What is Science?

[lucaspa]

As you know religion itself is not what saves us. It is Jesus that saves us. ...It is through Faith that we are saved,

But you are saying that Faith is not needed. You are saying there is "proof" that "the Bible" is correct. So with proof, who needs faith? Faith is believing in the absence of proof.

Joshua, what I am seeing is confusion in your thoughts. You started out by saying "the Bible" is proved by science and archaelogy. Now you are talking about faith in Jesus. Jesus is not the Bible, and the Bible is not Jesus. We have information about Jesus in the Bible. Standard Christian theology is that the Bible helps us find Jesus so that we can have a personal relationship with him.

So, you need to ask yourself: what do I really believe? On one hand you say "Archeology and science has done an amazing job in the last 100 years coming up with rock solid scientific evidence for the Bible and there is NOTHING you can say or do that will change any of that." And you also said "I have spent years to verify what I believe is true." If both of those are the case, then you have proof and not faith, don't you? You are talking "fact". After all, can't you "verify" the atomic weight of gold? or the age of the earth? You seem to be saying that you can verify the Resurrection. Or verify that Moses talked to the Burning Bush. Can you?

But now you are saying it is faith (why the capital "Faith"?) that we are saved. What "faith" do you need if you have verified everything in the Bible? I don't accept the age of the earth on "faith", I accept it on the data. I accept evolution because of the data. Is that what you do for Jesus' and salvation? Accept them because of the "scientific evidence"? Or are you saved by faith in God and Jesus? Do you see the contradiction? You need to decide between those 2 alternatives.

 

[lucaspa]

Science in its modern sense is a methodology for investigating the physical universe. It tries to infer general principles from particular instances, and then to see whether experimental data can validate those inferred principles.

What you have stated -- infer general principles from particular instances -- is called "inductive logic". And actually, science mostly uses deductive logic. I can see how you were confused. Throughout the history of science there has been a tension between induction and deduction. Many scientists and philosophers of science have argued that theories are evaluated by induction. Whewell's "consilience of induction" is just one example. The Logical Positivists and their "Verification Principle" are another.

However, the major problem of induction is that it is, at its heart, unreliable. You can never "prove" by induction. No matter how many swans you look at that are white, the next one may be black. You can't "prove" by deduction, either. But you can disprove. The earth is not flat. The earth is not the center of the solar system, with the planets and sun orbiting it. Proteins are not the hereditary material. Etc.

What happens in science is that the hypothesis/theory comes first. Usually, there is no inference based on data. Instead, hypotheses/theories are conjectures put forward without evidence. Then it is assumed that the hypothesis is true. Not dogmatic, but in order to make deductions of data that should be there if the hypothesis/theory is true. The experiments are done to test those deductions. If the experimental data are not what the deductions say, then the hypothesis/theory is false. If the data is what the deductions predicted, then the hypothesis/theory is supported. Also, in the process of supporting one hypothesis/theory, you will often falsify all the other hypotheses/theories

 

[joshua 1 9]

As a scientist, and one that teaches philosophy of science to graduate students, I would disagree with "most scientists". Science is the study of the physical universe.

People have tried to tie science to a "method" -- "a way of knowing" -- but that has failed. The reason is that science has many methods, and that other disciplines use the same hypothetico-deductive method ("scientific method") as science. Two famous examples of this can be found in religion:

1. Trinity. Trinity is not explicitly stated in genuine scripture. (The one passage turns out to be a marginal note on early manuscripts that a later copyist inserted into the text.) However, going back to Tertullian, Origen, etc., you find that they started on the way to Trinity by asking the question: What does Christ have to be in order for me to be saved? They tried several hypotheses as an answer to the question. The hypothesis that survived was Trinity. They made deductions from the hypothesis Christ is God and then tested those deductions vs scripture (and there are passages that say this), against monotheism (which they considered a "law" of theology), and against their own personal experiences of salvation.

2. Documentary Hypothesis. This is a hypothesis on the authorship of the Pentateuch. The original hypothesis was that Moses wrote all of the text. However, the Documentary Hypothesis was that there was more than 1 author. They tested the hypothesis against the original Hebrew text of the Pentateuch. In its current form, the DH has 3 authors and an editor.

So, science is not a "way of knowing". Science is the study of the physical universe. The essentials of the "scientific method" are as follows:
"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they really are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but uselss. One-time, private experience is not acceptable." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

Because of those 2 limitations, science is a limited form of knowledge. Within its limitations, science is very reliable. So reliable that there is constant temptation to extend science beyond its limitations. In particular, there is temptation to use science is the atheism vs theism debate and declare that science either 1) "proves" God does not exist or 2) science "proves" God exists. Science does neither. Science (as opposed to individual scientists) is agnostic.

Science maybe agnostic, but so far Science can show an abundant - overwhelming amount of evidence that the Bible is accurate and true. But the revisionists seems to be blind to the evidence and they keep talking about the lace of evidence or what often amounts to (as you say) the limits of science.

I am not real big on the concept of Trinity. Frances Collins calls DNA the language of God. They Hebrew Sages and Scholars calls the Ancient Hebrew the Language of God. Now I am no expert on Ancient Hebrew but I think it is worth looking into and a study of it is essential to our understanding of the Bible. It is the Ancient Hebrew that we should be putting to the test to verify. I simply do not see the word "Trinity" in the Hebrew. If it was then you often could write a whole book just to explain ONE Hebrew word. Even though the Sages do not always agree with each other. The Talmud records over 300 differences of opinion between Beit Hillel (the House of Hillel) and Beit Shammai. We are told that Jesus seemed to follow the teaching of Hillel in the way He answered the questions that they asked Him.

