True knowledge?

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Hello.

I have a question that springs from a recent discussion with a science-denying Christian. He said that science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality. He also maintained that the only source of true knowledge about reality (natural and supernatural) - is the Bible.

I responded by asking him if science's false knowledge could ever yield true answers about nature and the natural world. Specifically, could a scientific theory (which, by his definition, must be false) ever make a true prediction about nature? Here, I defined the word, 'true' to mean correct, accurate and independently confirmed... that is true in a secular sense, rather than in any kind of religious or spiritual sense.

He said not.

When I then presented a worked example of a scientific theory that made a highly-specific prediction, which was later confirmed, he declined to respond further and our discussion ended abruptly.
.
.
.


So, I'd like to throw the same question open to any here who'd like to reply.

Can a false (i.e., incorrect and therefore untrue) theory about the natural world ever yield a true (correct and accurate, in the secular sense defined above) prediction about it?

Thanks,

E.I.

Modern Science is in the business of discovery because the Sciences are finding out things which they either don't know about , or, they need to know more about for a better understanding. The Bible is REVEALED TRUTH corresponding to reality because the Bible and all it reports on scientific issues as well as psychology , etc... can be shown to be of a supernatural origin thru the proofs of many very narrow specific fulfilled prophecies made hundreds and thousands of years in advance concerning scientific issues which only in modern times, has been confirmed by science to be absolutely correct. In addition, there are many prophecies made way in advance concerning Cities that would rise and fall, Rulers that would come into power , and Jesus Christs historical coming and specifically the manner in which he would die .... looooong before crucifixion was even invented by the Romans. Further, archeology today confirms countless time periods and events discussed in the Bible including the very place where Jesus performed his miracles and where he was brought for interrogation prior to his crucifixion.

The trouble with many today, is that, when they hear 'The Bible' ... they immediately shift to a prejudicial bias against it immediately . This is for a variety of reasons I have discovered : They know that the Bible has some rather unsavory things to say about Sinners who want to remain their own god instead of giving the Creator his due honor and place / they refuse to be owned by anyone above Self / they don't want their lifestyle choices meddled with / and they have put idols at the forefront of their life which they enjoy chasing.

The Leader of the Human Genome Project, named Dr. Francis Collins, said :' The Bible and Modern Science are completely compatible" . Of course it isn't compatible with pseudo science that weve been inundated with such as Human Beings ultimately coming from dead chemicals in the atmosphere rising from a piece of pond scum to a fully functioning Human with a Brain that cant even be duplicated on purpose by Scientists...yet accidents got the job done ! The macro evolution propaganda has been so prevalent for the last 150 years that the gullible and foolish have embraced it as the 'truth' ... even something that is at a possibility of 10^40,000 power chance of occurring giving it every allowable opportunity. This is the depth Human Beings will go to shun the/their Creator based on sheer human pride and arrogance.

I submit a site that will clearly show how REAL modern science confirms the Bible .. and we should expect no less since ALL of our Modern Day Science Founders were strong Bible Believing Christians who knew that the Bible would always come thru with flying colors because it is given by an infallible Creator who does not err. Evidence for God from Science .

The challenge for any serious honest Skeptic, is to approach The Bible with an unbiased open Mind...which in this day and age.... is usually NOT the case due to the inherent infringement on ones personal pride to surrender to the Creator of the entire Universe. ... something that is a total requirement since our ultimate reason in being here is to know, grow in, and love back the Creator and Savior of mankinds sins. But, wise people do and, can providing they are WILLING to get beyond Self and self interests.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Thank you for your reply KWCrazy.

However, I must admit to being somewhat puzzled by it's content.

The core issue I had hoped you'd address was the one I described. Specifically, a prediction about a then unobserved aspect of the natural universe was exactly confirmed by a later observation. (Please see post #14, for the details.) The theory generating the prediction therefore constitutes true knowledge of the nature of the universe. The underlying logic of this argument is that false knowledge (i.e., an incorrect theory) cannot yield true answers. Since a true (i.e., perfectly confirmed) answer was given, the theory must therefore be a true description of the nature of the universe. It's really just as simple as that.

Please note that no guesswork or faith is involved. The theory logically generates the prediction. If I add 2 to 2, the logic of the process involved generates the result of 4. Thus, by the simple application of mathematical logic, I can make true statements about reality. In the more complicated (but still logically consistent) way, the theory in question made a true prediction about a then unobserved aspect of reality. 'True' because it was fully, exactly and 100% confirmed by the observation.

Also, any assumptions made in the formulation of the theory must (by the burden of logic) be correct. As to certainty... a confirmation that cannot be improved upon cannot (logically) be anything else than 100% certain. Lastly, there is also no need to raise other issues - like the age of anything else in the universe. The issue under scrutiny in this thread is the one I now hope I've explained in sufficient detail.

So, perhaps you'd be good enough to indicate if you'd accept or reject my example as true knowledge about the nature of the universe?

Please do not answer my second question just yet until we've come to a satisfactory conclusion concerning the first.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Dear David,

Thanks for reply to this thread.

