How come humans have not evolved into a higher species?

[Cis.jd]

This is why we have to know the truth. Satan has his lies and counterfeit. He loves to counterfeit religion and science. As you readily admit. I did construction work. People expected the work I did to last. The crazy sort of house that you want to build would not stand the first storm to come along. Jesus teaches us to build on a solid foundation, not on sand.

I think it's the other way around. I think Satan lies is deceiving Christians by making them believe that the Bible is a source of knowledge of this physical world, this belief is one of the reasons why Christianity has lost followers because once they do see these errors or end up learning scientific facts that seem to conflict to their beliefs then they start questioning or just becoming lovers of their own ignorances hence giving christianity a bad image.

When will you finally quote and discuss Gen 1:5?

 

[Lady Donna Marie]

.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Bible is about God and man, and our relationship. That's what it's for.

 

[MrsFoundit]

God made the Bible to be a book about revealing him to man, not to explain or give knowledge of the universe. This is what the Bible is as truth and this is the only thing it was made to talk about.

Is this revelation of God to man as recorded in the Bible as you say, some natural phenomena, excluding any supernatural events? Is God (who must exist to have been revealed) a physical being?

In your post 235, you said "Supernatural is just when something has not been accurately explained comprehensibly (or scientifically)."

 

[Cis.jd]

Is this revelation of God to man as recorded in the Bible as you say, some natural phenomena, excluding any supernatural events? Is God (who must exist to have been revealed) a physical being?

In your post 235, you said "Supernatural is just when something has not been accurately explained comprehensibly (or scientifically)."

More like a message and a purpose. The Bible is a set of books with a total page count of 1200+ pages. This amount is what God decided to compose his Word, and just by common sense alone there is no way to fit a comprehensible lesson of how the natural universe operates along with the deep message of his revelation and man's salvation. And no, i don't believe God is a physical being.

An example of my post in 235 is the argument surrounding the Shroud of Turin which you should re-read. It is showing you how supernatural events are capable of being explained through natural means, such as how a body would have to omit energy as of UV's and it's likes to leave an imprint like that on the cloth. The Big Bang contains atoms, energy, and all that being part of the explosion or expansion.

 

[MrsFoundit]

And no, i don't believe God is a physical being.
.

So, why do we not just wait for science to explain God, because all that is supernatural will one day be explained with science, (your post 250) "natural is when supernatural is perfectly studied enough to gain comprehensible explanation."

You do not accept faith experiences (a relationship with God), or the Bible, as reliable sources of knowledge about God characteristically not resorting to anger. According to you, (post 249) "You say it's your faith but how do you know your faith is true and not theirs, especially since everyone has their own theology and claims their views are Biblically supported (whether good or bad)? We know yours is fact because there is scientific evidence that those calamities where not from an angry God." In respect of a video which does not show people believing God is angry, but actually people believing in an impact through prayer, you depict their belief as a matter of low intelligence (post 258) "I know you are smart enough to understand that those people are factually NOT rebuking a tornado through supernatural means. You probably do agree on there being a scientific facts disproving it."

Are we to believe in a God who arranged a Bible to be a book about revealing him to man only a until science can explain it instead?

 

[MrsFoundit]

I think it's the other way around. I think Satan lies is deceiving Christians by making them believe that the Bible is a source of knowledge of this physical world,

If people use the Bible to test science for facts they fail to see it serves its purpose by making supernatural claims, not by beating modern science at being modern science.

If people believe modern science is the only or best test for all truth, the Bible appears to be impossible to believe.

Both of these positions seem to deter people from Christian faith.

 

[Cis.jd]

So, why do we not just wait for science to explain God, because all that is supernatural will one day be explained with science, (your post 250) "natural is when supernatural is perfectly studied enough to gain comprehensible explanation."

Why do we need to wait for science? It's like you can't wrap your head around the idea that what we label as supernatural and what is scientifically explained is literally nothing different other than being comprehensibly and physically understood.

You do not accept faith experiences (a relationship with God), or the Bible, as reliable sources of knowledge about God characteristically not resorting to anger. According to you, (post 249) "You say it's your faith but how do you know your faith is true and not theirs, especially since everyone has their own theology and claims their views are Biblically supported (whether good or bad)? We know yours is fact because there is scientific evidence that those calamities where not from an angry God." In respect of a video which does not show people believing God is angry, but actually people believing in an impact through prayer, you depict their belief as a matter of low intelligence (post 258) "I know you are smart enough to understand that those people are factually NOT rebuking a tornado through supernatural means. You probably do agree on there being a scientific facts disproving it."

No. My argument is based off a persons faith and dictating it as truth over scientific facts because he/she sees conflict with their beliefs, for example your main argument that "science can't touch the supernatural". This deals with a variety of different supernatural based beliefs, not just the belief that various calamities are caused by God's anger or certain calamities stopping because of faith rebuking it (the tornado video). That video and my examples with calamities are not exclusively different to my main point. The fact is these are all supernatural beliefs that you know is scientifically proven false.

Are we to believe in a God who arranged a Bible to be a book about revealing him to man only a until science can explain it instead?

This shows you don't understand my argument. Just to help you get the point, can you take my request to Joshua in posting Gen 1:5 and telling me what it is about?

 

[Lady Donna Marie]

.

