Science VS the Bible

[BobRyan]

Because the Bible's main subject isn't about the natural reality .

1. The Bible says Jesus existed -- did HE - or was he invisible in nature?
2. The Bible says Lazarus was bodily resurrected - did that not happen in real life or was he invisible?
3. The Bible says Jesus was bodily resurrected - did that happen or was it merely "spiritual"?
4. The Bible says "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" all life on planet earth (ie. nature) -- did that happen or is nature also invisible?

Some reports that a car drove off a cliff - can they report that "fact in real life" without going through all the science for gravity, rate of acceleration due to the force of gravity, the mechanics and engineering to build the car?

All these you listed are not about the natural reality.

They happened in real life - in real nature - even though a supernatural even takes place -- for example the virgin birth and incarnation of God the Son as a human being - it does not mean that the human being "did not exist" or had no place in nature..or could not be "observed" to be a real human in every day life with all the physical properties science would have expected.

If you had gone to any of Jesus' family or friends and said that in reality they did not meet Jesus - they would reject the suggestion. They would argue that he is a real historic person and was involved in real historic events - real history being reported in the Gospels.

 

[BobRyan]

I will repeat my question again, and hopefully your response is in the actual context of my point. Is the moon an object that reflects light or is itself an actual body of light?

When you stare at the headlights of a car traveling toward you -- are you looking right at the halogen light source or are you looking at the reflection of the bulb off the reflector assembly that houses the bulb? So then what did you mean when you say you saw "two lights" on the car coming toward you??

Or is it your argument that you were speaking "spiritually" when you said you saw two very bright lights on the car as it came towards you?

 

[Olmhinlu]

Here's my 2c opinion:

Sometimes I attempt to understand a so-called "challenging" scientific theory, and it seems to make sense. After that, I will go and read a counter-argument, and it seems to make sense. If I read a counter-counterargument, it may also seem to make sense. If I am honest with myself I don't really understand any of it. To understand if elaborate scientific models or theories are sound or flawed, I would have to actually learn them from the ground up (i.e. through school, university etc.).

I believe they would take years, if not a lifetime to truly grasp, and given that there are readings of Genesis that could accommodate these theories anyway, it just isn't high on my priority list.

I think most people are in the same boat as me - they really don't have any basis to pretend to understand the scientific theories and models put forward. They just read science books and articles and make a choice to put their faith in them (or not).

At some point we all CHOOSE what to believe. IMO conceited people say things like "I don't have an opinion; I'm neutral and I just look at the evidence and if you show me the evidence for something I'll believe it". You're lying to yourself. You have axiomatic faith in something - whether it's the integrity of the scientific community, the accuracy of books and records, the accuracy of your senses, the constancy of natural laws... You CHOOSE to believe what you want to believe, just like everybody else.

Moreover, the approach is backward. To say "science is true, does the Bible accord with it" affords science a status it doesn't deserve, and demotes the Bible. The real question is: Did Jesus rise from the dead? If so, then let's see how science fits the Bible. If not - then who cares?

 

[Hmm]

believe it". You're lying to yourself. You have axiomatic faith in something - whether it's the integrity of the scientific community, the accuracy of books and records, the accuracy of your senses, the constancy of natural laws... You CHOOSE to believe what you want to believe, just like everybody else

That's true. The constancy of natural laws is assumed in science which makes it an article of faith.

Newton's inverse square law of gravity is scientifically proven but it's just an assumption that it will apply everywhere in the universe and that it applied in the past and will apply in the future.

Science describes things that are in the public space and repeatable and the description is often mathematical and not something that we can visualise. I don't claim to understand it but string theory sees spacetime as ten dimensional and M-Theory as 11 dimensional but we can't visualise even a 4-D object. This is outside our experience and the nearest we can get to it is to think what shadow would it cast in our 3-D world. La Grande Arche in Paris is exactly this. It's the projection of a 4-D cube onto a 3-D space and it looks a bit like the Arc de Triomphe.

