's Bear]

What? If science got to where it is thanks to the church, then doesn't that mean the church was before the 17th?

I don't even know where to start. Do you not understand that I am refuting your claim that "the church" was to "science" their primary source of facility in their freedom to explore? Are you not aware that Galileo was sentenced to life under house arrest at the behest of Pope Urban VIII for promoting views of heliocentricism?

He reveals enough in terms of relationships, but that's it. In these 1200+ does God give the equations of how to calculate gravity of why/how/when he made Saturn's rings and how it behaves?

For the sake of argument, let's just say that relationship instruction and physics are polar opposites. Isn't there anything in between that God might let us in on? What about Proverbs? Job? Revelation? Would you say these books are primarily about relationships? Do you realize how much practical hygiene and sanitation instruction is given in the book of Leviticus?

If those christians where appealing to the holiness and fidelity to the Bible then they wouldn't be proven factually wrong or countered with simple rationality.

Really, now? Virtuous people are immune to being mistaken? Is that it?

They think they are "opened to the incomprehensible" but in reality it's all based on bad bible interpretation.

This is indeed a mouthful. You're a mind/heart-reader and a hermeneutics professor. Congratulations.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

The question was asked....How do you define science? How do you define truth?

This is a creation thread, so I replied to the question....How do you define science? How do you define truth?....wondering if what they thought about the video. Was science presented? Was truth presented.

Nice spin. What was called for was a definition, not a demonstration, or "presentation" as you so accurately put it. So your "reply to the question" was, in more ways than one, off-topic. The OP stated her specific reasons for posting in "Creationism," and "a great animation of how digital information directs protein synthesis" by Stephen Meyer does not qualify as a definition of science or truth, however creationist or true or scientific or even virtuous it may be.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Much of what causes the confusion about Biblical statements regarding "scientific" observations is actually confusion about the nature of inspiration as experienced by the Bible writers.

There were times when God gave scientific instruction for practical reasons. Perhaps the most outstanding example of this is in the regulations regarding health and hygiene during the Exodus. Approximately 2 million people were embarking upon a caravan journey and widespread disease was certain without it. (Think of the health maintenance challenges of even modern cruise ships with 2000+ passengers en route for an average of merely a week's time.)

But, for the most part, God has seen fit to allow mankind to discover the workings of the forces of nature via their own senses and rationality.

Almost exclusively, God inspired the Bible writers through their thoughts, not in the construction of their sentences. By this, I mean that the vast majority of the contents of Scripture were not dictated word-for-word by the Holy Ghost. If it were, then there would be no need for hermeneutics or interpretation at all.

Even when direct instructions were given as in dreams, visions, face-to-face encounters, etc., the inherent frailty of human language is an ever-certain barrier to the mind of God.

Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. (Job 11:7-9)

The notion of the Bible as being intended to solve all of the mysteries of nature (and the supernatural, for that matter) is a long-held error advanced mostly (ironically enough) by skeptics.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

.......