Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I earned a BA in physics (long ago) and I think your diagram is just fine, if a bit wordy. In my experience, you'll never find people arguing more vociferously about the scientific method than on crevo forums.
We all use the scientific method regularly in our daily lives, we just don't recognize it as such. It's no big deal. Basically it's just Observe, Hypothesize, Experiment, and Repeat.
I understand that there are several doctrines so to speak.
In a thread over at the Apologetics Forum I was recently told that this chart is in fact, wrong.
What are your thoughts?
There were attempts in the early 19th century to formalize the idea of a "scientific method" (Peirce, etc.), but after the failure of positivism, those attempts faded away. The problem was the same bootstrap problem that all such attempts have - there is no way for something to justify itself.
As such, there is no universally accepted formal scientific method. If you read what the international standards organizations say about it, my paraphrase would be: Document what you do thoroughly enough that someone else can critique and repeat your work.
Other than that, to quote Pirates of the Caribbean, "the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."
So, your chart is fine for a general discussion. Quibbling with it is a pointless semantics argument until specific details come to light. As such, I would ask: What was the focus of the discussion that brought this about?
The discussion was regarding another posters assertion that he could irrefutably prove God's existence using scientifically validated evidence.
We have spent quite some time trying to nail down definitions. Right now I am trying to set up a model for scientific method - he tells me the chart is wrong and refuses to articulate his method.
The God I know, if he wants me to be able to see a star in order that I can navigate the earth and know seasons and times; if he has given me that star for my benefit, He can make it's light shine upon the earth the very moment that He spoke it into existence. I don't know how He did it, and can't explain through the scientific method how He did it, but I certainly know that He can do it!
It is my considered understanding that a miracle is some event that cannot be explained by any understanding that we have. If someone can explain any event by following out a naturally occurring phenomenon of natural processes, then that event is not, by definition, a miracle. My God performs miracles!
I think this is a perfectly acceptable reply. It falls into the category of, "I don't know and I don't need to because I trust God." I think that's fine, but ...
If someone else feels differently ... if they want to study the matter, do you feel there is something wrong with that? I ask because of the statement that follows.
No, I have no problem with anyone studying the matter, but I have a problem when 'facts' are supposedly determined when there is still so many variables yet to be accounted for. Further, if my definition of miracle is correct, and God is the God who works miracles, and I believe that something is a miracle of God, then how would I expect to ever be able to give a naturalistic explanation for 'how' that miracle came about other than from the hand of God?
That would either mean that a) my definition is wrong, or b) or my natural explanation is wrong. Personally, I choose b. Now, I'm not nearly wise enough to necessarily be able to explain why some well studied and researched 'fact' is wrong, but since a or b are the only possibilities in the field of possibilities, then I must choose a or b and hold to it.
I happen to define "miracle" differently. In one sense it doesn't really matter how we define the word, unless it gets in our way, and sometimes I think defining "miracle" as you have gets in the way.
Oh, friend, yes it does matter how one defines a miracle. I agree that many people choose to define 'miracle' as just anything that has the slimmest possibility of occurring, but that doesn't qualify as a miracle as I define it. If something has even the slimmest possibility of occurring, and the variables that would make that possibility come about, then it isn't a miracle at all. It is exactly what one would expect given the data.
Here's an example: A soldier in the civil war fired his musket downfield at another soldier. The bullet hit the other soldier in the scrotum and passed on downfield, as that did not provide enough solid matter to stop the bullet. Standing downfield a ways was a young woman hanging out laundry. Nine months later she gave birth to a healthy young boy. That's a miracle!
Well, is it? You see, when the bullet passed through the man's scrotum it collected at least one healthy sperm from the man's body. The bullet then traveled down field and lodged in the womb of the young woman and the sperm impregnated an egg. Isn't that what happens nearly every time a sperm impregnates an egg? Yes, the lay out of events was certainly phenomenal and wouldn't ever be expected, but once broken down into all the variable parts, the pregnancy was nearly a given.
For example, Jesus (who is God) walks from Nazareth to Cana. OK. A pretty common thing. We know how walking works. Does it diminish God's power that He did something we understand? No.
Of course the natural doesn't diminish God's ability to perform miracles, but honestly I don't see the correlation. I have never claimed that every single thing that God does is a miracle. Just that He does do miracles.
I think that is sometimes a hangup for Christians - if we know how God did it, it's no longer miraculous. It feels as if God's power is diminished - as if we are knocking Him from His throne. So, we don't want to know how He did it, and don't you dare claim you know how He did it. There's that old medieval tendency to amend the story and claim that flowers were springing up from every footprint in the dust as he walked from Nazareth to Cana in order to make Jesus' walking different from ours - to make it miraculous.
But what about those people who are curious and whom it helps for them to study these things? Are we doing them a disservice?
If the conclusions we reach are not true, then yes, we are technically and truly a liar if we tell someone else that what we know is true.
