Is the Resurrection "scientific"?

[busterdog]

To me it is basically a way of objecting to the invalid argument along the lines of "We don't know how this happened so that shows God did it."

Of course, from a theist's perspective, God did it no matter how it happened. So "Goddidit" doesn't give us any information on how it happened. Theists don't stop believing God did it when we do understand how it happened, and "Goddidit" does not give us any insight when we don't understand how it happened. It is just the wrong answer to the question. A category error if you will. It does not provide the missing information.

IOW human ignorance is not evidence of God.

And, God moderated the well-documented process of evolution, as the argument goes?

 

[busterdog]

The very idea that if enough people start praying then we can gang-up on God and get him to do what we want is a quite erroneous view of the purpose of prayer. In any case corelation does not mean causality.

Actually, sometimes just throwing a foreskin in the road gets it done!

Exd 4:24 ¶ And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him
Exd 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast [it] at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband [art] thou to me.
Exd 4:26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband [thou art], because of the circumcision.

Happily, our prayer meetings don't go to such extremes.

Or facing the wall and complaining to God.

Isa 38:1 ¶ In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.
Isa 38:2 Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the LORD,
Isa 38:5 Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.

See also, Abraham hondling God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[theFijian]

Actually, sometimes just throwing a foreskin in the road gets it done!

Exd 4:24 ¶ And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him
Exd 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast [it] at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband [art] thou to me.
Exd 4:26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband [thou art], because of the circumcision.

Happily, our prayer meetings go to such extremes.

Or facing the wall and complaining to God.

Isa 38:1 ¶ In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.
Isa 38:2 Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the LORD,
Isa 38:5 Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.

See also, Abraham hondling God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The writer of these pasasges has anthropomorphised God's words and actions, the will of God is not swayed by the whims of man. And here I was thinking that the Creationists were supposed to be the fundamentalists.

 

[keyarch]

Since I am the one quoted in the original post, I thought I would put my two cents in.

I think most of us would agree that the resurrection of people is not scientific. Therefore, if one is to have "faith" that it happened, you need to rely on scripture as a true historical account.

Now if that same document is to be trusted as reliable, then it has to contain truth throughout, or otherwise you cannot know what is true and what isn't.

If you believe that the New Testament is true, and the people involved endorse the Old Testament and it's accounts of creation and the flood etc, how can they be dismissed as allegory without dismissing the entire Bible as unreliable? How can you trust your eternity and your life now to something you only partially believe in?

Is there really any way to prove from an outside source that any resurrection actually took place?

If everything has to have scientific "proof", is that really the "faith" that God wants from us?

Wasn't God a witness to His works and didn't He inspire the accounts of them? If so, how could we doubt it as history without throwing out all of scripture as unreliable?

I would rather build my foundations on the rock of Scripture than the sand of "science".

 

[gluadys]

I think most of us would agree that the resurrection of people is not scientific. Therefore, if one is to have "faith" that it happened, you need to rely on scripture as a true historical account.

As a true historical account, yes. As a literal historical account, not necessarily. Remember that "literal" is not a synonym of "true" and truth does not require a literal account to make or keep it true.

If you believe that the New Testament is true, and the people involved endorse the Old Testament and it's accounts of creation and the flood etc, how can they be dismissed as allegory without dismissing the entire Bible as unreliable? How can you trust your eternity and your life now to something you only partially believe in?

I have bolded the problematic section. You are projecting onto others your own personal prejudice against figurative descriptions of events. To you, naming a narrative as allegory/metaphor/myth, etc. is equivalent to saying it is false, or at least imaginary, and therefore not true. That makes the narrative unreliable and not worthy to be believed and trusted.

I think you will find that those of us who accept that myth and metaphor are the normal language of scripture disagree with this analysis of the relation between the language of scripture and the history and truth of scripture. We have no intention of dismissing scripture at all, but of understanding it better. We are not motivated by a desire to set aside any portion of scripture as unreliable or unbelievable, but rather to discover the power of the story it tells in our own lives. For it is in symbol and image and metaphor that we find not a mere chronology of events, but the meaning of those events for God's people, past, present and future. And we are empowered by them to renewed faithfulness, hope, and, yes, trust, in our God.

