I don't understand...

[chrisstavrous]

Science says nothing; scientists do. And scientists interpret what science uncovers according to their philosophical presuppositions. Of course, it is not just scientists who do this. We all of us do the very same thing. Even you.

Selah.

You can not deny the effectiveness of the scientific method to make predictive models of real data, data that has created all of the technology we depend on today. This should also should prove the varacity of the methodology of science, that it has a high probility of understanding the data and how the data works so it can be used in our current world to aid and benefit humankind. If science was one big presuppositional stab in the dark (Theory) as christian say, then we would not have been able to utilize science to make everything we depend on today.

 

[chrisstavrous]

According to the big bang theory the entire universe, including all its life and energy came out of nothing and since the universe is a closed system as there are no external forces acting upon it, my point stands.

The only reason the big bang theory has as much traction as it does, despite the fact that there are some serious issues with it, is because most scientists can't think of a more plausible scenario. I say "most" because the few who have come up with a more plausible scenario believe in intelligent design.

Its the bible that says god fashioned the earth out of the void/deep/waters. Current big bang theory says that all the energy that makes up the universe always exsisted but just in another form. I think you need to stop reading predated apologetic websites. When you say there are no external forces acting on the universe do you mean forces outside the known universe?

 

[chrisstavrous]

People believe in the big bang theory because it is the most popular alternative to creationism, and if you believe in creationism you have to believe in a God and personal accountability. That scares people. It's easier to believe in the big bang.

Lets reverse this argument.

People believe in creationism from the bible because its the most popular alternative to evolution, and if you believe in evolution you have to believe in Satan and deny the living god. That scares people. Its easier to believe in god than to risk going to hell.

 

[aiki]

You can not deny the effectiveness of the scientific method to make predictive models of real data, data that has created all of the technology we depend on today.

Have I made such a denial? I don't think so.

This should also should prove the varacity of the methodology of science, that it has a high probility of understanding the data and how the data works

Science does not "understand" anything. Understanding is what scientists do.

I have not challenged the idea that the scientific method has value. It does. But the data the method uncovers is interpreted to fit with the philosophy of the scientist analyzing the data. Insofar as this is true, science is not an utterly unbiased realm of human endeavour.

so it can be used in our current world to aid and benefit humankind.

I have not suggested otherwise.

If science was one big presuppositional stab in the dark (Theory) as christian say,

But we don't say. At least, I don't. I have never asserted that science is "one, big presuppositional stab in the dark." The scientists who do science, however, do have certain presuppositions that guide how they interpret scientific data.

then we would not have been able to utilize science to make everything we depend on today.

That scientists have been able to use the data obtained by the scientific method to develop technology does not mean that they don't work under the influence of their philosophical presuppositions. THe two things - development of technology and philosophical bias - are not mutually exclusive.

Selah.

 

[chrisstavrous]

Have I made such a denial? I don't think so.



Science does not "understand" anything. Understanding is what scientists do.

I have not challenged the idea that the scientific method has value. It does. But the data the method uncovers is interpreted to fit with the philosophy of the scientist analyzing the data. Insofar as this is true, science is not an utterly unbiased realm of human endeavour.



I have not suggested otherwise.



But we don't say. At least, I don't. I have never asserted that science is "one, big presuppositional stab in the dark." The scientists who do science, however, do have certain presuppositions that guide how they interpret scientific data.



That scientists have been able to use the data obtained by the scientific method to develop technology does not mean that they don't work under the influence of their philosophical presuppositions. THe two things - development of technology and philosophical bias - are not mutually exclusive.

Selah.

Well untill now you have been more than happy not to paint science in a positive light, for fear (I think) of facing any real data that debunks the claims the bible makes (such as joshua's sun) basically you say science is ok so long as scientists agree with my views on the bible, but its not ok when scientists dont.

Thats just plain double standards.

 

[aiki]

Well untill now you have been more than happy not to paint science in a positive light, for fear (I think) of facing any real data that debunks the claims the bible makes (such as joshua's sun) basically you say science is ok so long as scientists agree with my views on the bible, but its not ok when scientists dont.

Thats just plain double standards.

This is all your interpretation, your spin, of my comments. I am not actually guilty of any of what you charge me with above. I have no problem whatever with the scientific method. I do, though, have sometimes significant issue with how the data of science is made to conform to naturalistic presuppositions. Why am I obliged to agree with the naturalism of secular scientists? THey feel no obligation to agree with my theism. Is there some compelling reason why we can't hold differing philosophical views? Naturalistic scientists do precisely what you accuse me of doing. Where my beliefs diverge from theirs, I am automatically in error. If they can do this without qualm, why can't I?

And what about "Joshua's sun"?

Selah.

 

[LastSeven]

Lets reverse this argument.

People believe in creationism from the bible because its the most popular alternative to evolution, and if you believe in evolution you have to believe in Satan and deny the living god. That scares people. Its easier to believe in god than to risk going to hell.

If you believe in evolution you have to believe in Satan??? Since when do evolutionists believe in anything supernatural?

 

[Snake75]

If you believe in evolution you have to believe in Satan??? Since when do evolutionists believe in anything supernatural?