One interesting point is that the Hebrews were in Egypt for quite a while. You would think that they would have been speaking Egyptian after all those years. Yet there is little or no trace of any Egyptian in the Pentateuch. The Ancient Hebrew language had been preserved in all of it's purity. Of course some people believe that a lot of Genesis was on clay tablets at the time of Moses and he then transferred or transposed them to the ancient Egyptians papyrus. So if there were original tablets before Moses we have not found them. Even we have clay tablets in other languages that goes back before Moses.

So we need a scientific study of the Ancient Hebrew. Not a study of things like "trinity" that is not even a word in the Greek much less the ancient Hebrew Pentateuch. Because Moses had ALL of God's plan of salvation and ALL of God's council. Others came along and explained it a lot better, but still you can find all of the Ancient words in the writings of Moses. (Also he used shadow and types. As every item in the Temple has significant meaning). So I want to know what word did Moses use or what shadow and type are we referring to. Then we can look at context and try to figure out what that word or symbol means. Even if we just study all the different ways they are used in the Bible.

One example is the first word in the Bible: Beginning. We see that beginning is also translated first-fruit. We know that the seed is in the fruit. So the beginning is when the tree produces fruit. Or is the beginning the beginning of the seed in the fruit? They say we are not Christians if we do not produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit in us: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, & Self Control. Yet it is the mature plant that produces fruit.

There is one tree in a seed. But how many seeds can a tree produce?

 

[joshua 1 9]

But you are saying that Faith is not needed. You are saying there is "proof" that "the Bible" is correct. So with proof, who needs faith? Faith is believing in the absence of proof.

Faith is a gift and a fruit. Either way it is a work of the Holy Spirit in us. We need God's divine holy and pure faith, not human faith. Even though human faith is abundantly productive. The placebo effect is based on human faith and it can be beneficial. Also positive thinking and the power of suggestion is all a part of humanity. Just as God has give us the ability to heal. Yet God's healing and God's faith goes beyond humanity and what people are able to do apart from God. There are gifts and abilities that God tests us in to see if we use what He has given us to bring Him honor and glory or not. This is what freedom and free will is all about. As they say we can not love unless we are free not to love. We are free to honor God or people can choose not to honor God. We have to decide, we have to make that decision. No matter how much people try to claim there is no evidence or we have no choice.

 

[joshua 1 9]

-

But you are saying that Faith is not needed. You are saying there is "proof" that "the Bible" is correct. So with proof, who needs faith? Faith is believing in the absence of proof.

1 Tim 2:4 says: "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth". So we are dealing with knowledge & truth here and what we are able to prove in the Bible. Of course there are things in the Bible we can not prove. I am just asking why people reject what we have scientific knowledge for. The agnostic says I have not seen enough evidence to convince me. But the atheist says I do not see your evidence. I am wondering why they do not see the evidence? I am trying to show it to them, yet they claim they do not see it.

Joshua, what I am seeing is confusion in your thoughts.

Actually your the one that is talking about two different things that really are not related. I am not here to promote faith. If someone asks a question about faith I will answer their question. My objective here is to talk about scientific evidence for the Bible. I suppose most of that evidence is going to be artifacts, but natural evidence like fossils are a part of the conversation also. I am just looking at what God has preserved for us to look at with a debt of gratitude to the men of science that work hard to diligently collect that evidence. So we have the Bible and we have the natural evidence that God provides for us. He does not contradict Himself.



You started out by saying "the Bible" is proved by science and archaelogy. Now you are talking about faith in Jesus. Jesus is not the Bible, and the Bible is not Jesus. We have information about Jesus in the Bible. Standard Christian theology is that the Bible helps us find Jesus so that we can have a personal relationship with him.

So, you need to ask yourself: what do I really believe? On one hand you say "Archeology and science has done an amazing job in the last 100 years coming up with rock solid scientific evidence for the Bible and there is NOTHING you can say or do that will change any of that." And you also said "I have spent years to verify what I believe is true." If both of those are the case, then you have proof and not faith, don't you?

I have both and I think we need both. If you want to have "hinds feet on high places" you better be pretty sure of yourself that you do not crash and burn. Some rock solid evidence maybe the best thing going for you. Often people confuse God's faith with human faith or positive thinking. I do not discount the one but it takes God's faith to walk on water. That is why Peter started to sink. He needed more of divinity and He needed more of God's faith in him. None of the other disciples wanted to climb out of the boat to see if they would sink or not. Only Peter wanted to get out and walk on the water.

You are talking "fact". After all, can't you "verify" the atomic weight of gold? or the age of the earth? You seem to be saying that you can verify the Resurrection. Or verify that Moses talked to the Burning Bush. Can you?

I can not verify the Resurrection. We do have scientific evidence for the Resurrection in the Shroud of Turin. As you say though Science is limited in this regard in what they are able to do. We know the resurrection power of God created the image on the Shroud but Science is limited in their understanding of the resurrection power of God at this point in time so they really do not have an instruments they can use to examine and study the effect on the shroud from this power and energy.

Perhaps your point is well taken though in that some degree of faith is needed. Perhaps you are right, they are not going to accept the evidence without faith. I can understand the agnostic, but I do not understand the atheist. It takes faith to reject the evidence and to try to claim that they is no resurrection. It is almost as if the atheist refuses to examine the evidence and the skeptic and scoffers what to pretend like the evidence does not exist.

