Jump to content
IGNORED

There is no Faith vs. Science


leoxiii

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  53
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   24
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/26/2012
  • Status:  Offline

The problem I see here is that what you define "real" science does not correspond at all with science is about and what scientists do. You could call it "real" akjfcjhabcl and convey the same information.

True, there are things which are not repeatable in a lab because of their very nature. I see technical problems to repeat a Universe or the birth of a star. But is this sufficient to exclude them, because of their very nature, from scientific (methodologically naturalistic) inquiry? I doubt it.

The fact is that most of interesting things are not repeatable. I cannot possibly repeat the Roman Empire, but I can apply objective and scientific methods to assert, with a certain confidence, that persons like Julius Ceasar and Pontius Pilate are not just unfounded assumptions. Wouldn't you?

Sure, but the existence of these people have been witnessed and recorded by multiple witnesses. No human being has ever directly witnessed the creation of the universe or of the origin of life. What rule dictates that conjuring up scenarios is "real" science?

I cannot even repeat mundane things like lighnings, either. Nobody knows when and where the next lighning is going to strike. Nobody can zap meteorological lightnings at will. We do not even possess full knowledge of the physics underlying meteorological lighnings here and on other planets. Is that sufficient to infer that lighnings are definetely outside the scope of naturalistic science and that all we know about them are just unfounded assumprions? Is that really stupid to exclude the possibility that my ancestors might have been right, and that Thor is the originator of lighnings?

Okidoki. What evidence did Thor leave behind him? You claim that the stories about Thor have the same level of evidence as the Bible, right? Well let's do a little comparison.

Did these writings ever prophesy that Sweden would cease to be a nation and that its people would be dispersed throughout the world and be severely persecuted? Did Thor ever prophesy, dispite all this, and dispite the fact that no other race of people who were driven from their country for more than a hundred years or so ever returned to their country again, that the Swedes would return to Sweden after 2000 years. Did he ever say these kinds of things to the people of a nation having the size of Ã…ngermanland and surrounded entirely by hostile countries that they would reassemble like the scattered bones of a dead man:

"Prophesy to these bones and say to them, 'Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.' "

Did Thor say that in that kind of desparate situation they would not only prevail against their enemies, right under their noses he would make them prosper and make the desert land they live in thrive and flourish?

Did Thor prophesy in various ways by various authors living in various times and in various places that Olof Palme would be shot on the streets of Stockholm giving all kinds of details about how he would die and the reason that he did die? Did he leave a vast bread crumb trail of testimonies fortelling the events of Palme's life, his birth, his mission, his betrayer?

Did the words of Thor have such a powerful impact that they made believers of millions and millions of people? Do these people testify of countless personal miracles that they have witnessed themselves? Have you ever seen anyone shed tears of joy the moment that Thor has revealed himself to them? Has Thor ever answered any opf your prayers?

Has he ever revealed himself personally to you? Has he spoken to you privately and validated what he said to you in the form of concrete events?

Do you really think that normal, intelligent people believe in Christianity merely on the basis of some warm, fuzzy feeling? Think again girl! I am a witness to the fact that God actually does perform miracles and one of the MANY things that made me convert to Christianity was the fact that I saw with my own eyes the fact that this girl I knew just kept on getting her prayers answered. That, mind you, was just ONE of the things that turned me from being someone who held quite a lot of contempt for Christianity to someone who no longer has a shred of doubt that God not only exists, but also that he has set out a day when he will judge the world. If you knew what I knew and could experience the things that happened to me then your face would turn pale and your knees start to shake.

I could go on, but perhaps this will do for starters...

Get back to me with the list of things that validate Thors existence and perhaps we can make a deeper comparison.

Edited by Citizenship
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  75
  • Content Per Day:  0.02
  • Reputation:   3
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/10/2012
  • Status:  Offline

The problem is that you have repeated demonsteed that you are not really open to the evidence if presented. This is evidenced by nonsensical comparisons as if believing in God is like believing in Thor or the Easter Bunny or whatever. Those types of comparisons, meant to belittle faith in God, demonstrate that you have already pre-judged any objective evidence that could be presented as something you have no desire to examine in an honest way.

For all of your pontificating about "science" you have a very unscientific and rather subjective approach to your denial of the existence of God.

Kapow, kA-Blam.

Right, a perfect description of the evolutionists on this thread.

With only evolution to use as the basis of "ya ig'nurt science hatin' Christians" narrative, and still a complete absence of any science that contradicts Christian positions, despite spurious claims to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  944
  • Content Per Day:  0.22
  • Reputation:   170
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/05/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/20/1980

The problem I see here is that what you define "real" science does not correspond at all with science is about and what scientists do. You could call it "real" akjfcjhabcl and convey the same information.