I was confused on this too. I think what he means is that since Darwin was Atheist. Many religious people believe Atheist are the devils work.


I could have misinterpreted it though.

 

[oi_antz]

Nobody has life without Jesus because Jesus is the life and the light of this world. And if you don't have the light you can not go to heaven where the Father is because there is no darkness in him at all, only light. Nobody can reject Jesus and still have life.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

If you rejected the message from Jesus then you rejected Jesus, because he is the message. "Gospel" means "good news", and the word of God himself came down in the flesh to tell us the good news. If you rejected this word of God, then the word is not in you and if the word is not in you, neither is the life.

The following two short passages of scripture explain perfectly who Jesus is and for me personally these passages have helped me tremendously to understand God and what Jesus means to me. I think they will help answer your question as well.

John 1:1-15 and 1 John 1

Thanks. I also looked up the story of the prodigal son and the father did say in the last verse that the son was dead and is now alive. It is an interesting statement to make when the fact is the son did not die in a literal sense. How would you explain that statement? Another verse that came to mind is Matthew 7:22-23 which describes those who claim to follow Christ yet Jesus does not recognize. Do these people have life, and if not, how can someone identify those who do have life from those who only claim to have life? Thanks for your discussion btw, it has been interesting and useful.

 

[LastSeven]

Thanks. I also looked up the story of the prodigal son and the father did say in the last verse that the son was dead and is now alive. It is an interesting statement to make when the fact is the son did not die in a literal sense. How would you explain that statement? Another verse that came to mind is Matthew 7:22-23 which describes those who claim to follow Christ yet Jesus does not recognize. Do these people have life, and if not, how can someone identify those who do have life from those who only claim to have life? Thanks for your discussion btw, it has been interesting and useful.

The parable of the prodigal son is a perfect example of this spiritual death we experience without God. In this parable you are the son and God is the father. It is of course an analogous story used to explain that even those who walk away from God, can come back and God will welcome them back, to life. While you are away from God however, you are dead.

In Matthew 7 Jesus warns that there will be false believers who could try to fool you and lead you astray. These are people who claim to be believers but are really not. Jesus, knowing our hearts, is not fooled by anyone and will therefore reject those wolves in sheeps clothing.

He also says that we can identify them when he explains that their hearts are revealed through their fruits. "By their fruits you will know them".

Galatians 5:22,23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control

So if a man claims to be a believer and his fruits bear that out, then you know he truly is a believer and the life is in him, but if his fruits tell a different story then you know he's false.

 

[oi_antz]

The parable of the prodigal son is a perfect example of this spiritual death we experience without God. In this parable you are the son and God is the father. It is of course an analogous story used to explain that even those who walk away from God, can come back and God will welcome them back, to life. While you are away from God however, you are dead.

In Matthew 7 Jesus warns that there will be false believers who could try to fool you and lead you astray. These are people who claim to be believers but are really not. Jesus, knowing our hearts, is not fooled by anyone and will therefore reject those wolves in sheeps clothing.

He also says that we can identify them when he explains that their hearts are revealed through their fruits. "By their fruits you will know them".

Galatians 5:22,23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control

So if a man claims to be a believer and his fruits bear that out, then you know he truly is a believer and the life is in him, but if his fruits tell a different story then you know he's false.

Thank you for such a thorough explanation. Your beliefs seem quite consistent with what scripture says, I can not see any fault there. Can you just describe what benefit there is to having spiritual life? Does it directly impact salvation and the resurrection to everlasting life, or is that a separate issue? The reason I ask is because Jesus says in Matthew 25 that He will sort His people from all nations and His criteria for salvation is based on whether we have treated others as we would treat Him. From this statement I infer that there are people in nations who He will not condemn, yet their nationality makes it appear that they don't follow Him (perhaps because of some regional indoctrination, or the failure of the gospel to reach that person). Furthermore the fruits of the spirit can be observed in people who don't identify as Christian, do you think The Holy Spirit may be at work in those people in some way? This is also relevant to the question of salvation before the gospel of Jesus Christ was revealed, which indicates that the faith rather than beliefs is the key to salvation. What are your thoughts about this? In what way is it necessary to accept Jesus in order to be saved, IE is it necessary to do so explicitly or can some implicit acceptance of His principles and spiritual instructions be valuable too?

 

[chrisstavrous]

I was confused on this too. I think what he means is that since Darwin was Atheist. Many religious people believe Atheist are the devils work.


I could have misinterpreted it though.

No, you haven't. Its creationists who say to people who believe in evolution that they follow satan and try to scare them into believing in god.

 

[chrisstavrous]

If you believe in evolution you have to believe in Satan??? Since when do evolutionists believe in anything supernatural?

Read my post above #252

 

[Johnnz]

Thank you for such a thorough explanation. Your beliefs seem quite consistent with what scripture says, I can not see any fault there. Can you just describe what benefit there is to having spiritual life? Does it directly impact salvation and the resurrection to everlasting life, or is that a separate issue?

Spiritual life is the Life of God, given to us by Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Various concepts used to expand that concept are 'salvation' 'life' 'eternal life' 'living water, 'kingdom of God' 'life in the Spiri as examples.

