Science

Originally posted by FabianFnas
My mother is a god.

yes, do you need to define her properly? what if you say she is blonde? will she become inexistent or improperly defined if she dies her hair green? will you even ask yourself that question. she just is and she loves you.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, do you need to define her properly? what if you say she is blonde? will she become inexistent or improperly defined if she dies her hair green? will you even ask yourself that question. she just is and she loves you.

According to your definition of god, then my mum is a god. All criteria fits in.

And furthermore - every mother is a god, even farters is gods. Hell, we are gods all of us!

And that maks the definition meaningless. A better definition should be formulated.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, do you need to define her properly? what if you say she is blonde? will she become inexistent or improperly defined if she dies her hair green? will you even ask yourself that question. she just is and she loves you.

i should have mentioned almost omnipotent and omniscient in that definition

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And furthermore - every mother is a god, even farters is gods. Hell, we are gods all of us!

Sorry, I didn't mean farters, I meant fathers.

And furthermore - every mother is a god, even farthers are gods. Hell, we are gods all of us!

I think science just means knowledge. Knowledge is something man can really boast in. He can be very proud of his knowledge.

It seems that God has restricted the way to approach and touch Him to faith. Proud fallen man always considers that faith is poor and beggerly. Proud fallen Adamic nature looks down on this poor faith like a step child.

Why should he have faith in God? He has science! Yet God has opened a path to Himself which leaves man nothing to grag about or boast about or be proud in. That is the way of touching the reality of God through faith.

Proud Adamic man hates this. He mocks this. He despises that he must touch God through faith in God. Adamic man is quick to assume that anything that requires faith does so because it is not seen and not real.

Fortunately we have an impressive testimony of what real faith in God can accomplish. Especially in the life of the Son of God Jesus Christ. His faith even caused Him to overcome death and the grave. Rather than a miserable way Jesus manifests faith in His Father to be indestructible power conquering even death itself.

The glory goes to God, to His faithfulness. Faith in God leave nothing for Adamic man to boast in as what he has accomplished in his own power. The victory is man's inspired faith plus the faithfulness of God.

We Christians don't dispise science. We simply view it in its proper perspective.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think science just means knowledge. Knowledge is something man can really boast in. He can be very proud of his knowledge.

It's not just knowledge. Some people know (in their heart) that Jesus is alive, but this doesn't make it science.

Science is a methodology to enhance knowledge. If the methodology is misused, no knowledge is enhanced. Faith is not a part of this methodology (It's not enought to know in the heart that one can divide by zero, stringent proofs are needed too.) As faith is a major part of religion, then religion cannot mix with science.

Knowledge in itself is not science. A certain methodology is also needed.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
It's not just knowledge. Some people know (in their heart) that Jesus is alive, but this doesn't make it science.

Science is a methodology to enhance knowledge. If the methodology is misused, no knowledge is enhanced. Faith is not a part of this methodology (It's not enought to know in the heart that one can divide by zero, stringent proofs are needed ...[text shortened]... ix with science.

Knowledge in itself is not science. A certain methodology is also needed.

Okay, I'll look more into that definition.

My point is that for the really big questions in life God has opened the way of faith. When man substantiates the reality of God by faith there is nothing left for him to boast in.

"God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble" .

Of course science can be done humbly. And there are scientists with real humility. But to touch God, we cannot do it with our science.

You won't see God with any telescope. You will not get Him in a test tube. You will not detect Him with microscope or measure Him with sonar or radar.

Many people simply hate this. God says "Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to God." .

I like science as much as any of you agnostic or atheist posters. I enjoy science discovery. We subsribed to Discovery Magazine when my kids were in the house.

But when I reached out in faith to touch Jesus Who is alive and available, my faith left me humbled. By humbling myself before God I was lifted up by God.

I expect science knowledge to shift and change. I also do not think there is something basically wrong with Christians having to say "Let us go back to the Bible to see exactly what it really said."

Some people call this accomodation. However, I do not expect that any age of believers cannot go back to closely examine what the word of God said.

Did the word of God say that the earth is 6000 years old? Or is this just Usher's chronology based on his opinion about it?

I read that the earth was seen in a state of ruin and void. Science today tells us that some terrible catatastrophy or catastraphies wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man.

Sometimes science seems to inch closer to what the word of God says.

To taste God, to touch God, to substantiate God's presence you have to excercise faith. Now I really do not have any more faith in myself than anyone else. I know where to get faith. The Bible can put faith into your heart. It is a mysterious process to me. It is like radiation.

If you do not want to have faith, don't read the Bible. "Faith comes by hearing. And hearing by the word of Christ."

Originally posted by jaywill
I read that the earth was seen in a state of ruin and void. Science today tells us that some terrible catatastrophy or catastraphies wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man.

I like the way you approach science. How you see the difference between religious faith and science. I don't have any problem with this.

Once the Earth was lifeless. You say that science says that something wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man. All life? Can you be more specific what science says in this subject? It's new to me. As I understand it, from the first molecule on Earth became self replicating, and this event is the key event to our life of today, I don't think the Earth has been lifeless since. If I'm wrong in this, this event took place like 3.85 billion of years ago, and the life returned again. Well, we have had some mass extinction, but it always left some organism that the future life emanates from.

But let's not get too technical. We agree on the main differences between science and religion.

Originally posted by jaywill
I read that the earth was seen in a state of ruin and void. Science today tells us that some terrible catatastrophy or catastraphies wiped out all life previous to the arrival of man.

Sometimes science seems to inch closer to what the word of God says.