Would you like to address the question I put to KWCrazy? If so, please refer to my response to him. Thanks.

Btw, if anything is unclear and needs further clarification, please let me know and I'll be happy to explain further.

Thanks again,

E.I.

 

[KWCrazy]

The core issue I had hoped you'd address was the one I described. Specifically, a prediction about a then unobserved aspect of the natural universe was exactly confirmed by a later observation. (Please see post #14, for the details.) The theory generating the prediction therefore constitutes true knowledge of the nature of the universe. The underlying logic of this argument is that false knowledge (i.e., an incorrect theory) cannot yield true answers. Since a true (i.e., perfectly confirmed) answer was given, the theory must therefore be a true description of the nature of the universe. It's really just as simple as that.

A false knowledge can certainly yield true answers depending on the circumstances. To avoid confusion between what is Scriptural and what is not, I'll call me Creator Ed.

Ed created a solar system, but having no knowledge of exactly how to go about it he used multiple planets at varying distances from the central star he called a sun. He tried life on all the planets to see which one was most conducive to supporting life. After trial and error, he decided that the third planet in the solar system was the right distance. He made a few changes, introduced life forms and watched to see what worked and what didn't over the next billion years.

Ed created a second solar system much like the first. He made a few more refinements to it until he had it exactly the way he wanted it. At this point Ed knew he had a good product.

Ed then created his masterpiece; a complete solar system capable of supporting life. He completed it exactly as the others were, in the perfect state to support life, in perfect maturity. He didn't worry about little things like how many layers were in the rocks or how many rings were in a tree, he just replicated the solar system in its perfect form. It took him only six days because he had done it many times before. When it was completed, he mass produced an enormous quantity of systems to fill the universe.

Or

Ed, being a super genius, thought out what the perfect state the world would need to be in to support life. He knew that all the plants and animals needed to be able to live with each other and off each other to maintain existence. Seeing billions and trillions of years worth of discovery in an instant, Ed created the universe in six days it its mature form and it functioned perfectly.

In each of those scenarios, using an "old earth" reasoning the physics of the planet would be exactly the same. The question is, how do YOU believe Ed created his masterpiece. Is it easier for you to believe that God could create a mature universe in six days, as He said He did, or to believe that God is a liar who needs to pad his ego by adding to His greatness? Or, is your god the planet itself; somehow creating itself in defiance of all the laws of science and populating itself by random genetic mutations?

We have the word of God that describes His creation. We who believe in the supremacy of God accept His word as the undisputed truth. We know that His word describes an almost instantaneous creation in a mature condition. We understand that such a creation is outside the parameters of science, and that science could never possibly come to the same conclusion given that, unlike God, science is limited to natural law.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Hello KWC.

"False knowledge can certainly yield true answers depending on the circumstances."....?
.
.
.
So could you give me some worked examples of this happening?
(From the physical reality we live in, of course.)

That qualification is necessary you see, because the example I opened this thread with is an observation of the physical universe. If we stick with this category, then we will be comparing like-with-like; apples with apples or oranges with oranges, so to speak. To help you out a bit... here's a worked example of true knowledge about physical reality yielding a true answer in physical reality.

If the people who made the computer you're reading these words on right now had used false knowledge about reality (e.g., an incorrect understanding of how semiconductors work) then you wouldn't be reading these words. The fact that you are reading them is a worked example of true knowledge yielding a true answer.

When something works as it was designed to; be it a computer, a car, a plane or a nuclear reactor, that is an example of the true knowledge of it's designers being validated by their product. In the same way, when something previously unknown and unobserved is then observed to be perfectly identical to the prediction about it, that is a worked example of true knowledge being validated by the observation.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Hello again KWCrazy.

It's been almost a week since my last message to you in this thread.

Would you please be so kind as to let me know if you'll be responding to my request?
That is, for you to cite some worked examples of false knowledge producing true answers in this physical reality.

Thanks.

I suspect that David won't be taking up my offer of participating further, but it would be nice to know if you will or won't be.

Thanks again,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Dear KWCrazy...

Since I put my question to you on the 22nd, I've been patiently waiting for your reply.
I wondered if you'd been ill, indisposed or not active in Christianforums for a while... so out of curiosity, I performed a Search, using your name.

The results tell me that since the 22nd, you've posted in the following forums.

Creationism.
(On the 24th, 25th and 26th.)
Creation and Evolution.
(Twice on the 26th, seven times on the 27th and once today, the 29th.)
American Politics.
(Three times on the 27th.)
Fundamentalist Christians.
(On the 27th.)
New Member Intros.
(On the 26th.)
Origins Theology.
(On the 26th.)

You also posted in this (Exploring Christianity) forum on the 26th, responding to Jeffwhosoever's comments in DeanW's thread, "If you could change the Bible?"
.
.
.

Perhaps you've forgotten my question?

Would you please be so polite as to let me know if you are declining to answer it?

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[KWCrazy]

Dear KWCrazy...

Since I put my question to you on the 22nd, I've been patiently waiting for your reply.