The reason I ask is because Jesus says in Matthew 25 that He will sort His people from all nations and His criteria for salvation is based on whether we have treated others as we would treat Him. From this statement I infer that there are people in nations who He will not condemn, yet their nationality makes it appear that they don't follow Him (perhaps because of some regional indoctrination, or the failure of the gospel to reach that person).

You must look at that statement against its immediate context. The Jewish people believed in their specific favour with God as a nation. Jesus was telling them that God's kingdom that He was proclaiming would contain people from all nations. If The Jews rejected Christ then they would forfeit inclusion in the new nation God was about to inaugurate in and through Jesus.

Furthermore the fruits of the spirit can be observed in people who don't identify as Christian, do you think The Holy Spirit may be at work in those people in some way?

Indeed He is. Paul told ta pagan Greeks .."In Him who we live and move.." quoting a Greek saying. John wrote John 1:9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. NIV
This is also relevant to the question of salvation before the gspel of Jesus Christ was revealed, which indicates that the faith rather than beliefs is the key to salvation. What are your thoughts about this?

People are not without some knowledge of God's moral principles. Paul wrote: Rom 2:14-16 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. NIV

In what way is it necessary to accept Jesus in order to be saved, IE is it necessary to do so explicitly or can some implicit acceptance of His principles and spiritual instructions be valuable too?

the fulness of the new life in Christ can only be experienced by those who know Him. In that sense being saved is quite specific. But whether one is included or excluded at the final judgement may be a different question.

John
NZ

 

[chrisstavrous]

This is all your interpretation, your spin, of my comments. I am not actually guilty of any of what you charge me with above. I have no problem whatever with the scientific method. I do, though, have sometimes significant issue with how the data of science is made to conform to naturalistic presuppositions. Why am I obliged to agree with the naturalism of secular scientists? THey feel no obligation to agree with my theism. Is there some compelling reason why we can't hold differing philosophical views? Naturalistic scientists do precisely what you accuse me of doing. Where my beliefs diverge from theirs, I am automatically in error. If they can do this without qualm, why can't I?

And what about "Joshua's sun"?

Selah.

I think you are right about what you say about me in your post. I think I was too quick to judge your character, I am sorry. Now about joshuas sun. Scientifically this has been proven impossible without causing wide world chaos. No one yet has explained to me how god stopped the earth dead in its tracts without it causing some serious consequences. But I am giving the bible some leeway here since it doesn't say the earth stopped still but the sun.

 

[Johnnz]

I think you are right about what you say about me in your post. I think I was too quick to judge your character, I am sorry. Now about joshuas sun. Scientifically this has been proven impossible without causing wide world chaos. No one yet has explained to me how god stopped the earth dead in its tracts without it causing some serious consequences. But I am giving the bible some leeway here since it doesn't say the earth stopped still but the sun.

What we cannot be sure of is whether the sun actually stopped (probably not if our understanding of the laws of the cosmos is enough to rule that out) or the author wrote what was seen by people at that time, which may have been the case.

John
NZ

 

[aiki]

Now about joshuas sun. Scientifically this has been proven impossible without causing wide world chaos. No one yet has explained to me how god stopped the earth dead in its tracts without it causing some serious consequences. But I am giving the bible some leeway here since it doesn't say the earth stopped still but the sun.

You know, no one has ever been able to tell me how God created the universe. It is very obvious to me that He did, but this doesn't provide me with the "how" of His creative effort. Some things God does I will never have an answer for. I think the sun appearing to stop in its normal course through the sky is another one of those things God did supernaturally - and mysteriously. The Bible offers no explanation as to the mechanics of this event. It seems to me, though, that the Creator of the Universe is not constrained by our limited knowledge, by what we think we know, in doing "impossible" things. If God created the universe, why would stopping the sun in the sky be a big deal?

Selah.

 

[chrisstavrous]

You know, no one has ever been able to tell me how God created the universe. It is very obvious to me that He did, but this doesn't provide me with the "how" of His creative effort. Some things God does I will never have an answer for. I think the sun appearing to stop in its normal course through the sky is another one of those things God did supernaturally - and mysteriously. The Bible offers no explanation as to the mechanics of this event. It seems to me, though, that the Creator of the Universe is not constrained by our limited knowledge, by what we think we know, in doing "impossible" things. If God created the universe, why would stopping the sun in the sky be a big deal?

Selah.

Well firstly if the writer who wrote that wrote what god inspired then god inspired him to write something that was incorrect. Secondly if you want to believe that god stopped the sun you couldn't believe it was the sun since science has proven the sun does not revolve around the earth. So then you can only accept that the earth stopped dead for about a day, if this happened then scientifically this would cause serious problems all over the earth.

Do a google search "what would happen if the earth stopped spinning"

 

[chrisstavrous]

What we cannot be sure of is whether the sun actually stopped (probably not if our understanding of the laws of the cosmos is enough to rule that out) or the author wrote what was seen by people at that time, which may have been the case.

John
NZ

Read my post above #258

 

[Johnnz]

Read my post above #258

I had and agreed wit it. I just added a few comments of my own.

John
NZ