Is there really any way to prove from an outside source that any resurrection actually took place?

No, of course not.

If everything has to have scientific "proof", is that really the "faith" that God wants from us?

No, not at all. Faith is too big for science to grasp. Faith reaches beyond the limits of science. That doesn't mean it has to be anti-science.

Wasn't God a witness to His works and didn't He inspire the accounts of them? If so, how could we doubt it as history without throwing out all of scripture as unreliable?

God inspired human beings to write accounts of the events by which God was revealed to them. These were indeed historical events. But that doesn't mean the accounts are literal descriptions of the events. In fact, a purely literal description would probably impoverish the account and denude it of significance. The biblical authors used the literary tools available to them to tell us the whole story in all its meaning and power, not just an impersonal and objective description of historical events.

I would rather build my foundations on the rock of Scripture than the sand of "science".

And I would rather rely on the firm foundations of sound science than fallible and misleading human interpretations of scripture.

The idea that we have a more direct access to God through scripture than creation is simply false. Both scripture and creation come to us from God, and both are equally true. But both are mediated to us through human agency: theology and hermeneutics in the case of scripture and science in the case of creation. Both of these are equally open to error.

We really need to keep in mind that it is not a choice between two realities, one of which is divinely infallible and one of which is human and fallible. Rather there are four realities: two are divinely infallible, but we cannot access either of them with immediacy. Two are human and fallible, and are the agency through which we access the divine revelations.

Obviously in any contrast between the divine and the human, the divine revelation must prevail over human interpretation. But that cuts in both directions. Scripture must prevail over faulty human interpretations of nature. But nature must also prevail over faulty human interpretations of scripture.

 

[keyarch]

As a true historical account, yes. As a literal historical account, not necessarily. Remember that "literal" is not a synonym of "true" and truth does not require a literal account to make or keep it true. ...........

In my opinion, your response is full of psycho-babel. I don't know how you can take portions of the Bible that are written as a literal historical account and reduce them to "fallible and misleading human interpretations".

I think that scripture should stand on it's own as to what kind of messages are intended (literal or metaphorical etc.) and leave it stand as such, rather than using "science" as the guide to make such determinations. Then, if Scripture makes a truth claim that is not found to be true - just deal with that instead of changing the intent or message to suit a human understanding of the time.

 

[gluadys]

In my opinion, your response is full of psycho-babel. I don't know how you can take portions of the Bible that are written as a literal historical account and reduce them to "fallible and misleading human interpretations".

Again, I have bolded the problematic term. What standard characterizes a non-literal or non-historical reading of scripture as a "reduction" other than an a priori assumption that anything literal is in some sense "truer" or "more real" than anything spiritual?

Why characterize only a non-literal interpretation as fallible, misleading and human, when the same applies to literal readings? All interpretations are human and fallible and potentially misleading.

I think that scripture should stand on it's own as to what kind of messages are intended (literal or metaphorical etc.) and leave it stand as such, rather than using "science" as the guide to make such determinations.

So, how do you deal with scriptural language such as "firmament", "pillars/foundations/corners of the earth" "windows of heaven" and various other geo-centric, flat-earth allusions?

In my experience, one either treats them as non-literal or contorts the meaning of "literal" into unrecognizability. But why do either if one is not using science as a guide? What factor other than science provides justification for not interpreting these terms in a strictly literal sense?

Why should our knowledge of God's creation not inform our interpretation of the scriptures?

Then, if Scripture makes a truth claim that is not found to be true - just deal with that ...

Deal with it how? By rejecting the inerrancy of scripture? By rejecting infallibility or even inspiration? If not, just how do you "deal with that" as a believer?

... instead of changing the intent or message to suit a human understanding of the time.

Essentially you are still trying to reduce four terms to two--to posit one source of knowledge as divine and infallible and a second as hopelessly mired in human fallibility.