I comment upon things which interest me, and frankly, this topic does not interest me. You wanted examples of how false knowledge could result in true answers and the most obvious example is with oil exploration. Petroleum is said to be formed when large quantities of dead organisms, usually zooplankton and algae, are buried underneath sedimentary rock and undergo intense heat and pressure. It is said to take millions of years. This is the biotic theory of oil production. It works well as a model but it has flaws. In nature we see nearly all organic debris being consumed up by scavengers or other micro organisms before it can be buried in sedimentary rock. How does one explain the vast amount of organic material lost at athe same time and encased in sediment? The Great Flood; something which you will absolutely deny happened.

"Critics of recent creation and the global Flood often try to argue that the sheer volume of oil found cannot be explained by a single ocean full of organic debris deposited in one year-long event. However, the volume of organic material in the ocean at any given time is immense.2 By studying the organic richness of the present ocean, creation scientists have shown that all of the oil found—and yet to be found—could easily be deposited and explained by a single year-long global Flood.3

Nevertheless, many geologists never think through this entire process. They simply focus on searching for traps or rocks folded into domes where they know the oil is likely to be concentrated, without regard for the unusual and specific processes required to preserve the vast amounts of organic debris in the rocks in the first place."

There is also an abiotic theory of oil production.
"The abiotic oil formation theory suggests that crude oil is the result of naturally occurring and possibly ongoing geological processes. This theory was developed in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, as the Union needed to be self sufficient in terms of producing its own energy. The science behind the theory is sound and is based on experimental evidence in both the laboratory and in the field. This theory has helped to identify and therefore develop large numbers of gas and oil deposits. Examples of such fields are the South Khylchuyu field and the controversial Sakhalin II field."

So which theory is right? Likely, both. You can also make oil from sewage.

"New research is being done at Batelle Laboratories in Richland, Washington on oil formation from sewage. In the process of converting the oil no high technology equipment was used, but just basic materials. They began by concentrating the sewage and adding an alkali to help digest it. When under heat and pressure the alkali begins to decompose organic material into hydrocarbon. Specifically the cellulose is converted into the long chains of hydrocarbons or crude oil. Although this new formula worked, it was not the right quality for commercial fuel oil. Later in 1987 they meet up with American Fuel and Power Corporation, who with their expertise were able to add a necessary additive, allowing the oil to have a higher viscosity and reach commercial fuel oil standards. Incredibly this process only takes a day or two, but contains almost the same energy as diesel fuel."

The truth is that there is oil trapped beneath the surface of the earth. How it got there and how it was formed is a matter of discussion, but what is known is that it exists. You wanted an example. You have one.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Thank you for your reply KWCrazy.

Playing Devil's Advocate with your example...

Since the driving force of all commercial oil production is profit, not theology, could you please cite the names of the oil companies that use the true (i.e., Biblical) timescale to guide their work?

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[Joshua260]

Hello EI,

I don't know what percentage there is, but I would think that most Christians are not science-denying people.

I personally happen to side more with the YEC view. This might surprise some on this sight who might have heard me argue for the big bang theory. The reason I did so was because there are some (yes, atheists!) who actually believe that the universe did not have a beginning at all but has always existed. In one particular exchange with an atheist, I quoted numerous scientists who accept the big bang theory and pointed out to him that believing that the universe has always existed in spite of all of the scientists who believe otherwise, the red-shift, and the background radiation evidence that supports it constitutes an act of faith on his part. Of course, he denied that. I say all that just to explain why I just confessed that I am actually a YEC member (this is why I like the Leibniz Cosmological argument better than the Kalam, although the Kalam works when talking about the infinity of explanations).

So I'd like to offer two possible explanations for the evidence you cite.

1) Just as some have explained how when God created man...that the man would have been scientifically classified as having an age of 30ish instead of only 1 day, it seems to me perfectly reasonable (even within the rules of science) that the universe could have been created and science would classify it as having existed for several billion years. I like to use the example of one beginning to read a book starting at chapter 2...in fact in my scenario, chapter 1 was never written. I think it's extremely difficult for atheists to imagine how this could happen, but I actually don't see anything, even scientifically, wrong with that explanation. So my question here is, does anything in science rule out this possibility...of the universe just coming into existence, at chapter 2 so to speak, with the appearance that their might have been a chapter 1?

2) Here's the real reason why I'm responding here. I was a physics "NUT" when I was younger. I read MANY theoretical physics books and got straight "A"s in Physics, all the way through working with formulas in General Relativity and Quantum Physics. During those years, I was totally uninterested in Christianity. So, even back then, one thing always bugged me about the red-shift and background radiation evidence...the fact that electromagnetic radiation (light) is affected by gravity (as proven by Einstein). Yes, I was a physics "nut", but I admit that I was not a professional scientist. But having this knowledge of the effect of gravity on light waves, I wondered whether light coming into this part of the universe would become more and more "red-shifted" the closer the light came into our mass-heavy area of space. I believe this could also account for the background radiation. At the time, I searched for any scientific research that might support this alternative explanation for the red-shift and found that indeed, some scientist had confirmed that light red-shifts as it enters our atmosphere...the closer it got to the earth. Of course, I'm talking about light entering into the mass-heavy galaxy though. I don't know if you are a scientist or not...have you heard of any writings related to this idea?