So science can't address and doesn't even claim to address things that are not public and repeatable such as morality, beauty, the nature of truth and personal, private experiences. Some of our personal experiences are not even repeatable to ourselves like dreams for example. If you wake up believing you dreamt that you were having a holiday in New York you can't be sure you weren't actually dreaming about being in Paris. You can't go back and check. Science of course is wonderful and can be very beautiful and has given us great things but it can't and doesn't but even claim to explain everything. The idea that it can and that if something can't be explained scientifically it doesn't really exist is scientism not science and is a product of the Enlightenment.

 

[Cis.jd]

When you stare at the headlights of a car traveling toward you -- are you looking right at the halogen light source or are you looking at the reflection of the bulb off the reflector assembly that houses the bulb? So then what did you mean when you say you saw "two lights" on the car coming toward you??

Why does it matter what I am looking at? Your question is just giving me an analogy between the relationship of the sun and moon which is highly missing the point of my question. When I look at the reflector, the light coming from it is the light from another light source. In short, it is only 1 light. Same thing with the moon, so is the moon a source of light or is it's light coming from another source?[/QUOTE]

 

[Cis.jd]

1. The Bible says Jesus existed -- did HE - or was he invisible in nature?
2. The Bible says Lazarus was bodily resurrected - did that not happen in real life or was he invisible?
3. The Bible says Jesus was bodily resurrected - did that happen or was it merely "spiritual"?
4. The Bible says "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" all life on planet earth (ie. nature) -- did that happen or is nature also invisible?

Some reports that a car drove off a cliff - can they report that "fact in real life" without going through all the science for gravity, rate of acceleration due to the force of gravity, the mechanics and engineering to build the car?


They happened in real life - in real nature - even though a supernatural even takes place -- for example the virgin birth and incarnation of God the Son as a human being - it does not mean that the human being "did not exist" or had no place in nature..or could not be "observed" to be a real human in every day life with all the physical properties science would have expected.

If you had gone to any of Jesus' family or friends and said that in reality they did not meet Jesus - they would reject the suggestion. They would argue that he is a real historic person and was involved in real historic events - real history being reported in the Gospels.

I've already answered this. To simplify why this reasoning of yours is a fallacy: You are arguing about the nature of Christ from the Bible while I'm talking to you about is exclusively on the cosmos.

When it comes to the nature and the entire story of Christ we can reasonably believe it because he had to have done some thing that the apostles would consider as hard evidence of his claims. But this is Jesus, not the Solar System thus when it comes to anything related exclusively to the natural world the Bible should not be viewed/treated as an academic for this.

 

[BobRyan]

I've already answered this. To simplify why this reasoning of yours is a fallacy: You are arguing about the nature of Christ from the Bible while I'm talking to you about is exclusively on the cosmos.

I am talking about real facts -- real events in real history with real people. The fact that God does something does not delete that something from real history or real nature. Nature itself is something 'God did'.

How is this not incredibly obvious? Where is the difficulty here?

When it comes to the nature and the entire story of Christ we can reasonably believe it because he had to have done some thing that the apostles would consider as hard evidence of his claims.

For example - existing as the incarnate Son of God.

But this is Jesus, not the Solar System

Jesus the miracle of incarnation
Is the one who made the Solar System.

Both of them have been observed by humans.

Again - where is the difficulty in this illustration?

The Bible records outright fact.

 

[BobRyan]

Why does it matter what I am looking at? Your question is just giving me an analogy between the relationship of the sun and moon which is highly missing the point of my question. When I look at the reflector, the light coming from it is the light from another light source. In short, it is only 1 light. Same thing with the moon, so is the moon a source of light or is it's light coming from another source?

Why does it matter what I am looking at?

It illustrates the point that it does not matter that what you are actually seeing is light from the reflective surface of the headlight and not the actual halogen bulb ... and it is still admitted to be light.

Your question is just giving me an analogy between the relationship of the sun and moon

True - it illustrates the point that it is light.

When I look at the reflector, the light coming from it is the light from another light source

True but in the case of sun and moon the moon moves independently of the Sun and so appears as two lights -- unlike the car headlight which appears as one. Frame of reference is valid context.

Two objects in the sky both provide light - both had to be "made" to have that result.

