Science and Bible proves man made of the dust of the ground.

[Tristen]

46 minutes ago, Bonky said:

The point I was getting at was that you were essentially alluding to the idea that the natural world doesn't offer us enough answers [alone at least] to satisfy these great mysteries we have.  I'm saying we don't even know enough about the natural world to make this kind of claim.  You have no problem speaking of the Universe as a deep, dark, mysterious place that could be full of unknown wonders [speed of light/decay rate fluxuations] but in this context suddenly the natural world is limited and lame.

When it comes to mystical, religious, supernatural explanations I don't trust us humans to navigate any such thing whatsoever.  All we have is essentially speculation.  These views come in every sort of flavor, color, shape and size the world over.  Doesn't that kind of tell us we really don't have a clue?  So I get the idea of pondering these things or speculating, but building a foundation on this view that is then made "infallible" is just too much.   

“in this context suddenly the natural world is limited and lame”

I think “the natural world” is awesome, but observations of “the natural world” can only directly inform us about current, natural phenomena (given the faith premise that we can trust observation). Which is just to say that the Scientific Method has limited scope. If we assume this is the only valid way to to investigate and attain knowledge, then we artificially restrict reality to observation – when there are other, logically possible, options available.

Making claims about either the past or the supernatural requires a starting position of faith, then applying that faith to the facts – because the facts themselves don't tell us about either history or the supernatural until interpreted to do so.

 

“When it comes to mystical, religious, supernatural explanations I don't trust us humans to navigate any such thing whatsoever.”

I respect that, and would always encourage you to look into the various models for yourself (as I once did). Just because some answers aren't empirically available to us, doesn't mean we can't find them. Since faith is required to trust observation itself, even those answers we find empirically rely on faith.

The Biblical model claims that you can have personal access to the Creator if you seek Him sincerely – and that there is enough (in His estimation) information in His creation to warrant such a search. That is, the model provides for God Himself providing you with confidence in His reality if you are open to Him. That is something you can test for yourself. My concern is that you are using our ultimate reliance on faith as an agnostic excuse to not look.

 

“All we have is essentially speculation”

Faith and “speculation” are just different levels of non-empirical confidence. I believe I can rationally support my faith through consistency between the facts and the Biblical model. But the claims still require faith at the end of the day.

 

“views come in every sort of flavor, color, shape and size the world over. Doesn't that kind of tell us we really don't have a clue?”

That is one way to interpret them. The existence of multiple faiths perspectives is perfectly consistent with the Biblical model of reality.

 

“So I get the idea of pondering these things or speculating, but building a foundation on this view that is then made "infallible" is just too much.”

The concept of Biblical inerrancy is built into the faith premise, not subsequent to it. If, as we believe, God is real and the Bible is His revealed communication, then it is inerrant in the autographic manuscripts. It's just a matter of logical consistency – a perfect, omniscient God doesn't make mistakes.

 

[Bonky]

12 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I think “the natural world” is awesome, but observations of “the natural world” can only directly inform us about current, natural phenomena (given the faith premise that we can trust observation). Which is just to say that the Scientific Method has limited scope. If we assume this is the only valid way to to investigate and attain knowledge, then we artificially restrict reality to observation – when there are other, logically possible, options available.

Making claims about either the past or the supernatural requires a starting position of faith, then applying that faith to the facts – because the facts themselves don't tell us about either history or the supernatural until interpreted to do so.

I wasn't rehashing the speed of light stuff, I was stating that considering our perspective in the Universe...finding the natural world insufficient to account for X or Y is a bit odd.  We don't know what we don't know.

15 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I respect that, and would always encourage you to look into the various models for yourself (as I once did). Just because some answers aren't empirically available to us, doesn't mean we can't find them. Since faith is required to trust observation itself, even those answers we find empirically rely on faith.

The Biblical model claims that you can have personal access to the Creator if you seek Him sincerely – and that there is enough (in His estimation) information in His creation to warrant such a search. That is, the model provides for God Himself providing you with confidence in His reality if you are open to Him. That is something you can test for yourself. My concern is that you are using our ultimate reliance on faith as an agnostic excuse to not look.

Actually I came out of Christianity into agnosticism.  The world view I was given from Kindergarten on up was that the Bible was 100% true like it was a divine news paper.  Around the age of 30 I ended up a slow journey of leaving the faith.  I didn't find anything.  I did try though.