If I knew how God made the stars and how their light reached earth, that wouldn't make it any less miraculous for me. Even if I knew that, my God still performs miracles.
Well, I can answer that for you. God spoke the stars into existence. Out of absolutely nothing He merely said let there be stars and within an instant our universe was covered in stars just as when He spoke our planet into existence there were uncounted grains of sand within the make up of our planet.
Yep.Chet - I'm sure you know which threads I'm speaking of.
No. If anything, that diagram is more comprehensive than what I was taught, at least regarding the "procedure working" section.Do you think there is a possible argument against this model of the scientific method?
If I knew how God made the stars and how their light reached earth, that wouldn't make it any less miraculous for me. Even if I knew that, my God still performs miracles.
I'd like to take a moment and break that down into smaller bites.
I think that is sometimes a hangup for Christians...
First, yes, when viewed from the world's perspective, I believe that Christians will seem to have a lot of 'hang-ups'. After all, to me, the Scriptures seem pretty clear that we are to live differently. To them, these differences of a stricter morality and different belief system, are explained as 'hang-ups'. I actually take a certain amount of comfort in knowing that I have some of these 'hang-ups' so long as they come about because I am following a different path.
Consider the picture of Jesus' explanation of the broad and narrow ways. Those on the broad way are looking over at those on the narrow and laughing and mocking at their 'hang-ups' that keep them from coming over and enjoying all the fun and freedom that they have. Just as the Scriptures say, sin has its pleasure for a season. When I consider Jesus' words I think to myself, "Well, I should be living differently than them." Peter writes that knowing our great salvation how should we then live? He writes: Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. Then adds in his second letter: Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives.
So, I'm not too concerned with anyone claiming I have 'hang-ups' if those 'hang-ups' come from godly differences.
I always scratch my head when I hear people say this. One represents a God who created everything in this realm, just as you and I see it today as far its physical characteristics. All the stars of the universe perfectly ordered and aligned in a fashion that allows for the universe to revolve and spin and move about for thousands and thousands of years without ever crashing into the earth. It allows for every living creature to be perfectly formed in exactly the manner that God created it and every living plant to be perfectly suited for its purpose and that the whole of all of this creating was just and only in preparation for the life of mankind.
The other allows that God may have set some speck of something in the universe and then a lot of lucky consequences of nature got us to where we are today. You'd say that both of those Gods are the same, huh? OK.
Also in this matter, we still have to consider what does 'truth' mean to God? For the sake of this argument let's just suppose that God did create this realm just exactly as He has told us. That yes, at some point, in a totally black and void space, God spoke, in a matter of literally six rotations of the first heavenly body that He created absolutely everything that exists in the same form and substance as we see everything in the universe today. All the stars of the universe and the plants and animals of the earth and finally man. Does that God see someone as being truthful if he tells people that it just isn't so. Can't possibly be. We have proven that's an impossibility! What do you think? Does it matter to God that we tell others the truth?
So, we don't want to know how He did it, and don't you dare claim you know how He did it.
No, I don't have any problem telling anyone how God did it. As a matter of fact, I just told you in my last post how God did it. I would never tell anyone to not dare to tell me how God did it, so long as they could also prove that there explanation is the truth. Unfortunately, for me, no one has ever been able to provide that level of explanation about the various and sundry explanations of the beginning of this realm. The Scriptures tell us quite clearly and repeatedly 'how' God did it. And God said, let there be light... And God said, let there be an expanse... And God said, let the water under the sky... And God said, let the land produce vegetation... And God said, let there be lights in the expanse,... And God said, let the water teem... And God said, let the land produce living creatures... From what I gather, God spoke, and it happened. All things became into existence merely by the power of God's speaking it to be so.
So, how did that star get there? Well, the answer is quite simple. God told it to be and it became.
There's that old medieval tendency to amend the story and claim that flowers were springing up from every footprint in the dust as he walked from Nazareth to Cana in order to make Jesus' walking different from ours - to make it miraculous.
First question, why is this medieval? I would never claim that flowers sprang up from Jesus' footsteps. I could certainly never prove such a premise from the Scriptures. No, Jesus walked just like you and I do. One foot in front of the other, propelling his body forward in the space that was in front of him. However, the very fact that Jesus lived is a miracle and because of that, yes, his walking was a miracle. But that is only if we make that statement in consideration of the first cause of Jesus. We could similarly say that the house that I live in is a miracle because it is made of the materials that God miraculously created in the beginning of His creating this realm. However, I fully understand that that is not the point you are striving to drive home.
All I can assure you is that some point in the future, you and I will know the truth. You and I will know whether or not God created just as He has caused to be written to us or that He rather created as science has tried so diligently to prove to us. We will also know how important it is to God whether what we believe about Him and what we teach about Him is the truth - to Him. We will know whether it was right for those who He calls His children to have 'hang-ups' or not.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Let's deal with this on a smaller scale. I mentioned the crossing of the Red Sea. Do you believe that there was a wall of water on the left and on the right of them as they passed over the dry sea bed?
