Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

But it really isn't an argument about words.

"Religion argues that a miracle is something that can't happen happens." This I don't have a problem with.

"Science merely says that if it happens it can happen. It's that simple." Still no problem.

"And science merely tries to discover how it can happen and to see how to make it happen again." With you so far.

"Religion declare it can happen only by the intervention of supernatural forces." Not QUITE. Does the pronoun "it" here refer to "anything that happens" or "miracles" specifically? If we're talking about what Christianity teaches, then this is untrue in the case of miracles. If we're talking about "anything/everything," then yes, I'd go along with that. I object in the case of "it=miracles" only because the terms are too limiting. Christianity teaches that everything that happens, will happen, or has happened is, will be, or has been under God's watch and is ultimately His responsibility (in general terms, not digging into deep theology here). All things have happened and will happen because God at some point intervened to bring it into being. What WE have are either observable ongoing processes that resulted from that and other processes that we cannot observe. That which we are able to observe is like a puzzle or mystery that we can examine and attempt to explain--some things more easily than others. We know how to synthesize dihydrogen monoxide from two basic elements, observe it in various phases, use it as a solvent, and use hydrolyses to separate its components. We know molecules and atoms to be collections of various particles joined together by energy bonds, and we can observe the breakdown of those bonds into smaller particles and more energy. We can conclude that all matter is basically just energy. But how it is "plain energy" can somehow get spontaneously organized into matter remains pure speculation. The point is the universe itself (according to Christianity) is a kind of "miracle," but not the kind of miracle we can't spend time with and understand deeper than surface-level.

"never been either been observed under scientific conditions nor certainly evoked by known processes..." Miracles, to me, are like phone calls. The miracle itself is the ringing, the alert that someone is trying to get your attention. The message is what is important but doesn't appear quite as extravagant as the alert that a message is waiting or that someone wants to talk to you. Miracles also function to verify who it is the message is from. You don't really have the right nor the ability to dictate who and when any particular person tries to contact you via telephone, so it's not usually very useful to try to predict and study patterns of phone calls. Similarly, you can't make demands of God to perform magic tricks for you--though at critical times it isn't unheard of to ask God for some act to reinforce faith, such as with Gideon. But if God has no purpose in bringing those things about, there's no way that we can get those kinds of things with any kind of observable regularity by which to study them. To have God perform circus tricks for us basically means God can be manipulated by His creation for human purposes, much like pagan worshipers might cut themselves or drink cow's blood in order to make the gods send rain during the growing season. The Christian God's will is superior to (read "above") human will, not the other way around, and a god subject to human will is not much of a god worth believing in.

Supernatural intervention does not limit God to "known processes." Now, I do think "known processes" can give us a glimpse into what the unknown is LIKE, and descriptions of the miraculous are not unlike things we currently understand. For example, the thunderings and lightnings on the mountain of God early in the Exodus experience might have looked like this:


Pillar of cloud by day, pillar of fire by night, anybody?


(Click here to see the images in context)

As you can see (if you go to the link) this is not something unknown to us nor something we haven't studied scientifically. The difference is that these appearances have a material explanation while Biblical depictions do not. We may get some clue or idea as to how God physically manifested Himself in order to help the Israelites. But a volcano is stationary while what was described in the Bible was not. It seems to me an unjust "cheap shot" to say "didn't happen" purely based upon limiting acts of God to "known processes." Mountains of fire do exist. Amazing displays of clouds, thunderings and lightning do happen in addition to columns of smoke and fire. What we can't know is how this happened with the Israelites or how it moved with them following it. We can't know how God can speak and be understood through rumblings in a mountain or cloud. As I've pointed out, it is unjust to demand parlor tricks from God so we can understand what it was the Israelites experienced. But even more unjust is the record shows that people even THEN did not always share the faith of others in signs during the period of time that they had them. Why should God expect us to believe now if He showed up and did the same thing? What reason does God have to think we wouldn't just try to explain it away as a natural occurrence? If it IS a natural occurrence, then we have no reason to believe God, anyway. So what does it matter?

Science demands something within the known physical, observable universe that human beings can manipulate. Science cannot study miracles because God is not manipulable. Neither can science rule out that miracles happen nor that God exists--only perhaps for the time being that miracles and God are beyond its scope. What you're basically assuming for our purpose here is that only what can be shown scientifically to exist is all that exists, or only that which is physical can be real. It's a demonstrably false assumption and unnecessary--and I'm not certain that you really believe that, anyway. The purpose of science is to study the natural world, not God. Just because something is purposed for studying one thing doesn't mean that what it is not purposed for doesn't exist. My car only runs on gasoline, but diesel fuel is also available at the same pump as my gasoline. My car wouldn't run on diesel because diesel is ignited by compression rather than a spark. That doesn't mean that diesel fuel is useless or that compression-based engines are invalidated. It just means they are two different things with different purposes.

Your comment borders on ad hominem. If you are interested in being part of a serious discussion, I suggest reconsidering your choice of acronym.