 

[KWCrazy]

Since the driving force of all commercial oil production is profit, not theology, could you please cite the names of the oil companies that use the true (i.e., Biblical) timescale to guide their work?

Your question is meaningless.

Geologists look for trapped pockets of oil under the earth. How they think the oil got there is irrelevant. The Chinese drilled for oil in 347 AD. I don't think evolution was a very popular theory then, do you?

Oil companies care about profit. not unprovable theories of origins. Whether oil is produced by biotic or abiotic processes means nothing to them. They look for pockets of oil trapped in geological formations and then they pump it out. John Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil, was a religious man who always tithed 10% of his earnings and donated millions to charities beyond that. He was an abolishionist who taught Sunday School at church. He was NOT an evolutionists and he still managed to get rich in the oil industry. Imagine that!

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Your question is meaningless.

I beg to disagree.

Geologists look for trapped pockets of oil under the earth.

Yes, but the science that guides them (Petrology) operates on timescales that do not agree with scripture. Therefore, these timescales constitute false knowledge. Oil companies the world over use patently false knowledge to run their businesses successfully? Is that what you're saying, KWC?

How they think the oil got there is irrelevant.

Actually, it's vitally relevant.
If companies like ExxonMobil realized that oil didn't need millions of years to mature, but could be created over very much shorter periods, don't you think they'd be doing something about it?

Something like working hand-in-hand with timber companies, mining corporations and farms? With the oil companies take the waste organic material off the foresters and farmers hands and burying it in played-out mines, where it'll mature into usable crude oil in what... decades?

Likewise, environmentally conscious companies, trusts, foundations and charities would be rushing to back this kind of venture with $$$$ of capital. Rapidly-matured man-made oil would be the magic bullet solution to the world's energy problems. Just bury organic material for a few decades and 'Bingo!' out comes ready-to-use oil!

No need to drill deeper and deeper for new reservoirs of crude. No need to site oil rigs in dangerous waters to get the black gold. Just make it yourself, using existing infrastructures!

Q. Why aren't any mega-corporations doing this?
A. Money (not dogma) is the ultimate driver in all business. So if something isn't being done that's because it won't make money.

Q. Why won't it make money?
A. Because it doesn't work. It isn't true knowledge about how reality works. If rapidly-maturing oil were true knowledge, it would work and everyone would be using it, rather than wasting their time and money chasing after oil in deeper and deeper wells.

The Chinese drilled for oil in 347 AD. I don't think evolution was a very popular theory then, do you?

What's that got to do with the price of rice?

Oil companies care about profit. not unprovable theories of origins.

Exactly my point!

Whether oil is produced by biotic or abiotic processes means nothing to them.

Agreed.
Cash is king - not religious dogma or pseudo-science. If the bona fide, tested and proven science they employ didn't work they wouldn't use it. It's that simple! The fact that they are using it is another worked example of true (science-based) knowledge giving true answers about reality.

They look for pockets of oil trapped in geological formations and then they pump it out.

The way they look is informed by Petrological science - which operates on billion year timescales, not Biblical ones. So do all fossil fuel companies. And the USGS. And the Marine Corps of Engineers. In fact, anyone anywhere using Geological science for a living will use what works... and that isn't scripture.

John Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil, was a religious man who always tithed 10% of his earnings and donated millions to charities beyond that. He was an abolishionist who taught Sunday School at church. He was NOT an evolutionists and he still managed to get rich in the oil industry. Imagine that!

Clearly he didn't know about ultra-rapid maturing, man-made oil. Because if he had he'd have invested in it.

Imagine that!

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Hello Joshua260!

I'm sorry to say that both you and that atheist were laboring under a naïve misunderstanding of cosmological science. This will have skewed any conclusions you might have drawn re: the origin of our universe.

I'll explain.

Prior to 1980 'traditional' Big Bang theory was the best explanation available which fitted the available evidence. However it was conceded to be, at best, a rough approximation and was also fraught with several serious problems. The solution to three of these came with advent of Inflationary Theory, as proposed by Alan Guth in 1980.

This Wiki page tells the story. Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inflationary theory requires us to revise our ideas about the Big Bang. To see how this works, please go here.
Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll see that various important epochs are listed in time order...
Planck, Grand Unification, Electroweak, Inflationary, Baryogenetic and so on. Please read the Inflationary epoch information, especially the second paragraph.

"Inflation ends when the inflaton field decays into ordinary particles in a process called "reheating", at which point the ordinary Big Bang expansion begins. The time of reheating is usually quoted as a time "after the Big Bang". This refers to a time that would have passed in traditional (non-inflationary) cosmology between the Big Bang singularity and the universe dropping to the same temperature that was produced by reheating, even though, in inflationary cosmology, the traditional Big Bang did not occur."