The point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

Here's my 2c opinion:

Sometimes I attempt to understand a so-called "challenging" scientific theory, and it seems to make sense. After that, I will go and read a counter-argument, and it seems to make sense. If I read a counter-counterargument, it may also seem to make sense. If I am honest with myself I don't really understand any of it. To understand if elaborate scientific models or theories are sound or flawed, I would have to actually learn them from the ground up (i.e. through school, university etc.).

I believe they would take years, if not a lifetime to truly grasp, and given that there are readings of Genesis that could accommodate these theories anyway, it just isn't high on my priority list.

I think most people are in the same boat as me - they really don't have any basis to pretend to understand the scientific theories and models put forward. They just read science books and articles and make a choice to put their faith in them (or not).

At some point we all CHOOSE what to believe. IMO conceited people say things like "I don't have an opinion; I'm neutral and I just look at the evidence and if you show me the evidence for something I'll believe it". You're lying to yourself. You have axiomatic faith in something - whether it's the integrity of the scientific community, the accuracy of books and records, the accuracy of your senses, the constancy of natural laws... You CHOOSE to believe what you want to believe, just like everybody else.

Moreover, the approach is backward. To say "science is true, does the Bible accord with it" affords science a status it doesn't deserve, and demotes the Bible. The real question is: Did Jesus rise from the dead? If so, then let's see how science fits the Bible. If not - then who cares?

True - we can believe what God says even if we cannot reproduce the incarnation of the Son of God into human form - in the "lab".

 

[BobRyan]

That's true. The constancy of natural laws is assumed in science which makes it an article of faith.

Newton's inverse square law of gravity is scientifically proven but it's just an assumption that it will apply everywhere in the universe and that it applied in the past and will apply in the future.

Science describes things that are in the public space and repeatable and the description is often mathematical and not something that we can visualise. I don't claim to understand it but string theory sees spacetime as ten dimensional and M-Theory as 11 dimensional but we can't visualise even a 4-D object. This is outside our experience and the nearest we can get to it is to think what shadow would it cast in our 3-D world. La Grande Arche in Paris is exactly this. It's the projection of a 4-D cube onto a 3-D space and it looks a bit like the Arc de Triomphe.

So science can't address and doesn't even claim to address things that are not public and repeatable such as morality, beauty, the nature of truth and personal, private experiences. Some of our personal experiences are not even repeatable to ourselves like dreams for example. If you wake up believing you dreamt that you were having a holiday in New York you can't be sure you weren't actually dreaming about being in Paris. You can't go back and check. Science of course is wonderful and can be very beautiful and has given us great things but it can't and doesn't but even claim to explain everything. The idea that it can and that if something can't be explained scientifically it doesn't really exist is scientism not science and is a product of the Enlightenment.

True and science that cannot be studied and repeated in the lab - is just guessing. Where those guesses sometimes improve over time.

 

[Cis.jd]

It illustrates the point that it does not matter that what you are actually seeing is light from the reflective surface of the headlight and not the actual halogen bulb ... and it is still admitted to be light.

But the question I have been asking is: is it an actual independent light? Why are you are you talking about what I am seeing from a reflector when that isn't the question? .

 

[Cis.jd]

I am talking about real facts -- real events in real history with real people. The fact that God does something does not delete that something from real history or real nature. Nature itself is something 'God did'.

How is this not incredibly obvious? Where is the difficulty here?

But, why are you talking about real history with real people when I am talking about the natural cosmos and the descriptions exclusive to it. You just admitted you are talking out of context here so the difficulty is coming from you not being able to understand the argument.

Jesus the miracle of incarnation
Is the one who made the Solar System.

Both of them have been observed by humans.

Again - where is the difficulty in this illustration?

The Bible records outright fact.

Both? The solar system at that time was not observable by humans. You don't see planets, black holes, comets, photosynthesis, the way our cells function, etc mentioned in the Bible. I don't see how you can't understand the contextual difference between describing things about a person, to scientific related descriptions involving the Earth.

