How do You know?

[Truth in Faith]

If you can't see God with a telescope, have him fit into an equation, in essence, be able to observe Him through sensory perception, then what rational proof is required to acknowledge Him?

The scientific method has given us so much, but we are not robots. Can the Moral Law ever be equated with the laws of physics? The scientific method is observes that which is finite. We only trust what we observe because we believe that there are such things as truth, falsity, rationality, and reality. Are those principles outside of our minds, or are they purely constructs of our own creation? If we let in the door that abstract truths are of our own creation, then we are in danger of assuming that even what we are observing is a construct of our imagination.

I believe the study of nature, cosmos, biology etc. should be consistent with that presented in the Holy Scriptures, based on their remarkable legal-historical proof, prophecy fulfillment, and vast interconnectedness over hundreds of years. I believe it provides the best world view, and I think the scientific method should stay within it's rightful boundaries of observation.

 

[Arikay]

Im not quite sure I follow you.

Just to mention, there is a reason science is Agnostic.

 

[Truth in Faith]

I'm trying to point out that it all essentially boils down to whether we choose to believe or not. The world view and message in the Holy Scriptures, design in nature, and our own sense of the moral law are all in harmony.

 

[Arikay]

Why do we have to make a choice? Why cant the the different ideas live together happily?

They seem to for many people.

 

[euphoric]

Today at 11:01 AM Arikay said this in Post #2

Im not quite sure I follow you.

Just to mention, there is a reason science is Agnostic.

He's saying that he wants science to stay within the confines of his religious beliefs.  It's the AIG concept of "if the data doesn't agree with scripture, just ignore it."  And, yes, it's absurd.

-brett

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 05:46 AM Truth in Faith said this in Post #1

If you can't see God with a telescope, have him fit into an equation, in essence, be able to observe Him through sensory perception, then what rational proof is required to acknowledge Him?

TiF, it seems that acknowledgement of the existence of God rests on personal experience.

1. You have your own personally convincing experience of God. Several posters in this forum claim to have such experience.  Such experience convinced CS Lewis against his will.

2. You trust the personal experience of others.  In your case, you trust that the personal experience of Paul and other authors of the Bible and what they tell you about it.

However, in both cases the experience is personal and not available to everyone.  So there are going to be doubters.  Why are you so worried that there are doubters? 

Can the Moral Law ever be equated with the laws of physics?

You mean as independent from God?  Please answer this question:  Is something good because God commmands it, or does God command it because it is good?

The scientific method is observes that which is finite. We only trust what we observe because we believe that there are such things as truth, falsity, rationality, and reality. Are those principles outside of our minds, or are they purely constructs of our own creation?

Both science and Christianity rest on the same assumptions about the nature of the universe.  For Christians, those assumptions are derived from the characteristics of God.  Science developed in Western Europe because those assumptions are the same that science requires in order to do its work.  However, those assumptions can be made without reference to God (altho that wasn't how they were first made).  Those assumptions are that the universe is: rational, accessible, contingent, objective, and unified.

 we are in danger of assuming that even what we are observing is a construct of our imagination.

In any search for truth there are 2 basic assumptions: I exist, and I am sane.  If these are not true then you can't trust your personal experience.

I believe the study of nature, cosmos, biology etc. should be consistent with that presented in the Holy Scriptures,

I'm sorry, but science can't do that. In science the ultimate authority is nature itself.    There can be no subordination of science to any book, philosophy, religion, etc. 

Now, since Christians believe that God also created nature, that means nature is a second book of God and just as authoritative as the Bible. What you are proposing is Bible worship and not God worship.

 I believe it provides the best world view, and I think the scientific method should stay within it's rightful boundaries of observation.

Science doesn't have a worldview.  And you are free to believe that Christianity is the best worldview out there.  I'm not contradicting that belief.  Science is within rightful boundaries.  Yes, it contradicts your interpretation of the Bible, but your interpretation is not the Bible itself. Simply change the interpretation. That's what Christians have been doing for 1600 years when faced with science that challenges their interpretation.  It's a good tradition; you just have to continue it.

Now, some scientists (who are also atheists) do step outside the boundaries of science and present their faith -- atheism -- as science.  You should complain about that.  All of us -- theistic, agnostic, atheist -- should complain about that.

So, when you run up against a particular piece of work in science that you think might be outside the boundaries of science, ASK. See if it is really science or some scientist taking science outside its rightful boundaries.