All human understandings are human and time-bound. This is true of human understanding of a divinely-wrought creation, but also true of human understanding of divinely-inspired scripture. Our understanding of creation changes. So does our understanding of the intent or message of scripture. But perhaps the change is a change for the better in both cases.

 

[hithesh]

Sorry, but no. The information can't be "removed" unless you show it to be false. That you can't test it doesn't mean it can be removed.

Something is quite a miss here.

To add scientific or historical to an event, then that event has to be the most probable scenario compared to any alternative scenario.

For example: if i were to say I saw a talking snake, which is "data", what would you infer? Would you deem that the snake talked, as probable, or that I was delusional, etc.. as the most probable explanation?

I think the problem with us, is that we do not realize that we do believe in improbable events, i for one do, such as the resurrection, etc. Just because something is improbable doesn't mean it didn't happen. And just because something is not "deemed" as historical or scientific, does not mean the event did not occur.

I'll show you the problem with referring to Jesus resurrecting as historical: What makes Jesus' resurrection anymore historical than the numerous other resurrections mentioned through out history--some predating Christ. What makes Jesus' walk on water "historical", but not the Buddha's walk on water which also predated Christ?

We have to be-careful in using terms such as "historical" and "scientific", because they are not weightless terms. I've engaged in this exercise before, but you could make numerous alternative scenario that are much more probable than the miraculous events mentioned in the Gospel.

Once again, just because an event, is improbable, or not historical, or scientific, this doesn't mean that the event did not occur.

(Belief in improbable events does not mean we are irrational, life coming to existence is an improbable event, but none of us question that we do)

 

[lucaspa]

When scientists realize that Goddidit could potentially be responsible for everything, they will realize that it no longer is useful as a tool to study the world around us. Science, for this very reason, cannot ever dip into the supernatural.

I hate to tell you, but science has already realized that the theological idea that God sustains the universe could potentially be responsible for everything. And that hasn't stopped science or even slowed it down.

What you are doing, Dannager, is something different than what I'm saying. You are saying "Goddidit" can't be used as an ad hoc hypothesis to save a theory from falsification. And you are right.

For instance, Flood Geology states that all animals migrated from the Ark after the Flood. When we look at the distribution of animals around the world, we find several falsifications of this. For instance, that there are only marsupials native to Australia, when there are placentals that are a lot faster than some marsupials (such as the koala) and these placentals would have beaten the koala to Australia. That's a falsification of Flood Geology. In order to try to save Flood Geology, creationists will say "God directly intervened and miraculously arranged it for only marsupials to be in Australia." That's not valid.

But I'm not trying to save a theory from falsification. Instead, I'm letting a theory be falsified by data and then modifying the theory to account for the new data.

God's divine intervention is shortened here to "Goddidit". It's the same thing. What you're saying is: "either x happens or a miracle happens."

No, I'm not. I'm saying that, in the face of DATA, the theory gets modified, not saved by ad hoc hypotheses.

What you are saying is that we can't ever allow a hypothesis of God in science. That's wrong. It's an arbitrary restriction that inhibits science from looking for the entire truth about the universe.

Let's look at the theory about what constitutes being "dead". For centuries, the theory was "people who stop breathing are dead." Then CPR was discovered. The theory is now modified "people who stop breathing are dead unless CPR is adminstered shortly after they stop breathing." That is not "either x happens or a miracle", is it?

Exactly, but now we have a new phenomenon you've suddenly introduced into the equation! God's divine intervention!

So? Above we introduced a new phenomenon -- CPR. In the case of gravity in the OP we also introduced a new phenomenon -- displacement.

As a new phenomenon this must be studied by science. What will they uncover? That, according to scripture, God was responsible for hundreds of miracles and instances of divine intervention.

You obviously didn't bother to read why we don't modify the theory "people dead for 3 days do not come come back to life". Please go back and read that part of the OP. "according to scripture" is not sufficient, by itself, to modify scientific theories.

When it is discovered by scientists exploring the phenomenon of divine intervention that God has done just about anything conceivable with it (including creating a universe!), the only theory one can come up with for the phenomenon of "God's Divine Intervention" is that "God's Divine Intervention" is capable of doing anything, at any time!