But now you are saying it is faith (why the capital "Faith"?) that we are saved. What "faith" do you need if you have verified everything in the Bible? I don't accept the age of the earth on "faith", I accept it on the data. I accept evolution because of the data. Is that what you do for Jesus' and salvation? Accept them because of the "scientific evidence"? Or are you saved by faith in God and Jesus? Do you see the contradiction? You need to decide between those 2 alternatives.

If your talking about salvation then: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--". Faith is a part of getting saved but God's Grace is just as much a part of getting saved."

There are still benefits for people who are not saved. He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. There are benefits for people that live the Christian life even if they are not Christian and even if they are not saved. Although this is the one area I seem to disagree with Paul. He says if your not saved then you may as well eat, drink and be merry. For me though I think there is enough benefit in this life to eat right and to live a life of temperance. For one thing Science tells us that you will live at least 5 years longer if you live right and you will be more healthy.

 

[lucaspa]

Science maybe agnostic, but so far Science can show an abundant - overwhelming amount of evidence that the Bible is accurate and true. But the revisionists seems to be blind to the evidence and they keep talking about the lace of evidence or what often amounts to (as you say) the limits of science.

You are going to have to brief me on what the "overwhelming amount of evidence that the Bible is accurate and true". I already noted that archaeology will tell us that some of the history is true, but not the statements about God's existence. You seem to have skipped that.

I am not real big on the concept of Trinity.

OK. My point was Trinity was the result of the same hypothetico-deductive process that used by science. Your agreement with Trinity is irrelevant to the process by which Trinity was devised.

BTW, if you do not accept Trinity, then you are not a Christian. Sorry, but Trinity is an essential part of Christianity. You can be something else -- there have been other Christologies during history. Just not Christian.

Frances Collins calls DNA the language of God.

I need a quote for that, please. Is this some of that "overwhelming evidence" you were talking about? I suspect Collins is talking from his personal faith, not from science. He has every right to talk from his personal faith, but he should not (and I doubt he did) portray this as scientific "the Bible is accurate and true."

They Hebrew Sages and Scholars calls the Ancient Hebrew the Language of God. Now I am no expert on Ancient Hebrew but I think it is worth looking into and a study of it is essential to our understanding of the Bible. It is the Ancient Hebrew that we should be putting to the test to verify. I simply do not see the word "Trinity" in the Hebrew.

You do realize that the New Testament was written in Greek, right? Of course the OT (written in Hebrew) does not have Trinity. That is a concept that came after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. If you want some of the passages that led the Church Fathers to Trinity, they are: Mat 28:19 , John 1, John 6:27, John 10:30-33, John 13:13, Col 1 12-16, 1 Cor 8:6, Gal 1:1-3, Eph 6:23, Phil 2:11.

We are told that Jesus seemed to follow the teaching of Hillel in the way He answered the questions that they asked Him.

The only quote I know of where Jesus followed Hillel was the "Golden Rule". But that is in the OT. So both were following existing scripture. If you have other examples, please share.

One interesting point is that the Hebrews were in Egypt for quite a while. You would think that they would have been speaking Egyptian after all those years. Yet there is little or no trace of any Egyptian in the Pentateuch.

The Pentateuch (as we know it) comes from at least 3 traditions and was written down at the time of Ezra. By that time Hebrew was the established language. Perhaps earlier versions were originally written in Egyptian, but we don't have those.

So we need a scientific study of the Ancient Hebrew.

We have Hebrew! It has been preserved. It is a spoken and read language in all synagogues on Saturday (sabbath).

Not a study of things like "trinity" that is not even a word in the Greek much less the ancient Hebrew Pentateuch.

Trinity is a word in Greek. It is Τριάς. The Latin is Trinitas. The first use of the word was in 170 AD by Theophilus of Antioch, and he wrote in Greek.

Because Moses had ALL of God's plan of salvation and ALL of God's council.

Where did you get this idea? BTW, in Mark 10 and Matthew 14 Jesus says Moses got part of plan wrong. According to Jesus, Moses wrote Deut 2:1 on his own and got it wrong. So I'm really wondering where your claims about Moses are coming from.

One example is the first word in the Bible: Beginning. We see that beginning is also translated first-fruit. We know that the seed is in the fruit. So the beginning is when the tree produces fruit. Or is the beginning the beginning of the seed in the fruit? They say we are not Christians if we do not produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit in us: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, & Self Control. Yet it is the mature plant that produces fruit.

Talk about taking things out of context! Congratulations, you are totally guilty of that. "Beginning " is also translated as "beginning", so why are you putting a secondary meaning as the primary meaning in Genesis 1:1. The context is pretty clear the author(s) are not talking about first-fruit, but the beginning of Creation. Why are you making this much more obfuscated? Are you trying to make your own theology?

 

[lucaspa]

-

Lucaspa: "But you are saying that Faith is not needed. You are saying there is "proof" that "the Bible" is correct. So with proof, who needs faith? Faith is believing in the absence of proof."

1 Tim 2:4 says: "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth". So we are dealing with knowledge & truth here and what we are able to prove in the Bible. Of course there are things in the Bible we can not prove. I am just asking why people reject what we have scientific knowledge for.

So what exactly are you saying "we are able to prove in the Bible"? Please, give us a list. If that list includes the existence of Yahweh (specifically the Judeo-Christian deity rather than an unspecified deity, like ID claims), the Virgin Birth, the resurrection of Jesus, the forgiveness of sins, etc, then you have removed "faith" from faith.