So, in Inflationary cosmology, the traditional hot and dense Big Bang did not occur. The heat of the very early universe was a by-product of the inflaton field decaying into ordinary particles. We see remnants of this heat in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Many people attribute this heat-signature to traditional Big Bang theory, whereas it is, in fact, a very strong line of evidence in support of Inflationary Theory.

If you look closely at the first three epochs of the timeline (Planck, Grand Unification and Electroweak) you'll see that each one has the time notation, " ...after the Big Bang." Here the words, 'Big Bang' no longer refer to the traditional Big Bang of pre-Inflation cosmology. So you see Joshua, Inflationary theory has supplanted traditional Big Bang theory, even though (confusingly enough) it uses the same terminology.

I suspect that you weren't factoring in Inflationary theory into your discussion with that atheist. It really is a game-changer!
.
.
.
Unfortunately I have to do other stuff now, but I'll be back online later.
I'll apply myself to points #1 and #2 then.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Hello again Joshua!

First, a bit of background info about me.

I'm no scientist, but I'm an avid amateur astronomer.
Unlike you, I've had no formal training in the sciences, so I suppose you could call be an enthusiastic amateur. I have an insatiable appetite for knowledge about things cosmological and this leads me to read and read and read and read and read and... you get the picture?

--------------------------------------------

Anyway, about points #1 and #2.

Am I right in thinking that you hold to the notion that our universe has two ages? A true one, as described by scripture and an 'embedded' one, which is the one we observe? If so, may I ask how you read Romans 1 : 18 - 32? Especially verse 20.

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Would you agree that Paul is saying everyone has knowledge of God, derived from observing what God has made - that is, the physical universe? If so, then this knowledge must be derived from the 'embedded' age of the universe and not it's true age.

God judges those who knew Him, but these people chose to reject their knowledge and turned to false gods. Therefore, the basis of his judgement rests on the 'truth' about Him being able to be seen in what He has made - the world around us and the universe.

If they cannot know God via His creation, then Paul's line of argument is invalid, wouldn't you agree? This knowledge must come from the physical world. Now, since Romans refers to Gentiles and Jews, Paul's writing about the former - people with no previous access to the Hebrew scriptures. So these Gentiles cannot know the true, scriptural age of reality - only the 'embedded' age, as displayed by created world.

Joshua, would you please critique my argument and see if it holds water? Thanks.

(Oh btw. If I'm barking up the wrong tree and I've erred about you holding to a true/embedded age dichotomy, please correct me. Thanks.)

--------------------------------------------------

Now, moving on to possible ways of testing the age of the universe, how about this?

Physicists Eagerly Await Neutrinos from the Next Nearby Supernova [Excerpt] - Scientific American

nature physics portal - looking back - Neutrinos and neutrino mass from a supernova

In 1987, John Bahcall was able to make a stunning prediction about the behavior of neutrinos. He calculated the number of them that should be detected from supernova sn1987a (on the order of several dozen) and also the three-hour difference between their arrival and that of the photons of light from the supernova itself. The Scientific American article tells the tale nicely. Enjoy!

My inexpert understanding of his calculations runs like this.
Bahcall factored in two important details that enabled him to make such an accurate set of predictions. A constant and unchanging speed of light and a distance of 160,000 light years to the Large Magellanic Cloud, where the supernova exploded.

I therefore conclude (rightly or wrongly) from this that the universe must therefore be at least 160,000 years old. Otherwise Bahcall's math wouldn't have been right on the money!

What do you think?

-----------------------------------------------------

Lastly, while I'm somewhat familiar with the basic concepts of Einsteinian physics (curved space-time and time dilation, for instance) I don't know of any of the writings you mention. Is this the 'Tired Light' theory or does it have to do with the behavior of radiation passing thru a gravity well?

Gravity well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[Joshua260]

Am I right in thinking that you hold to the notion that our universe has two ages? A true one, as described by scripture and an 'embedded' one, which is the one we observe?

Yes, I fall on that side of the fence. I try to be as honest as I can concerning both sides of the issue, but I can honestly see how a day-old created man can look to be 30 years old. I have absolutely no problem with that. All the scientific tests you could possibly perform on the man would continue to yield the same result that he was a 30 year old man.

If so, may I ask how you read Romans 1 : 18 - 32? Especially verse 20.

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Would you agree that Paul is saying everyone has knowledge of God, derived from observing what God has made - that is, the physical universe? If so, then this knowledge must be derived from the 'embedded' age of the universe and not it's true age.

Sounds good to me so far. (edit: I just caught the misquote...read below; 2nd edit: nope. sorry, just a different version)

God judges those who knew Him, but these people chose to reject their knowledge and turned to false gods. Therefore, the basis of his judgement rests on the 'truth' about Him being able to be seen in what He has made - the world around us and the universe.

If they cannot know God via His creation, then Paul's line of argument is invalid, wouldn't you agree? This knowledge must come from the physical world. Now, since Romans refers to Gentiles and Jews, Paul's writing about the former - people with no previous access to the Hebrew scriptures. So these Gentiles cannot know the true, scriptural age of reality - only the 'embedded' age, as displayed by created world.