Yes, it can. And that is why it is DATA! And data modifies theories.

And yes, the universe may be due to direct intervention of God. It is one of three areas in science where, currently, direct intervention by God is a possible hypothesis.

Suddenly, you've given every theory the same clause: X happens or else Goddidit. Are you starting to see now why this does not hold as science?

Remember, you must have data before you can add the clause. If you have the data, why would you not add the clause? Would you fail to add the clauses about CPR?

But when it's discovered that the data shows God being capable of just about anything imaginable, the data will compel us to alter every theory in existence.

And your problem with this is? That's what you do in science: alter theories in the face of data. You have a qualifier there "when it's discovered". Has it been discovered that God has altered "anything imaginable"? Not that I am aware of. If that is documented -- by evidence that we can test today -- then it will be time to modify the theories.

What you seem to be arguing, Dannager, is that we can't alter theories THIS way. Why not? Why an exception for direct divine action? If you can except any cause if the data justifies it, then you destroy science. You are preventing science from finding truth.

I'm removing it because of the law of definitions.

What "law of definitions"?

If you come up with a term so broad ("God's Divine Intervention") in scope that it describes everything,

But it doesn't describe "everything", not as I was using it. Remember, I said "direct intervention of God". Obviously we are NOT using "direct intervention of God" to describe all the people dead 3 days that stayed dead. So there goes your "everything".

 

[lucaspa]

To add scientific or historical to an event, then that event has to be the most probable scenario compared to any alternative scenario.

Sorry, wrong criteria. In order to be scientific, an event must leave evidence we can test today. Probability has nothing to do with it. For instance, it is not "probable" that a huge asteroid hit the earth 65 million years ago. But the evidence says it did. Evidence we can study today.

For example: if i were to say I saw a talking snake, which is "data", what would you infer? Would you deem that the snake talked, as probable, or that I was delusional, etc.. as the most probable explanation?

You are trying to invoke Hume's criteria for evaluating theories. It doesn't work, for several reasons. I'll just mention one:

The Duhem-Quine thesis correctly notes that, for small sets of data, there are an infinite number of theories that can explain it. Therefore the probability that any particular theory is correct is infinitely small. Yet one of the theories IS correct, isn't it? Therefore you can't use probability to tell you which theory is correct.

I'll show you the problem with referring to Jesus resurrecting as historical: What makes Jesus' resurrection anymore historical than the numerous other resurrections mentioned through out history--some predating Christ. What makes Jesus' walk on water "historical", but not the Buddha's walk on water which also predated Christ?

I specifically stated in the OP that we do not view Jesus' Resurrection as scientific and gave the reasons why. I suggest you go back and read that part.

What you have done is give a reason you doubt the particular account. It is not a falsification. After all, maybe both Buddha and Jesus walked on water!

Once again, just because an event, is improbable, or not historical, or scientific, this doesn't mean that the event did not occur.

(Belief in improbable events does not mean we are irrational,

So far, so good. Looked at one way, each particular poker hand is very improbable, yet they do happen.

life coming to existence is an improbable event, but none of us question that we do)

If you mean that life coming from non-life is improbable, then no, that is not correct. It is very probable by chemistry.

Actually, no.

 

[lucaspa]

It is a question for history, not science. History is not science. Theology is not science.

The reason the Resurrection is not part of science is that it left no evidence we can study today. Therefore the Resurrection is not "intersubjective" in the epistemological sense.

"Intersubjective" is evidence that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. For instance, altho the meteor impact at the KT boundary was a one time event, the evidence of high iridium levels in strata at the KT boundary is the same for everyone doing approximately the same analysis.

From the get go religion has been about getting stuff from God. Until the last 100 or so years there has been no "scientific" means to test if stuff comes from God or from other sources. Now we have statistical analysis.

Can you be more specific, please? I am not sure exactly what you mean or what you are referring to.

 

[lucaspa]

Not people but a person was raised from the dead, something impossible apart from God's eternal power.

Sorry, but you are forgetting Lazarus.