Perhaps at this point it is worthwhile looking at the definition of "faith". In this context faith means:
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

Later on you say there is "proof" of the resurrection. If that is the case, then you don't need "faith" in it. You have "proof". You are providing "proof". If you have proof, then the "firm belief" no longer meets the definition of "faith".

So you need to decide: is Christianity a faith or is it proved, and thus "fact"? Right now you are trying to have it both ways, and you can't.

The agnostic says I have not seen enough evidence to convince me. But the atheist says I do not see your evidence. I am wondering why they do not see the evidence? I am trying to show it to them, yet they claim they do not see it.

1. Why are you trying? Why not let them be atheist?
2. There is no scientific evidence I am aware of that would prove the existence of any deity, much less Yahweh. As I said, science is agnostic. BTW, "agnostic" can also mean lack of evidence, not evidence that would convince them. Agnosticism is the "I do not know" position. You claim to have evidence that would let them "know".

I am not here to promote faith.

You just said in relation to atheists "But the atheist says I do not see your evidence. I am wondering why they do not see the evidence? I am trying to show it to them". If that is not "promote faith", then what do you think that is?

My objective here is to talk about scientific evidence for the Bible. I suppose most of that evidence is going to be artifacts, but natural evidence like fossils are a part of the conversation also. I am just looking at what God has preserved for us to look at with a debt of gratitude to the men of science that work hard to diligently collect that evidence. So we have the Bible and we have the natural evidence that God provides for us. He does not contradict Himself.

I would agree that God does not contradict Himself. Which is one reason why creationism is such bad religion. However, fossils and the other data from the physical universe does not provide unambiguous evidence for God's existence. Theists get the idea of God from outside science. With that idea to start with, then everything science discovers tells us how God created. But you can't start just from within science and reach a conclusion that God created. For instance, theists will start with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and then look at Big Bang as that beginning and the way God created spacetime and matter/energy. But you can't just look at Big Bang and then say "Big Bang proves God created." Why not? Because there are other possible causes for Big Bang than God.

lucaspa: You started out by saying "the Bible" is proved by science and archaelogy. Now you are talking about faith in Jesus. Jesus is not the Bible, and the Bible is not Jesus. We have information about Jesus in the Bible. Standard Christian theology is that the Bible helps us find Jesus so that we can have a personal relationship with him.

I have both and I think we need both.

You skipped my point: proving the Bible is not the same as faith in Jesus. I can prove by using history that a person named Yeshua ben Joseph lived, preached, and was executed in 1st century Palestine. That, however, is not the same a having faith that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior. After all, the Jews alive at the time knew Jesus but did not have faith in him as Son of God.

Once again, if you have scientific proof, then that is not faith. It's proof. Again, I do not have "belief in " evolution. I accept evolution because of the data. That acceptance is not faith. You are saying you have not only data of the existence of deity, but also data of the accuracy of Judeo-Christianity.

Often people confuse God's faith with human faith or positive thinking. I do not discount the one but it takes God's faith to walk on water. That is why Peter started to sink. He needed more of divinity and He needed more of God's faith in him.

Sorry, but that is not "God's faith". That is God's intervention in the physical universe. Sometimes called "miracle". Peter needed his (Peter's) faith in God. Without that faith, God refused to work the miracle. It was a test of Peter's (and the other disciples') faith, not God's. The other disciples so lacked faith that God would perform the miracle that they wouldn't even try! Peter at least tried, but did not have the faith.

I can not verify the Resurrection. We do have scientific evidence for the Resurrection in the Shroud of Turin. ... We know the resurrection power of God created the image on the Shroud

You just contradicted yourself again. You said "i can not verify the Resurrection" but then say "We do have scientific evidence for the Resurrection ..." That "scientific evidence" is verification. You actually think you have verification.

No, there is no scientific evidence of the Resurrection. It happened long ago and there is no evidence that has survived to today that we can test.

Which brings us to the Shroud of Turin. You are stating as fact something which is not fact: "we know the resurrection power of God created the image on the Shroud". We have lots of evidence about the Shroud. Lots of evidence the Shroud exists. BUT, the evidence that the image is due to the Resurrection has not shown up. Instead, the evidence to date shows it is a fraud, with the cloth dating to long after the time of Jesus. The Shroud of Turin as burial cloth of Jesus that shows the Resurrection has been falsified. Thus, you have no scientific evidence for the Resurrection.

Perhaps your point is well taken though in that some degree of faith is needed.

My point was that you are saying 2 contradictory things: there is scientific evidence (which requires no faith) and that faith is required. As I said, if you have the scientific evidence then that is not faith.

Now, I see part of the problem: you think the scientific evidence is different than it actually is. You think the scientific evidence shows that the Shroud of Turin is the image of Jesus burned into the cloth during the Resurrection. But that is NOT what the scientific evidence actually is. Instead, that is what apologists falsely claim the scientific evidence is. No wonder atheists don't accept it. Shoot, I'm a Methodist and I don't accept it.

Perhaps you are right, they are not going to accept the evidence without faith. I can understand the agnostic, but I do not understand the atheist. It takes faith to reject the evidence and to try to claim that they is no resurrection.

Atheists have a different set of evidence. But no, rejecting the "evidence" of the Shroud of Turin requires no faith. All you need is to look at the data. Which I have. I've read the papers on the scientific study of the Shroud.

If your talking about salvation then: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--". Faith is a part of getting saved but God's Grace is just as much a part of getting saved."

I'm a Methodist. Methodism stresses God's grace. But since your "proof" isn't, then our firm belief in God's existence, Jesus' Resurrection, forgiveness of our sins, etc, is faith.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So what exactly are you saying "we are able to prove in the Bible"? Please, give us a list.

