Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
gluadys said:TEs don't try to explain the resurrection of Jesus using physics. We recognize this is a miracle that transcends physics.
Apparently you are making judgments about TE on the basis of false information.
gluadys said:Pure Enlightenment reasoning. This is how the philosophers of the Enlightenment narrowed the meaning of 'truth'. This is the basis of materialistic thinking. The logical conclusion of such thinking is atheism, for there is no factual basis for believing in the existence of God or any conclusion that flows from the existence of God.
If this was correct Jesus lied when he told Thomas "Blessed are those who do not see, yet believe." And the writer of Hebrews lied when he said "Faith is the evidence of things not seen."
ThaiDuykhang said:Don't switch side. always keep in mind you're a TE
what you're ridiculing is "If something can't be (scientifically) proved then it's not truth" which is the belief of TEs.
Something is true not because one has seen it or proved it. that's my point. you end up with a misunderstanding and bashing your own side. I accept Creation is a miracle and can't be explained by physics (alone). it can be explained by approaching God with love.
Modern Creationism("Intelligent Design") takes a scientific form by allowing it to be falsified. If someone can prove there're some idiotic features of a species then it's falsified. but so far no one can do it. the conclusion is the same we don't come from evolution.gluadys said:And that is the difference between ancient creationism and modern creationism. Modern creationism does claim to be scientifically true and has been seeking entrance into the science curriculum.
First, this is addressed to ebia, not all TEs, however if your understanding of Bible is the same as ebia, consider yourself also apply.gluadys said:Why do you see doubt where there is none?
What conclusion can you draw from falsehood? If TE is true, then the process described in Genesis is false, remember.gluadys said:Genesis is true for us; just not factual history.
no scientist can claim evolution is proved beyond doubt. evolution is like phrenology in 19th century.gluadys said:What is received by faith is considered true without supporting evidence from the physical world. Remember what Jesus told Thomas.
Just one question, according to GR, their conclusion and Bible's statements that earth is motionless and the center of universe is right or wrong?gluadys said:Irrelevant. The ancient and medieval philosophers and theologians who believed the earth was motionless and that the bible supported this belief were not using a framework of General Relativity. They believed the earth was absolutely motionless and that this was a biblical teaching.
How was it possible for them to be fooled by the bible for so long?
never mind, Why God inspired non-factual falsehood in the Bible? Why God doesn't make the Bible reads "God caught an ape and give it an eternal soul to make it a human"?gluadys said:God is not the author of the bible. God is the one who inspired the authors.
When reading Bible, you assume you knows some hidden knowledge God doesn't want you to know. you assume God deliberately hide evolution from you in the Bible(if not answer the question above).gluadys said:And I am not criticising God or the bible. It is you--or rather your interpretation--of the bible that I am criticizing. Do you know what 'hubris' means?
Whenever he claims humans comes from apes instead directly made by God out of dust. it's theologicalgluadys said:Because he wrote no theological works about his scientific theories.
fragmentsofdreams said:Truth doesn't need to have empirical proof, but empirical evidence and truth cannot contradict.
The most important truths cannot be empirically tested.
fragmentsofdreams said:Are parables true? Yes.
Are parables historical? No.
ThaiDuykhang said:When Bible itself or Bible by quoting Jesus' words tell you it's a parable, then it's not a historical fact. When not, by what authority you declare the Bible or part of it is a parable?
fragmentsofdreams said:Generally parables are clearly noted, but the point is that something can be true without being historical.
Myth is not a bad word.
ThaiDuykhang said:If TE is true, then you can't draw any conclusion from God took a rib out of Adam and make it into Eve. thus Catholic Church's teaching on marriage and divorce is void.
fragmentsofdreams said:No, it isn't. The spiritual truths of human nature are true regardless of how they came to be.
You are incorrect. Neither of those prove a conclusion is wrong. They refute the reasoning that arrived at the conclusion, but they do not prove the conclusion is wrong.ThaiDuykhang said:There're only 2 valid ways to prove a conclusion wrong: 1. the logic is wrong 2. evidence or assumption is wrong. marriage/divorce belong to the later.
No. It's logic. Logic is a tool that science uses, but using logic doesn't make it science any more than my using a spanner makes me a plumber.You like science and this is science.
ThaiDuykhang said:There're only 2 valid ways to prove a conclusion wrong: 1. the logic is wrong 2. evidence or assumption is wrong. marriage/divorce belong to the later.
You like science and this is science.
You still haven't shown me how to prove a conclusion wrong other than the 2 method. evidence + logic = conclusion. what else?ebia said:You are incorrect. Neither of those prove a conclusion is wrong. They refute the reasoning that arrived at the conclusion, but they do not prove the conclusion is wrong.
There are, however, a variety of ways to prove a conclusion wrong. And if the conclusion is wrong and it is a result of deductive reasoning then either the logic must have been wrong, or the evidence must have been wrong.
ebia said:To cut a long story short, you've got the whole thing backwards.
No. It's logic. Logic is a tool that science uses, but using logic doesn't make it science any more than my using a spanner makes me a plumber.
If you think God isn't trying to teach truth in Genesis, I don't know what to say.fragmentsofdreams said:I don't know how to explain this better if you don't understand how a myth can teach truth.
artybloke said:By what authority do you declare the Bible or part of it factual?
Premise 1: My dog has a noseThaiDuykhang said:anything logically wrong can't be factually right
Amen, you are correct. And that is why He gave us the witness of the Bible, the witness of His Creation, and the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit to help us to discern the truth that both reveal.ThaiDuykhang said:By God is love and He doesn't want us to misunderstand Him
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?