I think I understand your argument here. I think you're suggesting that the verse is not valid because the Gentiles would not know the true age of the universe, and therefore not truly know God, right?

Uh-oh....this just in...
I find that you have not quoted the verse correctly (nope, my mistake...you're using a different version and I didn't recognize that the subject was placed before your highlighted section). In the KJV, it is:

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:..." Romans 1:19-20.

You left out the "his eternal power and Godhead" part, which is the subject of the whole section. So I don't think the apparent age discussion invalidates this verse.
(edit: nope...sorry...it was not a misquote, but a different version. In any case, I don't believe the verse is necessarily related to the true age of the universe, but talking about God's nature (that he is all-powerful) and the Godhead, which I personally think refers to the trinity).

_________________________

Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed many books about Einstein's relativity theories (as well as quantum theories)! Fascinating stuff. So I share that interest with you. You probably don't care about this, but when I later became a Christian I was all too happy to realize that the bible is filled with many of the same fascinating relativistic ideas that are consequences of Einstein's general relativity (not to be confused with relativism...LOL). I think Einstein was very close to a true description of the universe.


Thanks for the info. I'm not sure you understood my argument that if a 30-year old man can be created in a day, then a million-year old universe could also be created in a day. So to be honest, I didn't bother looking at the first two links because it sounded like you missed my point. But I will if you can assure me that you understood it and you believe the links are still relevant. So let me rephrase my question if you please..."If a million-year old looking universe could be created in a day, would science be able to prove that it was really only one day instead of the the apparent million-year age?"

However, the last few links DID interest me and I did take the time to read through it. The tired light idea is very close to what I had read about years ago, but the apparent red-shift that I read about was not so much due to the collisions of photons as much as due to the gravitational elongations of wavelengths (so the gravity well is closer to what I'm talking about). Take for example, light coming out of the area NEAR a black hole. The light coming to us from the black hole would be red-shifted because the black hole is trying to "hold the light back". In the same way, light coming into our universe would be "stretched forward" (by OUR gravity). So the idea I was talking about is more related to light being drawn into our area of space due to the gravity well this area of space would create. The further away a galaxy was, the light would be red-shifted more and more as it is stretched forward towards out gravity well.

Thanks again for the links. I appreciated it.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Hey Joshua!

Thanks very much for your reply. I've had lots to think about.

Yes, I fall on that side of the fence. I try to be as honest as I can concerning both sides of the issue, but I can honestly see how a day-old created man can look to be 30 years old. I have absolutely no problem with that. All the scientific tests you could possibly perform on the man would continue to yield the same result that he was a 30 year old man.

Ok. Just to clarify things a bit more... is this the Omphalos hypothesis?
Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...or something very similar? Thanks.

Sounds good to me so far. (edit: I just caught the misquote...read below; 2nd edit: nope. sorry, just a different version)

I think I understand your argument here. I think you're suggesting that the verse is not valid because the Gentiles would not know the true age of the universe, and therefore not truly know God, right?

Not exactly.

I began this thread because the aspect of Christianity I'm exploring is that of true knowledge; as in true knowledge about reality and how this relates to true knowledge of God. The Christian I spoke to (see my opening post) maintained that only the Bible gives true knowledge about reality (natural and supernatural). Our conversation prompted me to start this thread up.

So Joshua, rather than just trying to invalidate what the Bible says, I'm actually trying to understand what it says. Therefore, the argument I asked you to critique isn't fully-formed yet and isn't for the purpose of invalidating scripture. I'm still in investigatory mode and looking to understand.

This is another reason why I'm so pleased to have you test my thoughts and ideas.

Uh-oh....this just in...
I find that you have not quoted the verse correctly (nope, my mistake...you're using a different version and I didn't recognize that the subject was placed before your highlighted section). In the KJV, it is:

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:..." Romans 1:19-20.

You left out the "his eternal power and Godhead" part, which is the subject of the whole section. So I don't think the apparent age discussion invalidates this verse.
(edit: nope...sorry...it was not a misquote, but a different version. In any case, I don't believe the verse is necessarily related to the true age of the universe, but talking about God's nature (that he is all-powerful) and the Godhead, which I personally think refers to the trinity).

Perhaps it'll help if I explain some more of my thinking about this passage from Romans and how it relates to true knowledge?

1. Scriptural True Knowledge.
Working on the assumption that what Paul writes about the Gentiles is correct, then there seem to be two 'truths' about reality, operating in parallel with each other. The Jews and the early Christians, having access to scripture would be able to understand that the created universe came to be as described in Genesis.

This is true knowledge.
It is true because, even though the universe appears to be ancient... it isn't. Also, they have something that the pagan Gentiles do not - faith. So, even if a Gentile tried to persuade them that the world was ancient, by faith they'd know that it wasn't. (Please refer to Hebrews 11:1 & 2)

2.Experiential True Knowledge.
All the Gentiles have to go on (having no faith and no access to scripture) is the evidence of their senses. Paul writes that even then, they would still know God's eternal power and Godhead - which is why they are without excuse.