That will be quite enough of that, let me ask you something was Jesus raised from the dead through the glory of God?

I'm not sure why you are so agressive in your comments. I am stating clearly that science cannot deny the Resurrection. You have a problem with that?

You have two choices ambiguity and clarity.

I thought I was being very clear about what science can and cannot say.

Ambiguity is the mark of secular humanism since the words used in Christian theology mean something very different to them then it does to a literalist like myself or the Apostle Paul or Jesus particularly with regards to our lineage and the Flood as an event in redemptive history.

I'm sorry, but neither Paul nor Jesus were literalists.

Tell me something clearly, is Jesus the Son of the Living God, Creator of the heavens and the earth and judge of the living and the dead?

Then you tell me if that is a theory or data.

1. If you look at my symbols, you should notice that I'm Methodist. Therefore, yes, I believe the Nicene and Apostles Creeds.

2. Your sentence is neither data nor theory; it is a belief.

 

[lucaspa]

No, you're just misreading the "data", they aren't observations, they are "parables" or "allegories", or they are simply mistaken. They must be, since it's well-established science that people do not "resurrect" after being dead for several days.

Sorry, but you are doing what science forbids you to do" use theory to deny data. It's a well supported theory that people do not resurrect. However, if a person does, what do you do? Deny that the person resurrected? Or modify the theory? In science you must modify the theory.

To just say "it was by God's power" is the same old "God of the gaps" argument poorly used by those creationist types.

No, it's not. It's modifying the theory in the face of falsifying evidence. Would it make you happier if I had said "people dead 3 days stay dead unless acted upon by some outside force"?

Just as science has proven the creation account can only be allegorical, so too must be the resurrection.

Sorry, but you are ignoring the whole OP. You are misusing science to say that the resurrection must be allegorical. Read the OP again.

I'm not saying the resurrection isn't "true", just that it has a different kind of truth than you pesky literalists think.

BTW, if you had read any of my posts, you would know that I am not a "pesky literalist". You should test your theories better before you make them public.

 

[lucaspa]

>How is statistical analysis supposed to show God at work?

30,000 people have a heart transplant. 10,000 are prayed over by Christian friends. 10,000 are prayed over by Buddhist monks. 10,000 are not prayed for. Does any group heal faster than the rest? Have a lower mortality rate?

That particular study hasn't been done. However, several studies on intercessory prayer have shown a statistically significant effect. But keep reading the post before you reply!

14. Byrd, RC, Positive theraputic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care population. Southern Med Jour 1988 81(7):826-29. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj1.html http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.doc
15. WS Harris, M Gowda, JW Kolb, CP Strychacz, JL Vacek, PG Jones, A Forker, JH O'Keefe, BD McCallister, A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:2273-2278 http://archinte.ama-assn.org/issues/v159n19/rfull/ioi90043.html
15. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1627000/1627662.stm A study at North Carolina
17. http://health.medscape.com/viewarticle/405270 IP for infertile women
18: Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, Friedman R, Myers P, Bethea CF, Levitsky S, Hill PC,Jain MK, Kopecky SL, Mueller PS, Lam P, Benson H, Hibberd PL. Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP): study designand research methods.Am Heart J. 2002 Apr;143(4):577-84.
19: Leibovici L. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients withbloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial.BMJ. 2001 Dec 22-29;323(7327):1450-1.
20. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7344/1037

However, this brings us to another aspect of science. What was tested here? The existence of God? NO! What was tested was the phenomenon of intercessory prayer. After the phenomenon is established, then you have the hypothesis as to the cause of the phenomenon.

Obviously, one hypothesis (out of several possible) is God answering prayers. To my knowledge, that hypothesis has not been tested.

but "Christian" prayer does not seem to have an advantage over other sorts of prayer and medication.

To the best of my knowledge, all studies on intercessory prayer have used Christian prayer. Do you have a citation?

Because what is being looked at is an extra small added amount of IP, negative results don't mean anything. And, even in the latest Benson et al. study looking at CABG, there was an effect of IP on major complications. However, the paper admits that the study lacked the statistical power to eliminate all possibility of an effect by IP.