Mostly I am talking about standing on the shoulders of the giants that have gone before us. Looking to the work of the men of faith and science and what they were able to accomplish. One example has to do with the Bible as history and how archaeology has shown the Bible to be very accurate as a history book. You can look at the area of Botany as we study the domestication of plants and animals. Along with the study of the beginning of civilization and the beginning of husbandry and agriculture. These are areas that Science can confirm that the Bible is accurate and true. One current area of study is evolutionary nutrition. Because the Bible does have guidelines for the food we should eat. Then we can look at modern science and all the research that goes into nutrition. We can look at natural selection and we can look at artificial selection. As you know that is a huge fight going on with Monsanto and GM plants and food. So you have a lot of different disciplines of study to look at when you want to know what is the most healthy diet for us to consume, the Bible is just one of the areas of study that we need to examine. It may look like there is a conflict. The Bible says that Israel was a land flowing with milk and honey. Yet honey is not good for diabetes, and milk is not good for heart disease. Honey and milk becomes a problem when they are consumed in excess. That is why we have a food pyramid and why we talk about serving portions and eating the right amount of the right food. For example low fat milk (yogurt) is a good source of calcium and this can help older people to keep their bones strong and resistant to breaking. As you know the plant takes the elements from the ground and the energy from the sun. We need to eat plants to survive and for our very substance. Science today has made a lot of progress compared to science in the day of Moses. Yet the Bible is still accurate and true and the Bible can still help us to establish a healthy diet. As much as Science is able to verify the dietary laws of the Bible we find that there is no conflict between Science and the Word of God as we receive it from Moses. This is an example. I do not know of any scientist anywhere that can not benefit from looking to see what the Bible says about their field of study. They can use the Bible to help them confirm what is accurate and what is true. That door swings both ways as their research should confirm that the Bible is accurate and true. Every generation has depended on the Bible and give us a testimony as to how accurate and true the Bible is. Now is is our turn in our generation. Only we are close to the end of the age and we are living in a time of great apostasy. One effect of the apostasy is revisionism, where people want to ignore the evidence. Not only the Bible but revisionists ignore science if it does not serve their objective. So both science and the Bible become fair game for them to try and corrupt. We are told: "To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted." 1Titus1:5

 

[joshua 1 9]

If that list includes the existence of Yahweh (specifically the Judeo-Christian deity rather than an unspecified deity, like ID claims), the Virgin Birth, the resurrection of Jesus, the forgiveness of sins, etc, then you have removed "faith" from faith.

I do not understand. Are you doing this on purpose. Each one of these subjects could easily fill a book. There is no reason to talk about ID because that teaching is not accepted. What I am talking about is the degree that Science is able to help us with each of these areas. Science may not have much to contribute to the conversation. Although ID does predate Darwin. He argues against ID. So in a classic sense we maybe able to talk about the history of ID.

Later on you say there is "proof" of the resurrection.

You want to do this again. Jesus was DEAD. It was the resurrection power of God that raised Jesus from the dead. That power created a image on the Shroud of Turin. We have the Shroud to examine. At one point in time Science did examine the Shroud with the instruments they had at the time. Many tons of instruments. Currently science does not have any instruments to examine and study the resurrection power of God. The proof is there in the Shroud. The evidence is there in the people that were dead and have been brought back to life. But science is limited and science has no way to examine that evidence. The proof is still there, we still have the shroud and we still have the image on the shroud. So you can not say that the proof does not exist. Well I guess people do deny the proof and the evidence. We are told in 1Titus1:5 that they deny the truth because their mind is corrupted.

If

that is the case, then you don't need "faith" in it. You have "proof". You are providing "proof". If you have proof, then the "firm belief" no longer meets the definition of "faith".

I do not know how many times I am going to have to repeat this but I am not talking about faith. I am talking about what we have actual scientific evidence for. We have scientific evidence for the city of Jericho that we read about in the Bible. We have scientific evidence for the walls of Jericho that we read about in the Bible. In fact the walls of Jericho are still sitting on the ground. I can show you a photo of the walls of Jericho sitting on the ground. We could have a discussion of what part of the wall fell and what did not fall.

People say: OK that is true, so what there is still a lot you can not prove. Because they are in a hurry to get your eyes off of the truth and get you to look at their lies and their deception.

So you need to decide: is Christianity a faith or is it proved, and thus "fact"? Right now you are trying to have it both ways, and you can't.

I am not talking about Church and what we accept by faith. I am talking about the practical application of the Bible and how men of science have been using the Bible to help them when they do research work. Men for at least the last 100 years. Even at the time of Darwin, he had a education in Science and he was taught the Bible. So men today need to learn how to apply the Bible to the research and the work they are doing. For the most part I think it is wonderful if people have faith and go to Church, but that is not what we are talking about.

My son needs 20 credits to graduate from High School. He just told me that he will have closer to 30 credits to graduate from High School. Those extra 10 credits are college credits. Now he is looking at the programs in college and he found out that he basicly has a years worth of college. He can accomplish in 4 years what should have taken 5. THIS IS MY POINT. My son is getting a better education in the public school then what he would have gotten if he were home schooled or in a private Christian School. I am willing to take a chance and sacrifice his Christian Bible education to take advantage of the free science education that the High School is paying for right now.

1. Why are you trying? Why not let them be atheist?

I am not really trying to defending the Bible, God does not need my help in that area. I am defending Science and their attack on Science and their denial of science. Of course I have very little training in Science so I am not really qualified. But I know enough to know that that the atheists are making a mockery of science to accomplish their objective.