If we look here...
Romans 1 Interlinear Bible ...we can see that Paul uses the words gnoston (v.19) gnontes (v.21) and epignosei (v.28) when describing what God has made plain to the Gentiles. Strong's seems to agree that this is experiential knowledge, not faith-derived knowledge.
http://biblehub.com/greek1110.htm
http://biblehub.com.greek1097.htm
http://biblehub.com.greek1922.htm

Since this is knowledge of God's eternal power and Godhead, this really can't be false knowledge, can it? God can't have made plain false information about Himself, right? Therefore, we should be on safe ground to conclude that the Gentiles also have true knowledge of God. Experientially-derived knowledge, as opposed to faith-derived knowledge, but still... true ...knowledge.

3.True Knowledge, Then & Now.
Now for the pivotal point, Joshua!
In Roman times the pagan Gentiles had true knowledge of God, derived only from their senses. The Jews and early Christians had true knowledge of God, derived from scripture and faith. So which category do I fit into, today?

I'm not a Christian, so I have no faith to guide me in these matters. But I can do as the Gentiles did and use my senses to investigate the physical universe. Unlike them, I DO have access to scripture - so I CAN investigate the issue from both directions.

Yet, when I do this I find that what the universe tells my senses about it's age is totally different from what scripture tells me!

By definition, science is an experience-only mode of investigation. Faith plays no part in the discipline and methodology of science. Therefore, science is on a par with the only mode of investigation open to the Gentiles - the experience of the physical universe by the senses.

The big difference between then and now is that of the tools available to investigate the natural universe. Two millennia ago, the Gentiles were limited to what their eyes and ears told them. Today we have satellites, particle accelerators, radio telescopes, computers, etc., etc.

Yet, if Paul's words are as true today as they were when he wrote them, I should be able to see God's eternal nature and Godhead from what he has made - the physical universe. My current stumbling block, when it comes to this is described below.

4. Conclusion: Which True Knowledge Do I Accept?
Scripture says that the universe is very young and science says that it is very ancient. Employing the reasoning I've used so far, I conclude that both truths (experiential and faith-based) are true knowledge.

A scientist doesn't use faith or scripture, but relies on experiential knowledge to inform him of the universe's age. He arrives at a figure of 13.82 billion years. A Christian uses faith and scripture to inform him of the universe's age. He arrives at a figure of 6,000 years (or thereabouts).

Assuming that both pathways of investigation are valid and covered by Paul's words in Romans, then I'm stuck in a bind. I seem to have two mutually-exclusive but equally valid methods of gaining true knowledge about the age of the universe... but they don't agree!

There's also the niggling philosophical problem of the nature of truth to consider. Is there only one (and only one) truth or are there two, as Paul seems to be saying - one defined by faith and one defined by experience? Or is there some kind of hierarchy in operation? Does one truth take precedence over the other? And, if there can be more than one truth, why not three kinds or four or fifteen, for that matter?.
.
.
.
Now, as I said before Joshua, my thinking is still taking shape. What I've typed out here is more of a progress report, rather than a finished article. Which is why I'm so grateful for your help. Now that you have more to go on, would you please critique what I've written here and test it.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[Joshua260]

is this the Omphalos hypothesis?

It's the story told in Genesis. The bible says that God created man in a day, but I don't see how science could tell the difference between a 30 year old man and a 30-year looking day old man.

[FONT=&quot]There's also the niggling philosophical problem of the nature of truth to consider. Is there only one (and only one) truth or are there two, as Paul seems to be saying - one defined by faith and one defined by experience?[/FONT]

Can you be more specific please? I'm not sure where you see Paul saying that there are two truths. What I see in the following verse is that Paul is saying that God's eternal power and Godhead should be understood by earlier man. I don't see anywhere in the verse where it refers to anything about the age of the universe (or there being "two truths").

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:..." Romans 1:19-20.

Quite honestly, I thought we were having a good discussion...are you planning on even attempting to answer my question? I was under the impression at first that you had a good working knowledge of science so I was hoping that you could answer it. You seem to be very sure of your view that the universe is several billion years old. I can respect your right to believe that, but I'm really curious. We've discussed a lot of physics in this exchange, but what I'd really like to know is if you think scientists should be able to distinguish between a universe that is really several billion years old and a several-billion-year-looking day old universe. I just don't see that to be theoretically possible. Again, imagine that the universe actually came into existence at chapter 2 (as in my previous example). I read a LOT of theoretical physics books in my early years and I don't remember anything ruling that possibility out. I've read about things such as dual-universes, Schrodinger's cat, and warped and bent space, steady-state universes, double slit light experiments, the Heisenberg principle, etc. Honestly not meaning to brag, but I'm just saying that I'm not completely bereft of a rough knowledge of theoretical physics. I remember some physicists even suggesting that reality is all in our head, like The Matrix. So, again, if a billion-year universe was really created in a day, how in the world would we be able to tell the difference?