18 minutes ago, Tristen said:

That is one way to interpret them. The existence of multiple faiths perspectives is perfectly consistent with the Biblical model of reality.

My comment wasn't aimed at the Bible, it was aimed in general at all views which incorporate beings and powers and realities that are not of this world.   There's no end to the noise because there's nothing to stop someone from dreaming up whatever and it catching on.  It's depressing to me that Mormonism took off at all.  

25 minutes ago, Tristen said:

The concept of Biblical inerrancy is built into the faith premise, not subsequent to it. If, as we believe, God is real and the Bible is His revealed communication, then it is inerrant in the autographic manuscripts. It's just a matter of logical consistency – a perfect, omniscient God doesn't make mistakes.

You weren't born with this faith premise.  You somehow determined or decided that the contents of the Bible are infallible.   Given the nature of the Bible [ancient historical claims] any goal posts can be moved around to keep it "infallible".  

[HAZARD]

24 minutes ago, Bonky said:

I wasn't rehashing the speed of light stuff, I was stating that considering our perspective in the Universe...finding the natural world insufficient to account for X or Y is a bit odd.  We don't know what we don't know.

Actually I came out of Christianity into agnosticism.  The world view I was given from Kindergarten on up was that the Bible was 100% true like it was a divine news paper.  Around the age of 30 I ended up a slow journey of leaving the faith.  I didn't find anything.  I did try though.

My comment wasn't aimed at the Bible, it was aimed in general at all views which incorporate beings and powers and realities that are not of this world.   There's no end to the noise because there's nothing to stop someone from dreaming up whatever and it catching on.  It's depressing to me that Mormonism took off at all.  

You weren't born with this faith premise.  You somehow determined or decided that the contents of the Bible are infallible.   Given the nature of the Bible [ancient historical claims] any goal posts can be moved around to keep it "infallible".  

Sorry you drifted away from Christianity. The Bible is not a book of ancient historical claims and any goal posts in it cannot be moved by anyone. Many try and many do according to their pet theories and personal interpretation of it. Not one book in the entire world has ever been made to come together over such a long period of time and by so many different authors from many different countries, most never ever having known each other or met each other.Over forty different authors wrote the sixty six books of he Bible during a period of 1,800 years; and their writings, when brought together, all had one theme.

The creation and redemption of the human race by God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

These books of the Bible were written by men from all walks of life such as Kings, Priests, Judges, lawyers, Princes, Shepherds, Soldiers, Courtiers, Statesmen, Musicians, Inventors, Singers, Poets, Preachers, Prophets, Fishermen, Farmers, Tentmakers, Publicans, Physicians, Rich men and Poor men. They were written in various lands of three continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa. They were written in different ages and by many men, some who never saw each other or knew what the others wrote on the same subjects, yet when their writings were all assembled into one book, there is not one contradiction among them.

Who but God alone could divinely inspire men to bring such a handbook for man together.

Suppose forty medical men, each in a different land and age, would write just forty books on how to cure a disease, what kind of cure would such a collection make? How much unity would one find among their writings?

Collect together forty books of man on any subject and one will find many contradictions and controversies among the authors.  I say again, who but a divine author could produce such a work through men?

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, Bonky said:

I wasn't rehashing the speed of light stuff, I was stating that considering our perspective in the Universe...finding the natural world insufficient to account for X or Y is a bit odd.  We don't know what we don't know.

Actually I came out of Christianity into agnosticism.  The world view I was given from Kindergarten on up was that the Bible was 100% true like it was a divine news paper.  Around the age of 30 I ended up a slow journey of leaving the faith.  I didn't find anything.  I did try though.

My comment wasn't aimed at the Bible, it was aimed in general at all views which incorporate beings and powers and realities that are not of this world.   There's no end to the noise because there's nothing to stop someone from dreaming up whatever and it catching on.  It's depressing to me that Mormonism took off at all.  

You weren't born with this faith premise.  You somehow determined or decided that the contents of the Bible are infallible.   Given the nature of the Bible [ancient historical claims] any goal posts can be moved around to keep it "infallible".  

“I was stating that considering our perspective in the Universe...finding the natural world insufficient to account for X or Y is a bit odd”

If I understand what you're saying, it's a simple matter of logic. Current observations of the natural universe can only ever inform us as to the current state of the natural universe. We can speculate/hypothesise/theorise what events caused those facts to be currently in existence, but the facts themselves don't give us that information. That speculation requires that we read unverifiable assumptions into the facts. There is no reason beyond personal bias to consider one unverifiable assumption any more valid than another. Neither the naturalistic or theistic history of the universe was naturally observed, so neither can objectively declare rational superiority.