 

[lucaspa]

Since I am the one quoted in the original post, I thought I would put my two cents in.

I think most of us would agree that the resurrection of people is not scientific.

Keyarch, your original question was how TE's avoid having science say the Resurrection is false. I hope I've shown you that science can't do that.

Therefore, if one is to have "faith" that it happened, you need to rely on scripture as a true historical account.

Exactly. You and I (and all Christians) trust that the scriptural accounts are essentially true. My point is that science will not tell us that trust is misplaced.

Now if that same document is to be trusted as reliable, then it has to contain truth throughout, or otherwise you cannot know what is true and what isn't.

Now you've gone too far. That is not true. No one insists that any document must be all true or it is all false.

Let's take Origin of Species. There are specific areas in Origin that are not true. For instance, Darwin attributes the loss of wings on some beetle species to Lamarckism and "disuse". Darwin was wrong. Does that make the rest of Origin of Species wrong? Of course not.

You take claims one at a time and evaluate them one at a time.

If you believe that the New Testament is true, and the people involved endorse the Old Testament and it's accounts of creation and the flood etc, how can they be dismissed as allegory without dismissing the entire Bible as unreliable?

Because Jesus and Paul do NOT endorse the accounts of creation and the flood as historical! They endorse them as theology.

Keyarch, there are different types of truth. Genesis 1-8 can be true theologically without being historical truth.

Yes, Christianity does depend on the Resurrection being historically true. IF it could be shown that the Resurrection did not happen, then Christianity would be toast. Theism wouldn't be gone, but Christianity would be. However, as I showed in the OP, science can't tell you the Resurrection is false. Science won't tell you the Resurrection happened, either. Science is neutral on the subject.

How can you trust your eternity and your life now to something you only partially believe in?

I don't trust my eternity and life to scripture. I trust God.

Is there really any way to prove from an outside source that any resurrection actually took place?

As I stated in the OP, no.

Wasn't God a witness to His works and didn't He inspire the accounts of them? If so, how could we doubt it as history without throwing out all of scripture as unreliable?

We doubt some of the accounts as historical because God tells us they aren't. God is not restricted to the books in the Bible. Remember, God created. Therefore, God's Creation is just as much from God, even more so, than scripture. When God's Creation tells us that a literal reading of scripture is wrong, then it's time to change our interpretation.

Again, claims are separate. That there was no world-wide flood as in Genesis 6-8 has no bearing on the Exodus or the Resurrection.

I would rather build my foundations on the rock of Scripture than the sand of "science".

Really? Why are you denying God? And, why are you capitalizing "Scripture" as you would capitalize "God"? Are you making "Scripture" your god?

 

[lucaspa]

I don't know how you can take portions of the Bible that are written as a literal historical account and reduce them to "fallible and misleading human interpretations".

1. Because Genesis 1-8 was never written as literal history. There are 3 creation accounts within Genesis 1-8 and, when read literally, they contradict. That tells you right there that reading them literally is wrong.

2. Because God in His Creation also tells us that a literal reading of Genesis 1-8 is wrong.

3. Genesis 1-8 were meant to tell very important theological truths. Genesis 1 is set in the best "science" if its day -- Babylonian. The Babylonian science is wrong, but the theological truths work just as well in modern science as they did in Babylonian science.

I think that scripture should stand on it's own as to what kind of messages are intended (literal or metaphorical etc.) and leave it stand as such, rather than using "science" as the guide to make such determinations.

That violates both theology and the Rules of Interpretation: http://www.digistat.com/gcf/8rules.htm
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b02.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b11.html

"Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts."

And, you forget that Christianity has historically allowed extrabiblical evidence determine interpretation. For instance, Christians took particular verses literally and thought the earth was flat. Now all "literalists" let extrabiblical evidence to tell them not to interpret them that way. In several verses, scripture says, in plain Hebrew, that the earth does not move: Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5. But, we've known since Kepler that the earth does move. You reinterpret those verses rather than deny what science has found, don't you?