As I said, science is agnostic.

Yes and I am fine with that because agnostic is honest. Lazy maybe but honest and they do not fight against the truth the way atheists do.

You just said in relation to atheists "But the atheist says I do not see your evidence. I am wondering why they do not see the evidence? I am trying to show it to them". If that is not "promote faith", then what do you think that is?

I am showing them the scientific based evidence, but it is never enough for them no matter how much you show them. They keep getting concerned about what we do not have evidence for.

I would agree that God does not contradict Himself. Which is one reason why creationism is such bad religion.

Christian creationism seems to be a disappointment if not a failure. For me the Jury is still out on Hebrew Creationism. I have lots of books but few of them are worth reading and most of them are a waste of time.

However, fossils and the other data from the physical universe does not provide unambiguous evidence for God's existence. Theists get the idea of God from outside science. With that idea to start with, then everything science discovers tells us how God created. But you can't start just from within science and reach a conclusion that God created. For instance, theists will start with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and then look at Big Bang as that beginning and the way God created spacetime and matter/energy. But you can't just look at Big Bang and then say "Big Bang proves God created." Why not? Because there are other possible causes for Big Bang than God.

There are still laws involved. God made us to reflect upon that. We were created with the ability to understand how God created the universe we live in. None of the other mammals have that ability there is something substantially different between all of Creation and us. Do animals really have freedom of Choice the way man does? I do not want to take anything away from what you are saying because you are off to a good start. This is something well worth developing. I can not prove that God gave us the fossil record. I am only telling people what I believe. God gave us the fossil record and God gave us the Bible. He gave us both and He can not contradict Himself. But of course I realize this is based on faith and there is no evidence or proof for God. Nor can there be. As soon as you prove God then you lose your freedom of choice. Maybe you lose some of your objectivity. We can only love if we have the freedom not to love. We can only choose to believe if we have the freedom not to believe. Do I need to explain this more?

You skipped my point: proving the Bible is not the same as faith in Jesus. I can prove by using history that a person named Yeshua ben Joseph lived, preached, and was executed in 1st century Palestine.

That is a lot, in fact that is all I am looking for. Maybe I should not be concerned with the people that do not believe this, but I am.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That, however, is not the same a having faith that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior. After all, the Jews alive at the time knew Jesus but did not have faith in him as Son of God.

Ok we know the benefit of human faith is well established. Now people need to decide if they want to go beyond what is humanly possible. That is their choice to make if they want more then what they currently have. Often as a act of desperation people will want to turn to God for help. This actually works out pretty good, as God says He will not disappoint those who trust in Him. So far science does not seem to be able to test for this. They just give very very slim odds of the chance something like this will happen. Of course the atheist don't care. Even if your chance or odds is one in a billion that is good enough for them.

Sorry, but that is not "God's faith". That is God's intervention in the physical universe. Sometimes called "miracle". Peter needed his (Peter's) faith in God. Without that faith, God refused to work the miracle. It was a test of Peter's (and the other disciples') faith, not God's. The other disciples so lacked faith that God would perform the miracle that they wouldn't even try! Peter at least tried, but did not have the faith.

This is good, if you can understand what we need to do in order to produce a miracle then you are closer to being able to produce a miracle under conditions that can be tested and verified.

You just contradicted yourself again. You said "i can not verify the Resurrection" but then say "We do have scientific evidence for the Resurrection ..." That "scientific evidence" is verification. You actually think you have verification.

IF we are going to be resurrected THEN the resurrection power of God needs to be working in our lives to prepare us for that day. Jesus talks about a Bride preparing herself for the Bridegroom. Without spot, blemish or wrinkle.

No, there is no scientific evidence of the Resurrection. It happened long ago and there is no evidence that has survived to today that we can test.

The shroud of Turn survived and the Catholic Church has it today. But I doubt if they will allow science to examine it again. They are worried that someone may try to clone Jesus with the DNA on the shroud.

Which brings us to the Shroud of Turin. You are stating as fact something which is not fact: "we know the resurrection power of God created the image on the Shroud". We have lots of evidence about the Shroud. Lots of evidence the Shroud exists. BUT, the evidence that the image is due to the Resurrection has not shown up. Instead, the evidence to date shows it is a fraud, with the cloth dating to long after the time of Jesus. The Shroud of Turin as burial cloth of Jesus that shows the Resurrection has been falsified. Thus, you have no scientific evidence for the Resurrection.

I have evidence. I believe they dated the patch on the shroud and not the material of the shroud itself. Either way science still can not verify that the image on the Shroud was created by the resurrection power of God.

Now, I see part of the problem: you think the scientific evidence is different than it actually is. You think the scientific evidence shows that the Shroud of Turin is the image of Jesus burned into the cloth during the Resurrection. But that is NOT what the scientific evidence actually is. Instead, that is what apologists falsely claim the scientific evidence is. No wonder atheists don't accept it. Shoot, I'm a Methodist and I don't accept it.

That is fine, your conclusion is different then mine, that is all. As a Methodist then maybe you now what John Wesley has to say about the resurrection.

I'm a Methodist. Methodism stresses God's grace. But since your "proof" isn't, then our firm belief in God's existence, Jesus' Resurrection, forgiveness of our sins, etc, is faith.

My wife is Methodist and our membership is in the Methodist church but we are not active there right now. She does love that church though.

 

[A greater Hope]

Most scientists would say that "science is a way of knowing".