I really do not mean to be combative here. Please do not take my post in that way. I was just really hoping you might be able to answer my question (since I thought you had some extensive experience in science). I have no problem if you just want to answer with "I don't know". That would be fine.

Thanks in advance and have a good nite.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

It's the story told in Genesis. The bible says that God created man in a day, but I don't see how science could tell the difference between a 30 year old man and a 30-year looking day old man.

I agree.
Science couldn't. Science can only investigate the natural and the physical. So if God has made a 30-year old looking, day-old man, then science could only conclude that he was 30 years old.

Can you be more specific please? I'm not sure where you see Paul saying that there are two truths. What I see in the following verse is that Paul is saying that God's eternal power and Godhead should be understood by earlier man. I don't see anywhere in the verse where it refers to anything about the age of the universe (or there being "two truths").

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:..." Romans 1:19-20.

I'm sorry, but No I don't think I can be more specific. I've laid out what I clearly indicated to be not a complete argument, but one in progress and I've also emphasized that it's purpose is not to destroy the Bible, but to investigate it. So I've no wish to be combative either.

Quite honestly, I thought we were having a good discussion...are you planning on even attempting to answer my question? I was under the impression at first that you had a good working knowledge of science so I was hoping that you could answer it. You seem to be very sure of your view that the universe is several billion years old.

Yes. I am.
But in the context of this thread, please understand that this certainty is derived from science.

I can respect your right to believe that, but I'm really curious. We've discussed a lot of physics in this exchange, but what I'd really like to know is if you think scientists should be able to distinguish between a universe that is really several billion years old and a several-billion-year-looking day old universe. I just don't see that to be theoretically possible.

Joshua, it's not possible at all. Not under any circumstances. The whole concept of of a young universe that looks ancient is perfect and airtight and unassailable.

By definition no method that employs anything within such a universe can be used to refute the age of that universe.

Again, imagine that the universe actually came into existence at chapter 2 (as in my previous example). I read a LOT of theoretical physics books in my early years and I don't remember anything ruling that possibility out. I've read about things such as dual-universes, Schrodinger's cat, and warped and bent space, steady-state universes, double slit light experiments, the Heisenberg principle, etc. Honestly not meaning to brag, but I'm just saying that I'm not completely bereft of a rough knowledge of theoretical physics. I remember some physicists even suggesting that reality is all in our head, like The Matrix. So, again, if a billion-year universe was really created in a day, how in the world would we be able to tell the difference?

We couldn't.

But, for the observer, is there any real difference between a virtual, Matrix-style reality and a young universe that appears old?

In both cases the observer is helplessly trapped within the Matrix, unable to know what is true and what is not. Nor would the observer even be able to know that the old universe really is young. This would be something he'd have to take purely on faith, from input the universe gives him. The input in this case being scripture.

This is fine if he's happy to accept this by faith.
But all other lines of inquiry are closed, as far as I can see.

I really do not mean to be combative here. Please do not take my post in that way. I was just really hoping you might be able to answer my question (since I thought you had some extensive experience in science). I have no problem if you just want to answer with "I don't know". That would be fine.

Thanks in advance and have a good nite.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[Joshua260]

Ok. Thanks for the exchange E.I. Good discussion.

 

[dhh712]

I have a question that springs from a recent discussion with a science-denying Christian. He said that science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality. He also maintained that the only source of true knowledge about reality (natural and supernatural) - is the Bible.

I responded by asking him if science's false knowledge could ever yield true answers about nature and the natural world. Specifically, could a scientific theory (which, by his definition, must be false) ever make a true prediction about nature? Here, I defined the word, 'true' to mean correct, accurate and independently confirmed... that is true in a secular sense, rather than in any kind of religious or spiritual sense.

He said not.

When I then presented a worked example of a scientific theory that made a highly-specific prediction, which was later confirmed, he declined to respond further and our discussion ended abruptly.

Well, it seems his answer (or non-answer) confirms that he was mistaken and didn't want to admit it. Personally, I feel this sort of thing comes about from Christians who view the scientific world as a threat to God, or something which they see as opposing their view and which they see has the possibility or even probability of over-coming their view so that their view is no longer tenable.

Personally, I feel that science can tell us many great and wonderful things about the world all to the glory of God its Creator. Yet we must understand that the tools which we utilize to work with nature in the realm of science are skewed, corrupted by the entrance of sin into the world; therefore it is impossible to see nature through science (or through any of our physical senses) in the way which God has intended it, in the way He has created it in it's perfect way, in a way which we can know Truth by it.

Science tells us about the world within the confines of science. It has its scientific truth. Whether you believe that is the Absolute Truth I suppose depends on what you place your trust in. If you believe this world is all there is, well then I suppose scientific truth would be all that matters to you since there is nothing else according to your perspective. We who believe in the existence of another world, the spiritual one, the only one which has any lasting value, see Truth in a different way.

So, I'd like to throw the same question open to any here who'd like to reply.

Can a false (i.e., incorrect and therefore untrue) theory about the natural world ever yield a true (correct and accurate, in the secular sense defined above) prediction about it?

Thanks,

E.I.

Hopefully the above answered your question.