 

“We don't know what we don't know.”

I know “We don't know what we don't know”.

 

“Actually I came out of Christianity into agnosticism. The world view I was given from Kindergarten on up was that the Bible was 100% true like it was a divine news paper. Around the age of 30 I ended up a slow journey of leaving the faith. I didn't find anything. I did try though. ”

I'm not going to presume to tell you why you haven't found God yet. All I know is I did find Him, coming from a secular upbringing. I know it is meaningless to present that as an evidence outside of myself, but it is an evidence within my own experience. What that practically means for conversations like ours is, I have an evidence that I can't reasonably present, and you don't have an opportunity to consider or counter.

Agnostic faith places limits on what can and cannot be known - and so I think places artificial logic filters restricting any attempt to find God. Biblical Christianity makes logical provision for God revealing Himself to whom He chooses.

 

“My comment wasn't aimed at the Bible, it was aimed in general at all views which incorporate beings and powers and realities that are not of this world. There's no end to the noise because there's nothing to stop someone from dreaming up whatever and it catching on”

And I agree. Anyone can make up anything. But that doesn't mitigate the possibility of one being true.

 

“You somehow determined or decided that the contents of the Bible are infallible.”

I'd use the term 'reliable', rather than “infallible”. But the reliability of scripture is all part of the same premise of the Bible being God's Word.

 

“Given the nature of the Bible [ancient historical claims] any goal posts can be moved around to keep it "infallible".”

People who are secure and sincere in their faith don't permit themselves that luxury. But since all unobservable claims are unfalsifiable, that is a possibility for all such claims.

[Bonky]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

“I was stating that considering our perspective in the Universe...finding the natural world insufficient to account for X or Y is a bit odd”

If I understand what you're saying, it's a simple matter of logic. Current observations of the natural universe can only ever inform us as to the current state of the natural universe. We can speculate/hypothesise/theorise what events caused those facts to be currently in existence, but the facts themselves don't give us that information. That speculation requires that we read unverifiable assumptions into the facts. There is no reason beyond personal bias to consider one unverifiable assumption any more valid than another. Neither the naturalistic or theistic history of the universe was naturally observed, so neither can objectively declare rational superiority.

That sounds about right but let me run something by you.  This is more of an analogy as my example doesn't concern the nature of the Universe but a natural observation within it.   We don't exactly understand why some animals migrate.  They just seem to know what to do but we don't know what tells them this.  I'm sure there are naturalistic speculations as to how this works.  Would you say "Angels tell them where to go" is rational?  

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Agnostic faith places limits on what can and cannot be known - and so I think places artificial logic filters restricting any attempt to find God. Biblical Christianity makes logical provision for God revealing Himself to whom He chooses.

From my experience Cavlanism almost makes sense.  Maybe I'm not one of the elect.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Given the nature of the Bible [ancient historical claims] any goal posts can be moved around to keep it "infallible".”

People who are secure and sincere in their faith don't permit themselves that luxury. But since all unobservable claims are unfalsifiable, that is a possibility for all such claims.

What is your take on Romans 1:20 based on our conversation.   I see that verse used over and over to say that there is no other logical option but the theistic one.   Our discussion seems to indicate it's not that cut and dry.

Merry Christmas by the way.

Edited December 27, 2017 by Bonky

[Kevinb]

On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:

“Faith as defined is.. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof - wiki Or Hebrews 11.1 faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see - bible. ”

The first definition is incorrect (as one might expect from a wiki). The second definition is correct. Faith is confidence in a claim for which no direct observation exists.

They amount to the same thing...religious belief without proof. Even if you want to stick with the later... it's hope without what's not seen.... or observations . Do you honestly think that's a good pathway to truth.... what I hope for and have zero observations and proof of? How is that different from dillusion. Plus I could hope for and have no observations of intelligent life at the core of mars. That has nothing to do with what's actually true. 

On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:

“This isn't not how scientific understanding works although theists attempt to equivocate they are comparable explanations.”

The limitations on past and supernatural claims are logically identical (i.e. the inability to subject the claim to direct observation). The logical methodology used to investigate such claims are also identical (i.e. compare the current facts to the model making the claim). Whether or not they qualify as “scientific” is a matter you can debate with @Enoch. But they are logically the same approach. There is no equivocation in my claim.

