Why science will not (and cannot) replace faith

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, farouk said:

It's interesting that in the 17th century the Royal Society from which much scientific advance came actually used Protestant theological works as examples of clear and precise wording.

Many of the greatest of Medieval scientists cited the Quran.    Several of the greatest modern scientists have cited Catholic and Eastern Orthodox writings.      What's important is that non of these (including the Royal Society) tried to do science by studying religious writings.

 

[nebula]

7 hours ago, farouk said:

Well, I would strongly identify with inerrancy.

What makes you believe I am challenging what the Bible says?

[RV_Wizard]

On 11/22/2024 at 10:48 PM, nebula said:

Science is a tool, not a philosophy; yet we treat it as a philosophy.

Science is used by unbelievers to justify their disbelief.  That doesn't make science bad, but what people do with it is bad.  Many use claims of science to discredit the Bible.  They don't understand that an omnipotent God could create another world exactly like this one, complete with skyscrapers and electric cars that don't work in cold weather, simply by telling it to exist.  Nothing in science can account for that.  No study of the natural world can prove or disprove the supernatural.  Science can't move a mountain by telling it to move, but God can.

Ultimately, you have to choose whether your God is the Creator or the creation.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Science is used by unbelievers to justify their disbelief. 

It's used by some to show that modern revisions like YE creationism are not accurate.  YE creationists and atheists try to show that things like a flat Earth or bits-and-pieces creation are essential Christian beliefs.   But as you know, they are wrong.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

They don't understand that an omnipotent God could create another world exactly like this one, complete with skyscrapers and electric cars that don't work in cold weather, simply by telling it to exist. 

All things are possible with God, but that doesn't mean He is obligated to do it the way you want.

Ultimately, you have to choose whether creation is your way or God's way.

[farouk]

On 11/23/2024 at 10:16 AM, nebula said:

What makes you believe I am challenging what the Bible says?

Hi @nebula Not necessarily so, at all.

Just bearing in mind that sometimes inerrancy is spoken of in terms of: 'The Bible is inerrant in all that it affirms' (i.e., if someone says, Genesis isn't accurate and so let's say that Genesis isn't actually affirming what it says...)

But I'm definitely not wanting to ascribe to you things you have not said.

[RV_Wizard]

On 11/24/2024 at 9:31 AM, The Barbarian said:

It's used by some to show that modern revisions like YE creationism are not accurate. 

At some point in your life you will stop lying about believing in the Bible as written being a modern revision. I may not be around to see it, but it will be a good thing.

[The Barbarian]

On 11/25/2024 at 8:36 AM, RV_Wizard said:

At some point in your life you will stop lying about believing in the Bible as written being a modern revision.

I'm pointing out that your interpretation is a modern version.   You aren't God, and your particular take on it is not God's word.

[RV_Wizard]

On 11/29/2024 at 9:56 AM, The Barbarian said:

I'm pointing out that your interpretation is a modern version.

I proved that to be a lie.  I provided evidence of the early church teachings, and even gave you the time frame of when some members of the church began to stray from the six day creation.  You can only point to Augustine, the proponent of many of the heresies of the church of Rome, but he was only one of a very few people who refused to believe in the Scriptures as written when it came to creation.

Even in the Catholic church, it wasn't until 1909 when Pope Pius XII approved a position allowing for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 that the church officially wavered on teaching the creation week.

Your claim that belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 came from 19th century Seventh Day Adventists has no basis whatever in truth.  Every time you repeat it, you are knowingly telling a lie.

[The Barbarian]

I'm pointing out that your interpretation is a modern version.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I proved that to be a lie.

Denial is not proof.   Sorry.

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Even in the Catholic church, it wasn't until 1909 when Pope Pius XII approved a position allowing for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1

It was always an acceptable believe in the Church, as it is in the other two branches of Christianity.    As you have shown even people who claim they believe in a literal interpretation, don't consider all of it to be literal,

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Your claim that belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 came from 19th century Seventh Day Adventists has no basis whatever in truth. 

You're confused again.    YE creationism adds new doctrines to His word.   That won't send you to hell; He doesn't care what you think of the way He did it.    But if you make an idol of your new beliefs and insist that everyone must believe them, that could endanger your salvation.    Be careful about that.

I don't think you're a liar for peddling false doctrines.   You are clearly confusing your own wishes for God's word.

[RV_Wizard]

On 11/18/2024 at 8:20 AM, The Barbarian said:

Science, being able to only access the physical universe can neither affirm nor deny the supernatural. 

Hey, that's my line.  Glad to see you admit it.