No, I have no problem with anyone studying the matter ...
... Further, if my definition of miracle is correct, and God is the God who works miracles, and I believe that something is a miracle of God, then how would I expect to ever be able to give a naturalistic explanation for 'how' that miracle came about other than from the hand of God?
Of course the natural doesn't diminish God's ability to perform miracles, but honestly I don't see the correlation. I have never claimed that every single thing that God does is a miracle. Just that He does do miracles.
Well, I can answer that for you. God spoke the stars into existence. Out of absolutely nothing He merely said let there be stars and within an instant our universe was covered in stars just as when He spoke our planet into existence there were uncounted grains of sand within the make up of our planet.
First, yes, when viewed from the world's perspective, I believe that Christians will seem to have a lot of 'hang-ups'.
So, I'm not too concerned with anyone claiming I have 'hang-ups' if those 'hang-ups' come from godly differences.
No, I don't have any problem telling anyone how God did it. As a matter of fact, I just told you in my last post how God did it.
First question, why is this medieval? I would never claim that flowers sprang up from Jesus' footsteps.
I also disagree how you define a miracle. I believe Jesus virgin birth was a miracle yet man has learn how a virgin could give birth today.Hi Resha,
Let's deal with this on a smaller scale. I mentioned the crossing of the Red Sea. Do you believe that there was a wall of water on the left and on the right of them as they passed over the dry sea bed?
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Yep.
No. If anything, that diagram is more comprehensive than what I was taught, at least regarding the "procedure working" section.
One possible thought experiment is to choose a subject area that is not controversial and see what happens if you use that diagram as a framework for experimentation. I tried that (in musical acoustics) and I think the diagram is just fine.
I happen to define "miracle" differently. In one sense it doesn't really matter how we define the word, unless it gets in our way, and sometimes I think defining "miracle" as you have gets in the way.
For example, Jesus (who is God) walks from Nazareth to Cana. OK. A pretty common thing. We know how walking works. Does it diminish God's power that He did something we understand? No.
I think that is sometimes a hangup for Christians - if we know how God did it, it's no longer miraculous. It feels as if God's power is diminished - as if we are knocking Him from His throne. So, we don't want to know how He did it, and don't you dare claim you know how He did it. There's that old medieval tendency to amend the story and claim that flowers were springing up from every footprint in the dust as he walked from Nazareth to Cana in order to make Jesus' walking different from ours - to make it miraculous.
But what about those people who are curious and whom it helps for them to study these things? Are we doing them a disservice?
If I knew how God made the stars and how their light reached earth, that wouldn't make it any less miraculous for me. Even if I knew that, my God still performs miracles.
I assume you are referring to Exodus 14:21-22. Yes, I believe that what is recorded in those verses happened.
This example differs from discussing the stars. I know of no extant archaeological evidence of that event (though there have been some embarassing attempts to fabricate evidence). Any "scientific" discussion of the matter is not scientific at all. It is mere speculation. And so, for this example, I am satisifed to trust God and say I don't know how it happened. Since I haven't seen any credible evidence of the event, I'm also willing to push back against those who think it can be a scientific discussion.
Discussing the stars is different, given we have some accessible evidence.Well, as far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that evidence as it relates to the age of the earth goes like this. Star A is 100 billion light years distant from our earth. Because we know that light travels at X speed, then the universe must be Y years old for us to be able to see the light of star A.
But this 'fact' must be couched with the agreement of one assumption and that is that through all moments of time in this universe light speed has to have been constant.
However, if one allows for miracles, then it can be proposed that at the moment of creation, God expanded the light of star A to immediately fill the entire universe, and then the light waves behind those waves settled to the speed of light that we now know. Unfortunately, this proposition can be neither proven nor disproven except to say that based on what we know today about light, it is an impossible proposition.
Now, let's turn that same scientific reasoning to the birth of Jesus. Jesus was born just as any normal child today is born through the birth canal of a woman. Science has proven that the only way a woman can begin a term of pregnancy is that an egg in her womb is fertilized by human sperm. I am discounting other means of man induced pregnancy as they were not available to the people of Israel 2,000 years ago, but even they require a human sperm to fertilize a human egg. Therefore, based on the scientific knowledge that we have today, Mary's pregnancy is impossible as the Scriptures tell us and the account of her conception must either be a lie in how it happened or just not have happened at all.
So, you see, people are willing to forego scientific evidence to explain the birth of Jesus and just accept on faith that it happened the way it did because God said it did, despite any medical or scientific 'laws' that we know today to be true, yet they are wholly unwilling to accept that that very same principle is at work in God's accounting for us the way He created this realm. Why is that?
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?