This is an equivocation... your presupposition of supernatural  prevents you from understanding. Okay.. I'll try again. If a scientist who's a religious creationist was to investigate the world and universe they find themselves in... the tools at their disposal would be an understanding of physics...experiments... equipment.. labs.. tools. There are of course people of all religions doing this science.. around the world including cooperatively at cern. A non believer conducts themselves in the same way. The religious person is the one adding supernatural notions based on no proof... what is hoped for and not seen and for these reasons the non believer isn't convinced. To say positions are identical is an equivocation. Or please justify how I can add supernatural. 

On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:

“So the scientific.. explanation of universal to planetary origins.. ie big bang was lead by Einsteinian physics initially...(even Einstein didn't like where the physics lead)... that's been tested... attempted to be falisified..corroberated by cmb and red shift and more”

This is all unsupported fluff and bluster. The idea of a Big Bang arose from a thought experiment where we took the available knowledge of an expanding universe, and put the whole system in reverse until it collapsed into a singularity.

 Incorrect... it is supported by the laws of physics proposed initially from Einstein and substantiated by Lemaitre in the 20s ..friedmann and others. The physics predicted a cmb years before it was found.  Please give the alternate not just natural laws God did it hypothesis and factors we can check and then your God as opposed to that of the rest humanity has proposed? 

On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:

“Plus unlike the laws of physics that initiated big bang theory”

Not without making naturalistic assumptions they didn't.

We can only investigate the naturalistic as explained.. it's never helped progress understanding dropping in any particular supernatural claims has it if so where? The default is to examine and explain what we can see not to add what isn't seen and hoped for.

On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:

“Indeed as bonky said religions have already started with all answers before investigation. Believes forming evidence instead of evidence forming beliefs.”

This is equally true of all belief, including secular beliefs. We all start with an unverifiable premise. The raw, uninterpreted facts don't speak specifically to any story of the past being true.

Equivocation again...i say it often as you cite it. Laws of physics and evidence drive an atheistic confidence in our models of reality. As per big bang discussed. If we find other evidence to tweak models that becomes our new best.  So the biblical is based upon invesigation? How old is the universe as per the bible?  Evidence for Adam and eve. The assertions from authority have what evidence? The claims are pre any investigation not warranted by evidence and post added to. 

On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:

“Plus theists deny knowledge and evidence because of this bpresupposing supernatural”

What “knowledge and evidence” have I denied? Critical reasoning provides me with every rational right to question any interpretation of any fact, but not the right to deny the existence of the fact (unless maybe the source of the observation is questionable – but generally not).

Erm... big bang or evolution... you've not denied that?  What's the God did it alternative or addition? By what info can I factor that in?

On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:

We can, absolutely “investigate the supernatural”, but only indirectly – since supernatural claims are beyond the logical scope of natural observation (as are all claims about the unobserved past). We cannot generate scientific, mathematical confidence in either past or supernatural claims.

Please outline the methodologies where I can investigate the supernatural?

In terms of the forced to come to conclusions part in the absence of evidence. Addressing big bang initiation... we've examples coming from nothing... multiverse stuff but  we're not there yet. I'm happy to say I don't know. You would assert  God did it... how... based on what info? 

Edited December 27, 2017 by Kevinb

[Tristen]

13 hours ago, Bonky said:

That sounds about right but let me run something by you.  This is more of an analogy as my example doesn't concern the nature of the Universe but a natural observation within it.   We don't exactly understand why some animals migrate.  They just seem to know what to do but we don't know what tells them this.  I'm sure there are naturalistic speculations as to how this works.  Would you say "Angels tell them where to go" is rational?  

From my experience Cavlanism almost makes sense.  Maybe I'm not one of the elect.

What is your take on Romans 1:20 based on our conversation.   I see that verse used over and over to say that there is no other logical option but the theistic one.   Our discussion seems to indicate it's not that cut and dry.

Merry Christmas by the way.

“That sounds about right but let me run something by you. This is more of an analogy as my example doesn't concern the nature of the Universe but a natural observation within it. We don't exactly understand why some animals migrate. They just seem to know what to do but we don't know what tells them this. I'm sure there are naturalistic speculations as to how this works. Would you say "Angels tell them where to go" is rational?”