The Bible is a compilation books written by many authors dating in various different times, each having their own cultural views and knowledge. The NT is written from the Apostles experiences with Jesus and portrayed his life in a way suited for their current demographic. How can you just "illustrate" that as Moses or whoever in the old testament describing the way the planet is? Even if God managed to show Moses how he made the universe, how is Moses alone going to comprehend such brilliance. Physics alone shows how complex the engineer/design behind the universes laws are, you'd think Moses would just be able to comprehend everything he saw to write an accurate narration that people from BC, 19 ad, 800ad, 1000ad, etc would understand?

If you respond one more time about Jesus' miracles or anything related to that again, I will not respond to it because it is showing me that I am wasting my time because either you cant' understand or refuse the actual context

 

[BobRyan]

But the question I have been asking is: is it an actual independent light? Why are you are you talking about what I am seeing from a reflector when that isn't the question? .

is the reflector a real "independent light" when it is not capable of independent motion from that of the light bulb. It is part of the light assembly but it does not emit light .. it reflects it.

 

[Cis.jd]

is the reflector a real "independent light" when it is not capable of independent motion from that of the light bulb. It is part of the light assembly but it does not emit light .. it reflects it.

Exactly, just by your last sentence: It does not emit light... it reflects the light. However in the Bible there are countless verses that describe the moon to omit light. Gen 1:15 says "let them be for lights" to give light on earth.

But we know that light is coming from the sun, so the reality is earth does not have 2 light sources it only has and because of this we can't look to the Bible as an academic source for scientific related subjects, much more when there is evidence for it.

 

[BobRyan]

I've already answered this. To simplify why this reasoning of yours is a fallacy: You are arguing about the nature of Christ from the Bible while I'm talking to you about is exclusively on the cosmos.

I am talking about real facts -- real events in real history with real people. The fact that God does something does not delete that something from real history or real nature. Nature itself is something 'God did'.
..

the Bible describes real history, real events, in real life.

I am talking about the natural cosmos

How do you define it? "a godless cosmos"?? Was Christ not a real person in the real cosmos? how about a real person in the natural cosmos (I am thinking a real person on planet Earth which is in the natural cosmos).

Does the Word of God lose its credibility when God says He made the Sun vs God saying He made Adam???

The solar system at that time was not observable by humans.

Scientists will tell you that the universe outside of what we can directly observe "still exists" even though a human is not "observing it at the time".

I think we all agree on that basic detail.

I don't see how you can't understand the contextual difference between describing things about a person, to scientific related descriptions involving the Earth.

This is a good point - we don't seem to be communicating the point as we post to each other. I am happy first satisfy "definitions" and go on from there.

#1. The author of the Bible is God 2 Peter 1:20-21 and as we see in 2 Tim 3:16. The only reason it has value is that God authored it.

The Bible is a compilation books written by many authors dating in various different times, each having their own cultural views and knowledge

True of both OT and NT - but God is one and the same author of all of it. hence "ALL scripture" statement found in 2 Tim 3:16.

. The NT is written from the Apostles experiences with Jesus and portrayed his life in a way suited for their current demographic. How can you just "illustrate" that as Moses or whoever in the old testament describing the way the planet is? Even if God managed to show Moses how he made the universe, how is Moses alone going to comprehend such brilliance.

Is your idea that God can't author a text all that well if that text includes him saying He made the sun in a single 24 hour period?

seriously?? that's a point?

isn't your whole point to challenge the Bible claim to God's miracle in making the Sun?

If you respond one more time about Jesus' miracles or anything related to that again, I will not respond

You seem to be losing focus

 

[BobRyan]

But we know that light is coming from the sun, so the reality is earth does not have 2 light sources it only has ???.

Is that because you can see the Sun any time you see the moon?

seriously?

Or did you think that at night the moon provides no light -- since you can't also see the sun at the same time?

Please be serious.

The Bible says God made the Sun and moon on day 4- it does NOT say that "this is how you go downstairs to your private little lab and make the Sun -- step by step instructions". I keep saying the Bible is not a science text book and does not NEED to be one to accurately report that God did something in a single day.

Just as a person who reports that a car drove off a cliff DOES NOT need to describe acceleration due to gravity, terminal velocity for car in free fall, the engineering it takes to make a car etc. The EVENT fact that the car did in fact go off the cliff in a moment of time remains TRUE.

How is this not incredibly obvious to all???