 

[Cis.jd]

If people use the Bible to test science for facts they fail to see it serves its purpose by making supernatural claims, not by beating modern science at being modern science

If people believe modern science is the only or best test for all truth, the Bible appears to be impossible to believe.

Both of these positions seem to deter people from Christian faith.

It's only impossible to believe if we use the Bible as if it was an academic fact checker. The scripture is about Jesus (God's revelation) not about how the stars work or anything science.

Read this from St Augustine
St. Augustine on Science and Scripture
" Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions....
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics...

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men...."

 

[Cis.jd]

[QUOTE="Cis.jd, post: no, i don't believe God is a physical being.

So you don't believe Jesus Christ the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity has a physical body?

If we are talking about that, yes. I do. I'm replying in context to what is being asked.

 

[MrsFoundit]

for example your main argument that "science can't touch the supernatural".

You - "We need science to make sure what we think is true and once science confirms it, our philosophy and just how we believe things change." (post 207)

My response - "Please explain how you can test claims about the supernatural using purely scientific method, despite the fact that the supernatural is beyond science by definition?"

Do stop misquoting me.

This is not my "main argument", it is my point of disagreement with you. It is not that I do not "understand" you, I disagree with you. I do not agree that the supernatural and natural are the same. You appear to be unable to justify declaring it, and so convinced it is undeniable truth, you are unable to even acknowledge a simple statement of opinion to the contrary. Are you even aware how unorthodox your position is as a point of Christian philosophy?

 

[The Barbarian]

So you don't believe Jesus Christ the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity has a physical body?

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24:39 See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle, and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have.

Only after the incarnation. The Son assumed a physical body, but that is not God's eternal nature:

Anthropomorphites maintain their doctrine in defiance of verses, such as John 4:24, where Jesus teaches us: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” This means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, “a spirit has not flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39).

There is a big difference between being a spirit and having a spirit. Jesus says that the Father is a spirit, not that the Father has a spirit; this means that he lacks a body entirely.

The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple (“incomposite”) nature—that is, a nature containing no parts. Since all bodies extend through space and thus can be divided into parts, it is clear that God cannot have a body.

“What of Christ’s body?” you may ask. It is true that Jesus, who is God, assumed an earthly body when he was born of the Blessed Virgin, and that this body, now glorified, continues to exist. But since the Lord only took on human flesh in these “last days,” and since God has always existed, without beginning or end, we must still conclude that having a body is not part of God’s unchangeable nature: he exists in eternity as pure spirit, even though he chose for the Son to also take on a human nature in addition to his bodiless, timeless, divine nature.
What the Early Church Believed: God Has No Body

 

[Cis.jd]

You appear to be unable to justify declaring it, and so convinced it is undeniable truth, you are unable to even acknowledge a simple statement of opinion to the contrary. Are you even aware how unorthodox your position is as a point of Christian philosophy?

I've given you a quote from St Augustine so it's not an unorthodox position.

 

[MrsFoundit]

The scripture is about Jesus (God's revelation) not about how the stars work or anything science.

It is quite clearly impossible to believe if, as you insist we must, allow our philosophy to be "corrected" every time science has a complete explanation for a thing.

"We need science to make sure what we think is true and once science confirms it, our philosophy and just how we believe things change"

Science has already explained, virgins do not have babies, and dead bodies do not get up and walk, we "know" from science these things do not occur, ever. Science does have a complete explanation for human reproduction and the properties of corpses.

Either science cannot actually be applied according to your statement above, or surely "God's revelation" is not believable?

 

[Cis.jd]

It is quite clearly impossible to believe if, as you insist we must, allow our philosophy to be "corrected" every time science has a complete explanation for a thing.

Read the link to St Augustine's quote.

Science has already explained, virgins do not have babies, and dead bodies do not get up and walk, we "know" from science these things do not occur, ever. Science does have a complete explanation for human reproduction and the properties of corpses.

But if we look to an area of Science which is Sociology we can understand how all of these things about Jesus is likey factual. The Sociology study in regards to beliefs that causes martyrdom for example. So this scientific method with Sociology leads me to believe in what is stated in the Apostles creed with out the need of a physical comprehensible explanation, him being God is already comprehensible to understand those possibilities.

 

[steppinrazor]

Some of us have evolved, some of us have not. Pay attention to the people and cultures around you and youll see where some people are evolving, and some are devolving.

 

[The Barbarian]

Some of us have evolved, some of us have not. Pay attention to the people and cultures around you and youll see where some people are evolving, and some are devolving.

There is no devolution. Evolution is merely change in a population, without regard for whether anyone might consider it better or worse.

Societies might get better or worse from various points of view, but this is rarely a matter of biological evolution. It's just cultural in almost all cases.

And individuals don't evolve; only populations evolve. And it was that way from the start. Even before we knew about genetics, it was "descent with modification." No such thing as evolution of an individual.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Read the link to St Augustine's quote.

I am unconvinced St Augustine's observations work in application to the modern day issues of the role of science and religion.

I am extremely unconvinced of your entire position, as a solution to the points of apparent conflict.

I also reject "Sociology" as viable science, my perspective categorises science as only the study of physical things. For me it is a hard science, or it is not science.

 

[Lady Donna Marie]

.