There is nothing inherently irrational about this claim (given a supernatural premise), but it is a god-of-the-gaps type argument, and therefore a logically weak position. With Christianity, what you are disputing is the premise, not the conclusion. If the Bible claimed “Angels tell” animals where to migrate, that would be a more accurate analogy.

The Biblical premise makes logical provision for both natural and supernatural explanations (though as a rule of best-practice, only supernatural claims from the Bible can be considered authoritative – or else it's god-of-the-gaps). Naturalism explicitly excludes supernatural explanations (which are logically possible – regardless of faith) from any consideration.

 

“From my experience Cavlanism almost makes sense. Maybe I'm not one of the elect.”

Well, in “my experience”, most people misunderstand what Calvin actually believed and taught. The Bible is clear that God shows no partiality, that He desires all to be saved, and that Jesus died to save the whole world. So the doctrine called strict Calvinism is not really what is taught in the Bible (or was taught by Calvin).

 

“What is your take on Romans 1:20 based on our conversation. I see that verse used over and over to say that there is no other logical option but the theistic one.”

I think the entire universe demonstrates an uncanny degree of rational order. Without this basic premise, the Scientific Method would be meaningless (so everyone is seemingly on-board with this premise). I think something as supremely complex as the simplest life falling together by natural processes defies credulity. Our planet exists exactly the right distance from our uniquely stable star to permit the temperature range facilitating liquid water (essential for life), on a planet with an oxygen atmosphere, protected from cosmic radiation by a magnetic field, in a stable part of the galaxy (free of the dangerous, high intensity radiation that saturates the rest of our galaxy).

There is therefore more than enough evidence warranting the assumption that there is more to our existence than natural processes. Given the available facts, I consider this argument to be overwhelmingly stronger than 'We, by stupendous good fortune, happen to exist on a ridiculously unlikely planet, in the perfect part of a stupendously lucky universe, having come into existence through one implausible, life-generating event followed by a long series of massively fortunate (i.e. evolutionary) events '. I therefore agree with Romans that any refusal to seek God leaves a person “without excuse”.

Whilst I find the argument for God much, much stronger than the alternatives, I would not class the alternatives as illogical. Though I subjectively believe heavy bias must play a role in one's capacity to dismiss the argument for a Creator in favour of the 'we're just very, very (very, very), very lucky' argument.

 

“Our discussion seems to indicate it's not that cut and dry.”

Right – we are ultimately dealing with unfalsifiable claims. A strong argument for one position doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of alternative, logical explanations.

 

Merry Christmas to you too. I'm in Australia - so Christmas already feels like a ages ago.

[Tristen]

8 hours ago, Kevinb said:

They amount to the same thing...religious belief without proof. Even if you want to stick with the later... it's hope without what's not seen.... or observations . Do you honestly think that's a good pathway to truth.... what I hope for and have zero observations and proof of? How is that different from dillusion. Plus I could hope for and have no observations of intelligent life at the core of mars. That has nothing to do with what's actually true. 

This is an equivocation... your presupposition of supernatural  prevents you from understanding. Okay.. I'll try again. If a scientist who's a religious creationist was to investigate the world and universe they find themselves in... the tools at their disposal would be an understanding of physics...experiments... equipment.. labs.. tools. There are of course people of all religions doing this science.. around the world including cooperatively at cern. A non believer conducts themselves in the same way. The religious person is the one adding supernatural notions based on no proof... what is hoped for and not seen and for these reasons the non believer isn't convinced. To say positions are identical is an equivocation. Or please justify how I can add supernatural. 

 Incorrect... it is supported by the laws of physics proposed initially from Einstein and substantiated by Lemaitre in the 20s ..friedmann and others. The physics predicted a cmb years before it was found.  Please give the alternate not just natural laws God did it hypothesis and factors we can check and then your God as opposed to that of the rest humanity has proposed? 

We can only investigate the naturalistic as explained.. it's never helped progress understanding dropping in any particular supernatural claims has it if so where? The default is to examine and explain what we can see not to add what isn't seen and hoped for.

Equivocation again...i say it often as you cite it. Laws of physics and evidence drive an atheistic confidence in our models of reality. As per big bang discussed. If we find other evidence to tweak models that becomes our new best.  So the biblical is based upon invesigation? How old is the universe as per the bible?  Evidence for Adam and eve. The assertions from authority have what evidence? The claims are pre any investigation not warranted by evidence and post added to. 