But far more often some Christian makes something up and pretends its science in the hope of backing up his religious claims. (as you or your source just did).
Those who are less willing to look foolish go the other route and reinterpret scripture every time a relevant new scientific discovery is made. Of course the real test is whether or not scripture can tell us something that science does not yet know which is later backed up by science. As far as I know, that has never happened.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But far more often some Christian makes something up and pretends its science in the hope of backing up his religious claims. (as you or your source just did).
Those who are less willing to look foolish go the other route and reinterpret scripture every time a relevant new scientific discovery is made. Of course the real test is whether or not scripture ...[text shortened]... oes not yet know which is later backed up by science. As far as I know, that has never happened.

Of course the real test is whether or not scripture can tell us something that science does not yet know which is later backed up by science. As far as I know, that has never happened.

I'm sure KJ or some other will rise to that so I think it should be tightened up a little:

Of course the real test is whether or not scripture can tell us something specific and unambiguous that science does not yet know which is later backed up by science.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
I'm sure KJ or some other will rise to that so I think it should be tightened up a little:

Of course the real test is whether or not scripture can tell us something specific and unambiguous that science does not yet know which is later backed up by science.

--- Penguin

It is important that it was clear and unambiguous enough that some people believed it before science discovered it. There are plenty of 'prophets' whose writings have 'turned out to be true' long after they made the prophesy but most of the time that is just a matter of people interpreting the prophesy based on the facts.
In the case of the Bible, the 'facts' are altered based on the prophesy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is important that it was clear and unambiguous enough that some people believed it before science discovered it. There are plenty of 'prophets' whose writings have 'turned out to be true' long after they made the prophesy but most of the time that is just a matter of people interpreting the prophesy based on the facts.
In the case of the Bible, the 'facts' are altered based on the prophesy.

ok then, version 3:

Of course the real test is whether or not scripture can tell us something specific and unambiguous unknown to science at the time of writing which is later backed up by science.

--- Pengion

Originally posted by Penguin
ok then, version 3:

Of course the real test is whether or not scripture can tell us something specific and unambiguous unknown to science at the time of writing which is later backed up by science.

--- Pengion

That's a pretty weak test, really. It presumes that our current holdings in science are the ultimate standard. Given the ever-shifting perspectives for what passes as modern science, using such a barometer is fraught with all kinds of problems.

Such a test also places the Bible at a disadvantage; namely, that it act as something unintended. Although the Bible makes some indirect comments on areas overlapping with the current concerns of science, its intention is primarily as a recorded history of God's dealings with man... a very, very broad brush stroke.

The scope of science is so limited as to place literally any book of history on the short end of the stick. On the strength side, however, the Bible has never been shown to be at odds with any proven scientific finding. While there have been vagrant theories which appear to contradict the telling of the Bible, the issues have been consistently resolved over the years when closer/better understandings prevailed.

Limiting the Bible to its intended field, it has ever been the 'victor' when pit against any and all theories and/or speculations regarding the various historical questions that have been presented over the years. Even when (supposedly) seriously challenged by the rage-of-the-day package of doubt, as more research developed, the Bible's rendition of events has always been the lone one standing.

Given all of that last post, however, I'll boldly lay down a "prophecy" regarding science's future findings, which will 'confirm' that which the Bible put into print nearly 3,000 years ago. At some point in time, science will eventually discover what the Bible describes as the sin nature, residing in the genetic code of man.

Some time after that, the good men and women of science will come to realize that this sin nature is passed on by the male of the species, not the female. Just as the Bible discussed when the race of man was in its infancy.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's a pretty weak test, really. It presumes that our current holdings in science are the ultimate standard. Given the ever-shifting perspectives for what passes as modern science, using such a barometer is fraught with all kinds of problems.

Such a test also places the Bible at a disadvantage; namely, that it act as something unintended. Although ...[text shortened]... research developed, the Bible's rendition of events has always been the lone one standing.

…the Bible has never been shown to be at odds with any proven scientific finding.


Yes, but that has often been due to revising one’s understanding of the Bible—e.g., from a literalistic to a metaphorical or idiomatic or euphemistic understanding. For example, when God “stopped the sun in the sky” to make daylight last longer for Joshua. The ancients may well have believed that the length of a day was caused by the sun revolving around the earth (and we cannot call them foolish for so believing!), but to hold to that today would certainly be at odds with the scientific finding that day-length is determined by the rotation of the earth.


Now, that’s a trivial example—and we still use the euphemisms that the sun comes up and the sun goes down, etc. But it does illustrate the limits of literalistic readings. What’s left to argue over is what is to be read literalistically and what is to be read metaphorically, allegorically, mythologically, etc. (The one that seems to be most argued on here—which argument I do not intend to engage—has to do with the creation story in Genesis; although the flood story receives a lot of attention, too.)


Also, there are many literary forms in the books of the Bible—and I am especially referring to the Hebrew Bible: there is, for example, a great deal of poetry (not only in the Psalms; Isaiah, for example, is mostly written as poetry). And poetry has to be read as poetry (which I’m sure the authors knew and intended). That poetry may sometimes reflect the “scientific” understanding of the day, but it is not about the “scientific” understanding of the day. Poetic writing is prima facie metaphorical writing, and metaphors tend to have manifold possible underlying meanings, and layers of meaning (which is true of the Hebrew language generally: it is a polysemous language, which Jewish exegesis—midrash—has generally recognized).


Some atheists (in my experience on here, anyway) are just as guilty about taking literalistically what cannot be properly taken literalistically as are some Biblicists—although for different purpose.


I do not question that there is actual history in the Bible—though we would likely argue over how much. But the Bible simply cannot be read (in my studied opinion) like a history book, or a scientific textbook, or the assembly instructions for a bicycle.


To sum up: even to set the Bible over against science is, to my mind, a mistake; a mistake that often comes from some commitment to overly-literalistic readings that—again, in my opinion—distort the very (literary) nature of the texts. Science is science, torah is torah.