(I am pretty sure that even if I were an evolutionist I would be able to get this easy point).

 

[BobRyan]

Exactly, just by your last sentence: It does not emit light... it reflects the light. However in the Bible there are countless verses that describe the moon to omit light. .

The Bible does not distinguish between a light source that is emitting light vs reflecting light - just as the person that sees the headlight on the car does not distinguish between the halogen bulb in the light fixture and the whopping 99% light coming from the reflector.

What difference does that make to the fact that the Bible says both sun and moon were made on day 4. Is it because all the scientists out there making the sun and moon every day could not have done it with just the small detail in Genesis 1 talking about it?? oh no wait... they can't do it at all.

And as I have said on all these threads - the Bible is not science text book for the lab telling us "how to make all life on Earth in 6 days" rather it is a historic record telling us THAT God made all life on Earth in 6 days.

How does this keep getting missed?

 

[Cis.jd]

The Bible does not distinguish between a light source that is emitting light vs reflecting light - just as the person that sees the headlight on the car does not distinguish between the halogen bulb in the light fixture and the whopping 99% light coming from the reflector.

Yes, it does not but it doesn't make it sound ambiguous either it really does describe it as independently. That is why Gen describes 2 lights not 1. Now if I was a guy who disregards science and just what the Bible says and I come to you saying that the moon is an independent light because this what I've interpreted from reading, how are you going to tell me I am wrong?

What difference does that make to the fact that the Bible says both sun and moon were made on day 4. Is it because all the scientists out there making the sun and moon every day could not have done it with just the small detail in Genesis 1 talking about it?? oh no wait... they can't do it at all.

Because both are described as lights,Genesis says 2 great lights yet you know this is scientifically wrong when taken literally.

And as I have said on all these threads - the Bible is not science text book for the lab telling us "how to make all life on Earth in 6 days" rather it is a historic record telling us THAT God made all life on Earth in 6 days.

How does this keep getting missed?

If we were to take the 6 days literate then why not take the 2 lights literate?

 

[Cis.jd]

Is that because you can see the Sun any time you see the moon?

Or did you think that at night the moon provides no light -- since you can't also see the sun at the same time?

What reply is this? What does the answer I will give matter what in the end the moon is not an independent light? .

The Bible says God made the Sun and moon on day 4- it does NOT say that "this is how you go downstairs to your private little lab and make the Sun -- step by step instructions". I keep saying the Bible is not a science text book and does not NEED to be one to accurately report that God did something in a single day.

But then how can you take a 6 day creation to be fact and think all the scientific evidence against this belief is wo? If you are doing it because of how it is worded in the Bible then you'd have to take the moon to literally omit it's own light especially since more verses support this idea such as Ez 32:7, Is 30:26?

 

[Cis.jd]

I am talking about real facts -- real events in real history with real people. The fact that God does something does not delete that something from real history or real nature. Nature itself is something 'God did'.

Yup and because of this you are arguing on a different topic.
..

the Bible describes real history, real events, in real life.

But not scientific facts in regards to nature, and it's not to be taken literally in some academical based cases. Especially the OT.

How do you define it? "a godless cosmos"?? Was Christ not a real person in the real cosmos? how about a real person in the natural cosmos (I am thinking a real person on planet Earth which is in the natural cosmos).

Does the Word of God lose its credibility when God says He made the Sun vs God saying He made Adam???

What are you talking about? This is way off from what you are quoting. LOL

Scientists will tell you that the universe outside of what we can directly observe "still exists" even though a human is not "observing it at the time".

I think we all agree on that basic detail.

Yeah, so? We are talking about people of the ancient times. Your replies are becoming more irrelevant.

#1. The author of the Bible is God 2 Peter 1:20-21 and as we see in 2 Tim 3:16. The only reason it has value is that God authored it. Is your idea that God can't author a text all that well if that text includes him saying He made the sun in a single 24 hour period?

No. My "idea" is that God's intention of authoring the Bible was to talk about his relationship with man; it's to reveal him in a spiritual way; not the natural universe or anything that should serve like an academic.

isn't your whole point to challenge the Bible claim to God's miracle in making the Sun?

Uh no, what are you talking about?