Erm... big bang or evolution... you've not denied that?  What's the God did it alternative or addition? By what info can I factor that in?

Please outline the methodologies where I can investigate the supernatural?

In terms of the forced to come to conclusions part in the absence of evidence. Addressing big bang initiation... we've examples coming from nothing... multiverse stuff but  we're not there yet. I'm happy to say I don't know. You would assert  God did it... how... based on what info? 

“They amount to the same thing...religious belief without proof.”

Faith is a type of “belief” or confidence. It is not necessarily “religious”, and there is no such thing as “proof” in the manner used (i.e. as if absolute scientific certainty is possible).

 

“Even if you want to stick with the later... it's hope without what's not seen.... or observations”

Faith is not the “hope”, but the confidence in something that cannot be observed. In context, it is confidence in something we “hope” for from God (i.e. the specific scripture is not speaking about what God has already stated about history. I only make this point because you seem to be focussing on the role of “hope”, whereas “hope” is a secondary aspect of the verse and definition. The faith is defined as confidence in what hasn't been observed (even though hoped for)).

 

“Do you honestly think that's a good pathway to truth”

That is the only “pathway” available until time-travel (or a spirit gauge) is invented. We can't claim it to be “truth” apart from faith.

 

“Plus I could hope for and have no observations of intelligent life at the core of mars. That has nothing to do with what's actually true.”

How do you know? Have you examined “the core of mars”. But again, you over-focussing on the “hope” aspect of the scripture, and relegating away the core of the provided definition.

 

“This is an equivocation... your presupposition of supernatural prevents you from understanding. Okay.. I'll try again. If a scientist who's a religious creationist was to investigate the world and universe they find themselves in... the tools at their disposal would be an understanding of physics...experiments... equipment.. labs.. tools. There are of course people of all religions doing this science.. around the world including cooperatively at cern. A non believer conducts themselves in the same way. The religious person is the one adding supernatural notions based on no proof... what is hoped for and not seen and for these reasons the non believer isn't convinced. To say positions are identical is an equivocation. Or please justify how I can add supernatural”

You have ironically equivocated two methods of investigation in this statement.

If the “scientists” are investigating “the world and universe they find themselves in”, then “the tools at their disposal” really are “experiments... equipment.. labs..” as well as the Scientific Method. Regardless of whether they are “religious creationist” or a “non believer”, all else being equal, they would preform the same experiments, generate the same facts, compare the experimental treatment facts mathematically against the experimental control facts, and report the same statistical confidence derived from the analysis of those facts.

However, we cannot make observations or perform experiments in the past. We cannot determine suitable controls or observe any results from such non-existing experiments. We therefore cannot generate any mathematical/scientific confidence based on observations of experimental results. That means, we cannot apply the Scientific Method to investigations of the past. So if the “scientists” are investigating the history of “the world and universe they find themselves in”, then the same suite of "tools" is not available. The best they can do is consider the current facts, then find or generate a story about what may have caused those facts. Subsequently, they can compare new discoveries to the existing story. But because they can't actually go back in time to observe what really happened, no current fact can verify or undermine the story. Consistent facts could have had different causes, and contrary facts could just reflect our lack of knowledge. All stories about the past are therefore logically unfalsifiable.

So it is “an equivocation” to lump both kinds of investigations together as though the same.

Our conversation relates to historical investigations. In order to generate a story about the past, we have to assume certain things about reality which cannot be verified or observed. The “religious creationist” does not add “supernatural notions” to the facts, but presupposes unobserved “supernatural notions”, and applies those “notions” to their interpretation of the facts. The “non believer” presupposes unobserved naturalistic “notions”, and applies those “notions” to their interpretation of the facts.

The same basic logical methodology applies to both. So far from being “equivocation”, it is actually Special Pleading to suggest they are different.

 

“Equivocation again...i say it often as you cite it.”

You can repeat it till your lips bleed – won't make it any more true.

 

“Laws of physics and evidence drive an atheistic confidence in our models of reality. As per big bang discussed.”

So we are starting to talk in circles. The only way to resolve this is for you to present me with a fact which, without the influence of naturalistic or uniformitarian assumptions, can only be interpreted to support the unequivocal truth of a Big Bang. But if I can demonstrate that secular assumptions are required for a Big Bang conclusion, or a Bible-consistent interpretation of the same fact, then your claim of “equivocation” fails.