Finally, Luke 2:1 says, in plain Greek, that the "whole world" was enrolled in Caesar's census. But you let extrabiblical evidence tell you that the "whole" world was not enrolled. That evidence tells you it was only the Roman world that was enrolled. This bowing to "science" or extrabiblical evidence is so strong that you can find some concordances who try to say that the Greek Luke uses really means "Roman world"

 

[lucaspa]

Our understanding of creation changes. So does our understanding of the intent or message of scripture. But perhaps the change is a change for the better in both cases.

Gluadys, I would add that our understanding of how God created changes.

I would remind Keyarch that Jesus tells us in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 that our understanding of the intent and message of Deut 24:1 changes. Paul tells us in several places that our understanding of the Laws and whether they should be obeyed changes.

 

[HypnoToad]

Sorry, but you are doing what science forbids you to do" use theory to deny data. It's a well supported theory that people do not resurrect. However, if a person does, what do you do? Deny that the person resurrected? Or modify the theory? In science you must modify the theory.

Don't you have to be able to perform relevant experiments before modifying our theory? We can't test Lazarus or Jesus as they aren't around anywhere to be experimented on. Given that we can't experiment, we have no justification for changing our theory.

No, it's not. It's modifying the theory in the face of falsifying evidence. Would it make you happier if I had said "people dead 3 days stay dead unless acted upon by some outside force"?

What outside force has science observed bringing people back from the dead after such a length of time?

BTW, if you had read any of my posts, you would know that I am not a "pesky literalist". You should test your theories better before you make them public.

Strawman.

I never made any such claim about you.

You also may wish to note that post 18 is satire.

 

[keyarch]

Now you've gone too far. That is not true. No one insists that any document must be all true or it is all false.

You really know how to twist one's words around. I said "otherwise you cannot know what is true and what isn't." I never said if it's not all true it's all false.

The more I try to explain in this sub-forum the more deluded it gets, and I don't have the energy to argue it with everyone, so I'm outta here. Have fun going in circles.

 

[hithesh]

Sorry, wrong criteria. In order to be scientific, an event must leave evidence we can test today. Probability has nothing to do with it. For instance, it is not "probable" that a huge asteroid hit the earth 65 million years ago. But the evidence says it did. Evidence we can study today.

I don't think you understand what probability means. Probability is a measurement of uncertainty. Case in point, if no evidence existed for an asteroid hitting the earth, then it would be an "improbable" past event, but since the evidence is present, the probability of an "asteroid that hit the earth", is the most probable explanation of the evidence at hand.


In you reference to the "huge asteroid" your comparing a future state which is improbable, to a past state that is the most probable..

You are trying to invoke Hume's criteria for evaluating theories. It doesn't work, for several reasons. I'll just mention one:

The Duhem-Quine thesis correctly notes that, for small sets of data, there are an infinite number of theories that can explain it. Therefore the probability that any particular theory is correct is infinitely small. Yet one of the theories IS correct, isn't it? Therefore you can't use probability to tell you which theory is correct.

Of course you can, if you don't want to think of probability as numbers, think of it as degrees of certainty, such as less certain, lesser certain, more certain, very certain, etc.... In examining the evidence for the various theories, you could categorize each into these various "degrees of certainty" categories, the theory that posses the highest degree of certainty, compared to the alternative theories, is the one that we agree is "correct".

It seem that you are assuming that the correct theory, has to be certain to much higher degree that all of the other various theories combined, when in all actuality a theory can be just a slight bit more certain than alt. theories, to be the perceived "correct" one.

What you have done is give a reason you doubt the particular account. It is not a falsification. After all, maybe both Buddha and Jesus walked on water!

Of course it's not a falsification. I was just pointing out that it's quite difficult to say one event occurred but not the other, you don't have this problem if you say both occurred.

So far, so good. Looked at one way, each particular poker hand is very improbable, yet they do happen.

If you mean that life coming from non-life is improbable, then no, that is not correct. It is very probable by chemistry.

No, I was not implying that, but your poker hand scenario illustrates my point much better.