 

[A greater Hope]

My understanding of what I see science to be today is this to them that give not God the Glory for the knowledge they have received to she arch things out, science to them is a stumbling block, and to those that do Glorify God in what knowledge he has given them it is unto edification of the manifestation of Gods mysterious and wonderful work of his hands, in whom I give praise.

 

[A greater Hope]

*search things out

 

[joshua 1 9]

The kicker, however, is whether, in your mind, all this is enough to show the Greek gods existed. Does all that archaeological evidence tell us that Athena, Apollo, Poseidon, and all the other Greek gods existed? Since you are Christian, I'm pretty sure your answer is "no". The exact same situation applies to archaeology and the Bible.

How does science deal with Greek mythology today? Jung and Fraud deals with it in terms of Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. If people wanted to deal with the Bible in the same way at least they are admiting that there is a reason why the Bible has been preserved for all these years and there must be some value to it. Just as the theist are people that walk in love for God and His written word. The atheist seems to walk in hatred toward the Bible. They constantly attack it and claim it is worthless and has no value at all. Yet the proof is in the pudding. The Bible would not still be around after 3500 years if people did not find something of value in it. Along the line of archetypes Walt Disney made a lot of money when he brought the old stories to a new audience in cartoon movie format.

I received more of a Classic education and now people are more concerned with science. Something seems to be getting lost along the way in that people just do not seem to have any appreciation for the classics they way they use to. When I was in school it was way to boring. Now it seems to be going in the other direction where they have a lot more to learn then ever before. So at least the students do not have to struggle with boredom as much today.

 

[joshua 1 9]

My understanding of what I see science to be today is this to them that give not God the Glory for the knowledge they have received to she arch things out, science to them is a stumbling block, and to those that do Glorify God in what knowledge he has given them it is unto edification of the manifestation of Gods mysterious and wonderful work of his hands, in whom I give praise.

The Bible says: "By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place;" This is why we can understand God's creation. Wisdom, knowledge and understanding is a part of it. Then He gives us wisdom, knowledge and understanding so that we can know how He created the universe that we live in.

 

[A greater Hope]

@Joshua19
I do agree thanks for biblical text I am not promoting science because man doesn't know everything but for those scientist that know The Lord and give him Glory for that knowledge they had receive it's unto edification but to exclude God from such knowledge of that what may be true which pertaining to science becomes a stumbling block to their destruction even denying the works of those things they see such as nature they perish in their folly,deceit,and unbelief.

 

[lucaspa]

Mostly I am talking about standing on the shoulders of the giants that have gone before us. Looking to the work of the men of faith and science and what they were able to accomplish. One example has to do with the Bible as history and how archaeology has shown the Bible to be very accurate as a history book.

You seem to keep ignoring that accuracy as history does not equate to accuracy about theology. Let me put this to you again: Archaeology has shown that the Iliad contains a lot of accurate history. Does that mean that the gods Apollo, Athena, Zeus, etc. exist? Why are you not worshipping them since you have a book that is accurate about the history and claims those gods were part of it?

You need to tell us what "very accurate" means. Having an inscription of "David" on a doorway does not tell us that David fought Goliath. The Israel described for David and Solomon is not accurate; archaelogists are convinced that such a wealthy kingdom was much later in Israel's history. That to me says "not accurate".

You can look at the area of Botany as we study the domestication of plants and animals. Along with the study of the beginning of civilization and the beginning of husbandry and agriculture. These are areas that Science can confirm that the Bible is accurate and true.

Please be more specific. What verses/chapters does science confirm are true? A generalization that says "science shows humans domesticated plants and animals" does not equate to "the Bible is true because it talks about domesticated plants and animals".

One current area of study is evolutionary nutrition. Because the Bible does have guidelines for the food we should eat.

And then the Bible changed all those guidelines, didn't it? C'mon, the NT removed all the dietary "laws" of the OT. So how does that fit with "evolutionary nutrition"? I don't see any scholarly articles linking the diet of our ancestors to anything in the Bible -- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=evolutionary+nutrition&btnG=&as_sdt=1,33&as_sdtp=. Perhaps you could point out such an article.

We can look at natural selection and we can look at artificial selection. As you know that is a huge fight going on with Monsanto and GM plants and food. So you have a lot of different disciplines of study to look at when you want to know what is the most healthy diet for us to consume, the Bible is just one of the areas of study that we need to examine.

Then why aren't any scientists examining it? Seems pretty superfluous to me.

It may look like there is a conflict. The Bible says that Israel was a land flowing with milk and honey. Yet honey is not good for diabetes, and milk is not good for heart disease. Honey and milk becomes a problem when they are consumed in excess.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. That is one of the most terrible and out-of-context exegeses I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few. Are you taking that phrase literally? WHY? OK, because you twist it to fit with your theses. But it's clear from context that God is taking the Hebrews to a land that is fertile and productive. It's a metaphor. And now you waste an entire paragraph digressing into food types because you can't read the Bible correctly and what it is trying to say.

Yet the Bible is still accurate and true and the Bible can still help us to establish a healthy diet.

You just spent several seconds telling us how the Bible provided an unhealthy diet!

As much as Science is able to verify the dietary laws of the Bible we find that there is no conflict between Science and the Word of God as we receive it from Moses.

Yes, there is. As just one example we now know that pork is OK to eat. So is shellfish. In the case of pork, all you need do is cook it enough.

I do not know of any scientist anywhere that can not benefit from looking to see what the Bible says about their field of study.