 

“If we find other evidence to tweak models that becomes our new best”

Which is fine – right up till someone tries to convince me I should have supreme, unquestioning trust in the current secular models over my preferred model.

 

“So the biblical is based upon invesigation?”

We can compare the current facts against the Biblical model as readily as the facts can be compared to the secular models.

 

“How old is the universe as per the bible?”

This is a difficult question, given the range of available models. According to the genealogies in Genesis, compared against other Biblical claims of agreed historical timing, the universe was created roughly 6000 year ago – earth-time.

 

“Evidence for Adam and eve”

This is like me asking for “evidence” of the specific common ancestor of all extant life. Both questions could only be answered using current, indirect facts (in some cases the very same facts).

 

“The assertions from authority have what evidence?”

Not sure what you mean by “assertions from authority” here. If you mean the technical fallacy, then you have misunderstood it's application.

 

“The claims are pre any investigation not warranted by evidence and post added to.”

They are “pre”, not “post”. They are unobservable, unfalsifiable faith premises – just like the secular faith premises.

 

“Erm... big bang or evolution... you've not denied that?”

If by “deny” you mean, rationally considered, scientifically scrutinised, and subsequently found the claimed confidence in these stories unjustified by the facts, then I suppose I have.

 

“What's the God did it alternative or addition? By what info can I factor that in?”

If you want me to interpret a fact from the Biblical perspective, you'll have to give me some idea which fact I'm interpreting.

 

“Please outline the methodologies where I can investigate the supernatural?”

You take a particular model making a supernatural claim (or a past claim if investigating the past), then you examine the available facts for consistency with the model. If the current facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the model, then you can rationally claim the facts support the model's reliability; including for claims which cannot be observed.

 

“Addressing big bang initiation... we've examples coming from nothing...”

That is a common misunderstanding of the implications of Quantum Mechanics (I assume that is what you are referring to).

 

“multiverse stuff but we're not there yet”

That is outrageous understatement. There is not the hint of a plausible way to test the concept of a “multiverse”. By the way, a “multiverse” is technically a supernatural claim – i.e. a claim about what exists beyond our natural universe.

 

“I'm happy to say I don't know. You would assert God did it... how... based on what info?”

Based on His personal, eye-witness account provided in a model which I have found to be reliable in every testable respect.

[Bonky]

On 12/27/2017 at 5:16 PM, Tristen said:

“That sounds about right but let me run something by you. This is more of an analogy as my example doesn't concern the nature of the Universe but a natural observation within it. We don't exactly understand why some animals migrate. They just seem to know what to do but we don't know what tells them this. I'm sure there are naturalistic speculations as to how this works. Would you say "Angels tell them where to go" is rational?”

There is nothing inherently irrational about this claim (given a supernatural premise), but it is a god-of-the-gaps type argument, and therefore a logically weak position. With Christianity, what you are disputing is the premise, not the conclusion. If the Bible claimed “Angels tell” animals where to migrate, that would be a more accurate analogy.

The Biblical premise makes logical provision for both natural and supernatural explanations (though as a rule of best-practice, only supernatural claims from the Bible can be considered authoritative – or else it's god-of-the-gaps). Naturalism explicitly excludes supernatural explanations (which are logically possible – regardless of faith) from any consideration.

 

To me a god of the gap argument is defined based on a principle, the argument has characteristics.  I would agree however that if someone truly believes the Bible then they are merely going with what they believe, their theistic claims wouldn't necessarily be a god of the gap.   As soon as I hear things like "Well how else did we get here"...that's a gap being filled with a mystery.  

 

On 12/27/2017 at 5:16 PM, Tristen said:

“What is your take on Romans 1:20 based on our conversation. I see that verse used over and over to say that there is no other logical option but the theistic one.”

I think the entire universe demonstrates an uncanny degree of rational order. Without this basic premise, the Scientific Method would be meaningless (so everyone is seemingly on-board with this premise). I think something as supremely complex as the simplest life falling together by natural processes defies credulity. Our planet exists exactly the right distance from our uniquely stable star to permit the temperature range facilitating liquid water (essential for life), on a planet with an oxygen atmosphere, protected from cosmic radiation by a magnetic field, in a stable part of the galaxy (free of the dangerous, high intensity radiation that saturates the rest of our galaxy).