True, there are things which are not repeatable in a lab because of their very nature. I see technical problems to repeat a Universe or the birth of a star. But is this sufficient to exclude them, because of their very nature, from scientific (methodologically naturalistic) inquiry? I doubt it.

The fact is that most of interesting things are not repeatable. I cannot possibly repeat the Roman Empire, but I can apply objective and scientific methods to assert, with a certain confidence, that persons like Julius Ceasar and Pontius Pilate are not just unfounded assumptions. Wouldn't you?

Sure, but the existence of these people have been witnessed and recorded by multiple witnesses. No human being has ever directly witnessed the creation of the universe or of the origin of life. What rule dictates that conjuring up scenarios is "real" science?

I cannot even repeat mundane things like lighnings, either. Nobody knows when and where the next lighning is going to strike. Nobody can zap meteorological lightnings at will. We do not even possess full knowledge of the physics underlying meteorological lighnings here and on other planets. Is that sufficient to infer that lighnings are definetely outside the scope of naturalistic science and that all we know about them are just unfounded assumprions? Is that really stupid to exclude the possibility that my ancestors might have been right, and that Thor is the originator of lighnings?

Okidoki. What evidence did Thor leave behind him? You claim that the stories about Thor have the same level of evidence as the Bible, right? Well let's do a little comparison.

Did these writings ever prophesy that Sweden would cease to be a nation and that its people would be dispersed throughout the world and be severely persecuted? Did Thor ever prophesy, dispite all this, and dispite the fact that no other race of people who were driven from their country for more than a hundred years or so ever returned to their country again, that the Swedes would return to Sweden after 2000 years. Did he ever say these kinds of things to the people of a nation having the size of Ã…ngermanland and surrounded entirely by hostile countries that they would reassemble like the scattered bones of a dead man:

"Prophesy to these bones and say to them, 'Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.' "

Did Thor say that in that kind of desparate situation they would not only prevail against their enemies, right under their noses he would make them prosper and make the desert land they live in thrive and flourish?

Did Thor prophesy in various ways by various authors living in various times and in various places that Olof Palme would be shot on the streets of Stockholm giving all kinds of details about how he would die and the reason that he did die? Did he leave a vast bread crumb trail of testimonies fortelling the events of Palme's life, his birth, his mission, his betrayer?

Did the words of Thor have such a powerful impact that they made believers of millions and millions of people? Do these people testify of countless personal miracles that they have witnessed themselves? Have you ever seen anyone shed tears of joy the moment that Thor has revealed himself to them? Has Thor ever answered any opf your prayers?

Has he ever revealed himself personally to you? Has he spoken to you privately and validated what he said to you in the form of concrete events?

Do you really think that normal, intelligent people believe in Christianity merely on the basis of some warm, fuzzy feeling? Think again girl! I am a witness to the fact that God actually does perform miracles and one of the MANY things that made me convert to Christianity was the fact that I saw with my own eyes the fact that this girl I knew just kept on getting her prayers answered. That, mind you, was just ONE of the things that turned me from being someone who held quite a lot of contempt for Christianity to someone who no longer has a shred of doubt that God not only exists, but also that he has set out a day when he will judge the world. If you knew what I knew and could experience the things that happened to me then your face would turn pale and your knees start to shake.

I could go on, but perhaps this will do for starters...

Get back to me with the list of things that validate Thors existence and perhaps we can make a deeper comparison.

Amen brother. God is good and we love him.

Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  2
  • Content Per Day:  0.00
  • Reputation:   0
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/19/2012
  • Status:  Offline

As God is the Author of both Faith and Science, there cannot be any contradiction between the two. What does create a conflict is misplaced Faith and bad Science. The controversy today basically boils down to atheism vs. theism. Been going on since the Garden of Eden.

Question: What has Science actually proven empirically that goes against the Christian Faith?

No, if fact science is proving the truth of the Bible every day. The scientists say there was a super continent before plate tetonics broke it up- so, the scriptures in Genesis say that God gathered the water together in one place and dry land appeared: Think about it-if the water was gathered together in one place isn't it reasonable to believe that the land was gathered together in one place. In Job it says that God hangs the Earth upon nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  2
  • Content Per Day:  0.00
  • Reputation:   0
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/19/2012
  • Status:  Offline

As God is the Author of both Faith and Science, there cannot be any contradiction between the two. What does create a conflict is misplaced Faith and bad Science. The controversy today basically boils down to atheism vs. theism. Been going on since the Garden of Eden.

Question: What has Science actually proven empirically that goes against the Christian Faith?