Really? Well I do tissue engineering/regenerative medicine with adult stem cells. What does the Bible say about that? BTW, astronomers were led astray for centuries because the Bible says in plain Hebrew that the earth does not move. It was one of the objections when Copernicus proposed heliocentrism. Come to that, geographers had to ignore the Bible because it teaches a flat earth. These passages led early Church fathers like Lactantius, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria to be flat-earthers. About 550 AD Cosmas Indicopleustes published Christian Topography that explicitly spelled out a flat earth. How well did that work out?

They can use the Bible to help them confirm what is accurate and what is true. That door swings both ways as their research should confirm that the Bible is accurate and true. Every generation has depended on the Bible and give us a testimony as to how accurate and true the Bible is.

You need to look at the first quote in my signature. You are engaging in Bibliolatry. God left us two books. You are telling us that everything has to fit just one of those books. What is more, you are trying to make the Bible a book of science. It's not. It is a book of theology. Whatever history or "science" is in there is only there to illustrate the theology.

Now I know what your sentences remind me of! The oath creation scientists were required to take:
"(1)The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired thruout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true " They even use "Word of God" like you do to refer to the Bible. Even though the Bible never refers to itself as "Word". "Word" capitalized in the Bible always refers to Jesus.

Not only the Bible but revisionists ignore science if it does not serve their objective.

I think this is what is called "projection" by psychologists. However, you not only ignore science (such as the scientific findings about the Shroud of Turin) but also the Bible when it is not serve YOUR objective. And you certainly corrupt the Bible with your inaccurate exegeses. Before you talk so much about "revisionists" and "corrupt", I suggest you remember another Biblical passage where Jesus talks about logs, dust motes, and eyes.

"To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted." 1Titus1:5

Let's look at this quote. First, there is no 1 Titus book. There is Titus. Second chapter 1, verse 5 says: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:"

It appears you are referring to verse 15. But let's look at the context. Paul isn't talking about "revisionists" or people today. Let's go back to verse 10 and take it from the top:
"For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments [emphases mine] of men who turn away from the truth."

See, Paul is faced (as he was faced elsewhere) with preachers preaching counter to Paul's. In this case, Cretans. It's about people of Paul's time, not meant to be applied beyond that instance. However, if you really want to apply Paul to today, look at that phrase I bolded. Aren't you telling us to pay attention to "Jewish myths and commandments"? Oh yes, you are insisting "the Bible" in the form of the Jewish dietary commandments, are to be used today.

 

[lucaspa]

How does science deal with Greek mythology today?

Nice red herring. I did not ask about how psychologists deal with them. How do YOU deal with it. I'm asking how you deal with them in light of your claim about archaeology showing "the Bible to be true". Do YOU believe the Greek gods are real. After all, the archeology of the Iliad is true. So why isn't it true about those gods?

Joshua, you can't make a claim like you did -- archaeology shows the Bible to be true -- and make it specific only to the Bible. That is the logical fallacy of Special Pleading.

The problem you made for yourself is that you are tying the archaeological truths to the theological truths. If the archaelogy shows the history to be true, then you are saying that Yahweh exists, created, etc. What I pointed out was that connection is not true. The Iliad is as old as the NT. It's been around for 2500 years too.

If people wanted to deal with the Bible in the same way at least they are admiting that there is a reason why the Bible has been preserved for all these years and there must be some value to it.

But that isn't the way YOU think the Bible has been preserved, do you? You don't think the Biblical characters and Yahweh are archetypes, do you? You think God, Moses, David, Jesus, etc. really exist/existed. So why do you think that instead of thinking Apollo, Zeus, Athena, etc. exist?

The Bible would not still be around after 3500 years if people did not find something of value in it.

And the Iliad is still around. Do you think the value of the Iliad is the same as the value of the Bible?

 

[lucaspa]

My understanding of what I see science to be today is this to them that give not God the Glory for the knowledge they have received to she arch things out, science to them is a stumbling block, and to those that do Glorify God in what knowledge he has given them it is unto edification of the manifestation of Gods mysterious and wonderful work of his hands, in whom I give praise.

Are you saying that scientists must give glory to God?

The thing about God's second book -- Creation -- is that it is open to everyone. Jew, Christian, Muslim, Jainist, Buddhist, Satanist, agnostic, atheist.

John Calvin, back in the 16th century, was quite willing to accept knowledge of Creation from anybody -- believer and unbeliever alike. He considered it "ingratitude" to disregard science simply because the discoveries came from unbelievers.

Science is not a "stumbling block". Francis Bacon realized a truth about science in 1608:
"It be impossible to deduce the truth of the Christian religion from the principles of the philosophers [scientists], and to confirm it by their authority." Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, lxxxix

Belief in Christianity comes from outside science. Christianity cannot be confirmed (or verified) from within science. I know, science is the most reliable knowledge we have. Therefore it becomes tempting for Joshua and others to try to get science to confirm Christianity and God's existence. OTOH, some atheists want science to confirm that God does not exist. In both cases this is a misuse and misunderstanding of science.

If you believe God exists for other reasons, then you can look on science as telling you how God created.

If you believe God does not exist for other reasons, then you can look on science as giving you an alternative for miracles and miraculous creation.

However, science will not tell you whether God exists or God created. As Eugenie Scott (former head of the National Center for Science Education and an atheist) has said: "both "God did it" and "God didn't do it" fail as scientific statements."
Science and Religion, Methodology, and Humanism, Eugenie C Scott, NCSE Executive Director; Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 15-17, Mar/Apr. 1998. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28074

 

[lucaspa]

accidental duplicate of previous post