There is therefore more than enough evidence warranting the assumption that there is more to our existence than natural processes. Given the available facts, I consider this argument to be overwhelmingly stronger than 'We, by stupendous good fortune, happen to exist on a ridiculously unlikely planet, in the perfect part of a stupendously lucky universe, having come into existence through one implausible, life-generating event followed by a long series of massively fortunate (i.e. evolutionary) events '. I therefore agree with Romans that any refusal to seek God leaves a person “without excuse”.

Whilst I find the argument for God much, much stronger than the alternatives, I would not class the alternatives as illogical. Though I subjectively believe heavy bias must play a role in one's capacity to dismiss the argument for a Creator in favour of the 'we're just very, very (very, very), very lucky' argument.

In a Universe where you have as many [or more] galaxies as pieces of sand on a beach, is it so wild to find a solar system that can support life?   Our planet is historically a planet of death just as much as life.  Most of the critters who have ever lived are extinct.   We are one meteor impact [the likes our planet has already seen] away from living in the stone age again.   I'm sympathetic to a deistic notion of a creator I guess but loving father figure who created the Universe specially for us?   

[Tristen]

10 hours ago, Bonky said:

To me a god of the gap argument is defined based on a principle, the argument has characteristics.  I would agree however that if someone truly believes the Bible then they are merely going with what they believe, their theistic claims wouldn't necessarily be a god of the gap.   As soon as I hear things like "Well how else did we get here"...that's a gap being filled with a mystery.  

In a Universe where you have as many [or more] galaxies as pieces of sand on a beach, is it so wild to find a solar system that can support life?   Our planet is historically a planet of death just as much as life.  Most of the critters who have ever lived are extinct.   We are one meteor impact [the likes our planet has already seen] away from living in the stone age again.   I'm sympathetic to a deistic notion of a creator I guess but loving father figure who created the Universe specially for us?   

“To me a god of the gap argument is defined based on a principle, the argument has characteristics. I would agree however that if someone truly believes the Bible then they are merely going with what they believe, their theistic claims wouldn't necessarily be a god of the gap. As soon as I hear things like "Well how else did we get here"...that's a gap being filled with a mystery.”

I'm not sure this is a good example of god-of-the-gaps. In essence, it's a request for your model (which you have). But claiming that God to be the cause of our existence is not god-of-the-gaps (for a Bible believer). Since this is an explicit claim of the Bible, in our world view, there is no “gap” in knowledge. God-of-the-gaps arguments are rationally weak because of their arbitrary nature.

As a fairly common example, creationists are sometimes accused of claiming the devil planted the fossils (though I've never heard this from a creationist myself). Such an explanation would be a god-of-the-gaps-kind argument.

 

“In a Universe where you have as many [or more] galaxies as pieces of sand on a beach, is it so wild to find a solar system that can support life? … I'm sympathetic to a deistic notion of a creator I guess but loving father figure who created the Universe specially for us?”

The possibility of a multi-verse was earlier suggested. So for starters, out of the trillions and trillions of possible outcomes, we just happen to exist in a universe that is rationally ordered; where the process of space and time can be predicted by consistent laws of nature. But then to find a pocket of this universe that is a special exception to the rest of the universe; i.e. not saturated with high-intensity radiation, with a system containing a highly stable star, with a water-laden planet with an oxygenated atmosphere, rotating on an axis, in stable orbit around the star (the perfect distance form the star to maintain liquid water), with a magnetic field to protect the planet from solar radiation - i.e. a planet perfectly suited to life as we know it. Then all the constituents of complex life somehow found a way to fall together on this perfect planet (an accomplishment still beyond the comprehension of modern molecular science). Then a series of massively fortunate mutations of life's information system generating billions of novel, additional, functional genes (something yet to be observed once in reality), subsequently filtered by the environment to produce a vast diversity of species; each uniquely adapted to survival in their specific habitats…

So to summarise; every unique gene that has ever existed is the result of a 1-in-billions mutation event occurring in a series of such events, on a life that conquered as-yet unimaginable odds to form from abiotic components, on a planet which just happened to be perfectly suited to support life, in a system perfectly situated in the universe to support life, and all in a perfectly sensible universe having formed from an infinite range of possible outcomes.

I think that is truly a “wild” claim. Given the overall picture, I don't think believing God “created the Universe specially for us” is such a great stretch.

 

“Our planet is historically a planet of death just as much as life. Most of the critters who have ever lived are extinct.”

Death and extinction are equally consistent with the Biblical model of reality

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Tristen