No, if fact science is proving the truth of the Bible every day. The scientists say there was a super continent before plate tetonics broke it up- so, the scriptures in Genesis say that God gathered the water together in one place and dry land appeared: Think about it-if the water was gathered together in one place isn't it reasonable to believe that the land was gathered together in one place. In Job it says that God hangs the Earth upon nothing.

Also does it say in Ecclesastes(not sure if my spelling) that there is no new thing under the sun? If a person bring you something and says look what I have done; it have been done before(paraphrase).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome~!

~

As God is the Author of both Faith and Science, there cannot be any contradiction between the two. What does create a conflict is misplaced Faith and bad Science. The controversy today basically boils down to atheism vs. theism. Been going on since the Garden of Eden.

Question: What has Science actually proven empirically that goes against the Christian Faith?

No, if fact science is proving the truth of the Bible every day. The scientists say there was a super continent before plate tetonics broke it up- so, the scriptures in Genesis say that God gathered the water together in one place and dry land appeared: Think about it-if the water was gathered together in one place isn't it reasonable to believe that the land was gathered together in one place. In Job it says that God hangs the Earth upon nothing.

Also does it say in Ecclesiastes (not sure if my spelling) that there is no new thing under the sun? If a person bring you something and says look what I have done; it have been done before(paraphrase).

Amen~!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  53
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   24
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/26/2012
  • Status:  Offline

If you have a problem with science being solely concerned with natural explanations you have a problem with the scientific method.

Who said I had a problem with that?

I think I pointed out quite clearly, if not in my responses to you then to Viole, exactly what I have a problem with. I don't want to keep repeating myself.

What I mean is that an old Earth and evolution have been accepted in the scientific community for a hundred plus years now with virtually no opposition.

No opposition? Where on earth did you get that idea from? The fact that the "opposition" is not getting the same media attention as evolution does not mean that it does not exist. There are many reasons to reject the belief in an old earth. Here are a few:

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

If you go and write a paper on why evolution is true or why the Earth is old and present it to the scientific community they will laugh at you; they will say 'we've known about that since before I was born, what else do you have?'

If they said that then they would be lying. No one "knows" the age of the earth and evolution has never been observed. And if you think that what scientists laugh at is any indication of what science is all about then I think you should reconsider your approach to it. Scientists have "laughed" all through out history, haven't they?

Creationists often use improper dating techniques

Often? You name ONE creationist and then turn that into a sweeping statement about creationists in general. Do you want me to go through all the hoaxes, deceptions, ignorant statements and foolish mistakes made by evolutionists down through the years and put the same label on them as you do on creationists?

And Hovind never made the claim that carbon dating a living animal would produce a "proper" date. He merely used this as one example of how inconsistent carbon dating can be. Now I don't want to accuse you of being deceptive about this, so let's settle for ignorant in this case.

Creationists are also infamous in the scientific community for coming up with statements about dissension from Darwin or evolution, and equivocating the statement to scientists in order for them to sign it even though they fully accept evolution. Even when scientists ask for their names to be removed once they figure it out, creationists rarely comply. Expelled from Ben Stein is another example of this, they lied to scientists about the documentary that they were doing, and Expelled did massive editing of the interviews before compiling it into the movie. Expelled is more than just bad science, it is bad journalism to the bone. Then you have the Dover Trial, where the school-board creationists lied to courts in the name of creationism, and the deception of those creationists who made the textbook to hide religious tones under the guise of "ID" as a scientific theory in order to make ID legal to teach in the classroom.

I am not asking your for a list of incidents that have occurred in court rooms and that concern the education system and so on. There will always be a battle for power when two ideologies clash and I am not about to get into a discussion about issues that are more political than they are scientific.

What I want you to do is explain what you mean by "ignorance" as far as science is concerned, because that is the central issue in this debate. Your oppinion, as someone who is clearly on the side of the evolutionist camp, is totaly unimportant to me.

I have met dozens of creationists that don't like the scientific method whether they realize it or not as most people, regardless of belief, don't understand the scientific method or science in general.

Well that's funny, because as I said, in all the years and years of following this debate almost on a daily basis I have never come across any such dislike of the scientific method. And you say you have met "dozens"! What did they say to you? "Gee, I don't like the scientific method"?

You are saying way too many things here that you make very little effort in backing up.

Evolution is not an embarrassment to science no matter how you look at, it has been through the trial of fire by scientists and philosophers of science, and has survived. It makes sense of the facts in a coherent and comprehensive model, as well as multiple predictions that come to pass. There is no failure of evolution as a scientific theory.

How hard is it for a theory to survive that is practically impossible to falsify and that moves the goal posts as soon as it encounters anything that challenges it?

How hard is it for a theory to survive when it makes its predictions after the fact?

How hard is it for a theory to survive when practically everything is considered evidence of evolution?

Examples of fossils supposedly showing gradual changes is evidence of evolution, sudden changes is evidence of evolution (punctuated equalibrium). Huge morpholicical changes is evidence of evolution, stasis is evidence of evolution. Diversity is evidence, similarity is evidence.

Evolution is the most slippery bar of soap in the bathtub of science.

Edited by Citizenship
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  53
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   24
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/26/2012
  • Status:  Offline

Of couse not, since nothing of the sort happened to Sweden. If it had prophesized that, you would have a point. But he knew that it would not happen, and that is why he did not say anything of the sort

I think that's beside the point, but OK, did Thor make any prophesy at all about Sweden? About any other country? ... about anything at all?

If you are referring to Jesus, you first need to provide evidence that what happened in the NT is factual. As I said, written books do not provide that sort of evidence. If what happened on the NT had extraordinary evidence, we would not have this discussion and everybody would be a Christian, obviously.

You misunderstand. I am not trying to prove that Jesus was "factual". You cannot even prove that the nose on your face is "factual" so where does that leave us? I am laying out the evidence of Christianity and comparing it with the evidence of Thor.

Yes, and the words of Allah have such a powerful impact on millions and millions of people. Some of them even fly airplanes into buildings. Is this sort of emotional and pious committment indicative of any factual truth? I doubt it.

I merely presented the "effect" as one of several things. Isolating it by itself is insufficient. But I would like to suggest that the "effect" that Islam has on people is just as spiritually based as the effect of Christianity. The question is what "spirit" drives people on one hand to allow themselves to be tortured and killed for the sake of their faith, and what "spirit" drives people to torture and kill others on behalf of their faith. No I realise that this will probably invite you to start pointing out autracities on the "Christian" side, but I am prepared to take that chance.

I thought He did. But, again, personal and subjective experiences do not provide evidence, even if they happened to me. My Hindu friend speaks with Vishnu every day. You will say that he cannot be believed, but why should we believe you, then?

Well, let's hear what evidence that your friend has for the existence of Vishnu. Perhaps we could make a comparison.

Whether anyone believes what I say is up to them. All I can do is testify to what I have experienced. Someone who wants to reject a testimony will do so no matter what. But if you want we could make a comparison between what I have seen and experienced and what your friend has. Statistically they would be pretty similar I suppose, so why don't you get your friend to jot them down and we can take a look.

Sorry, anedoctal stories do not provide the necessary extraordinary evidence. If that girl really had all her prayers answered, then I wonder why she is not very famous. Why did not she pray for a year without starving children in Africa, for instance? if I had that power, it would be the first thing I would pray for. And I am not so easily impressionable. Think again, boy

This is twisting my words a little. I never said that she could pray for anything and get what she prayed for. All I am saying that the answers to her prayers were one of the things that conquered by skepticism, so there is no need for sarcasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  8
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  195
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   24
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/10/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/25/1993

And Hovind never made the claim that carbon dating a living animal would produce a "proper" date. He merely used this as one example of how inconsistent carbon dating can be. Now I don't want to accuse you of being deceptive about this, so let's settle for ignorant in this case.

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
If you are referring to Jesus, you first need to provide evidence that what happened in the NT is factual. As I said, written books do not provide that sort of evidence.

The Bible does provide very compelling evidence. The problem has never been about a lack of evidence. The problem is that some people refused to be convinced and no amount of evidence will convince a person who is unwilling to be convinced or at least go in the direction the evidence leads.

If what happened on the NT had extraordinary evidence, we would not have this discussion and everybody would be a Christian, obviously.

There is extraordinary evidence, and much of it comes in the form of changed lives and people who have experienced the power of God first hand. When faced with extraordinary evidence, you write it off as "anecdotal." No evidence can be presented to you because you will erect any barrier to evidence that you can.

Your claims are without intellectual merit on the grounds that firstly, there is no truth to your claims of no evidence, and because you are not really honest about the evidence if and when it is provided. You can't be trusted to actually approach the evidence in a fair and honest manner. That is why you have to resort to silly little comments about Thor and other such nonsense.

Yes, and the words of Allah have such a powerful impact on millions and millions of people.
no, they don't. Your comparison has no intellectual or practical merit and only demonstrate that you are not intellectually equipped to evaluate or speak on Islam. The dynamics of the Islamic religion are entirely different in substance than Christianity. Trying to prove your point by such erroneous comparisons serves only to make you a laughingstock.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...