My comments were directed at Sand. I have no problems with other people responding and rather enjoy the fact that people do. However, generally, people respond to comments directed at others in the spirit the original comments were intended. In the context of the sub-discussion Sand and I seem to be having, I fully supported my views. That you have issues understanding how I chose to support my ideas is your problem, not mine.

However, given the topic immediately at hand, perhaps you can help me with this one: Demonstrate to me how you would scientifically support the existence of "logic" as used in scientific reasoning. In order to do this effectively, you must provide empirical, direct, physical evidence of "logic."

The following empirical examples are NOT acceptable for, I hope, obvious reasons:



and, while we're at it:



In order to do this, you absolutely CANNOT make ANY assumptions. Good luck.

There is obviously nothing wrong with being impressed with natural phenomena. But it is a mistake to assume that sometime in the ancient past natural phenomena were somehow different. We can only know what we observe and even if phenomena were somehow radically different a few thousand years ago that has no relevance to the world we live in. And concrete traces of the world far more distant in time than the world of the original Biblical people clearly indicate natural phenomena then were based on the same principles as those of today. The only sensible assumption is that the misinterpretations of the occurrences then are what causes the problems. I'm sure the people then did their best but they were naive and full of nonsensical imagination.

If you want to suspend belief for biblical miracles, you have to extend the same courtesy to the miracles of other religions, sightings of ghosts, elves, bigfoot, claims by ufo types, and every other evidence free (or light) observation. There is no end to it.

And in some cases, we can establish that someone lied to gain something (money, attention, etc). It's very likely to be the case with other "events" as well. I don't know why we have to treat you like a child and explain human motivations to you but apparently that's the case.

You have faith, stop trying to dress it up and pretend it's something else. What that shows is that you are embarrassed by faith. It's not enough for you. You feel second rate in a world dominated by the results of science.

Those images really are spectacular, aren't they? Given the discussion I couldn't help but bring those up.

Actually, I agree that it's a mistaken assumption that past natural phenomena are different than today, and I don't dispute that what we see now has plausibly always been a part of our planet's history.

Given what we know about natural phenomena, such as in those photos, what is recorded in the Bible couldn't possibly have happened if we ASSUME that only natural phenomena happen. For it to work, it would HAVE to be a manifestation of something beyond what we understand as being possible.

Let's ASSUME that those people really were naive. EVEN IF what they saw or thought they saw was some kind of mass hallucination, a magic trick, or some chance anomalous natural feature resulting from a solar mass ejection, planetary alignment, collision with a comet/asteroid, fluctuation in the magnetic field, or some combination of some or all of those things or something else, they still saw SOMETHING--that "something" being effectual evidence of a causative factor.

I don't think the evidence points to naiveté, though. People did at times question their leadership as well God during that period. Not that questioning or rebelling MAKES someone smart, but it does show that some reasoning skills were at work in drawing certain conclusions and deciding whether doing what they were told was best. Even Moses reached a point at which he relented and delegated much of his authority to lesser priests. Apparently there were smarter Israelites than Moses, but God was more interested in Moses' willingness to obey than his brains. But that's another topic... My point is I think we have to give them a bit more credit than that.

If you'd like proof that it would be hard for me to make error on it, feel FREE to visit Farmington New mexico in the USA. Take yourself to the lovely Eastern mesa, while you're at it, and camp out for a good while, and you will likely see an airplane at some point. Shiprock should be on the horizon with a view of the airport infront of it. If you would love to see normal balloons, and not anything like what I discribed. You can settle for the balloons at the lake, or drag your butt to Albequerque (I have such an issue spelling that city.)

But if not, I have over 120 photos from the last balloon fest my sister went to. They do a fire glow at night, I believe. You'll find, that they don't glow like the huge unidentified balloon did. It didn't even seem like a lightbulb, it glowed so odd. (Did I mention digital numbers colored red and glow (not shape. it was a balloon of some kind), and zero window reflection? I think I did.) If you want commets, feel free to visit the near by mountains of Colorado, where fewer city lights will block out the beautiful stars from your vision. If you don't like travel, Indiana Jones and the Temple of doom has one in it anyhow. Bright, fast, and yellow/orange. Not slow, the size of a vehicle, blinking like a dying lightbulb, and silently decending over our houses.

When it comes to evolution, I kind of agree, because examples are just about everywhere. All kinds of people, dogs, cats, birds, ect. ect. I find it complicated that just two could extend into such variety if there was no evolving process. (yes, my spelling is terrible. I don't use a checker, and all the spelling games seem pointless, because you have to already know all the words to play. )

Most often the term I hear in any kind of skepticism is "suspend DISbelief." Is this what you meant? If not, then my response is that I've NEVER suspended belief for anything I've had good reason to believe.


For the sake of coherence, I'm going to ASSUME you meant "suspend disbelief." Correct me if I'm wrong and I'll try to give a better answer.

No, I do NOT have to extend that same courtesy. The burden of proof lies within the claims other religions make. Those claims have yet to demonstrate to me why I should favor them over my current faith.


OK...for the sake of argument... I'm not really that interested in those kinds of things. But sightings of ghosts is supported in the sense that, for whatever reason or cause, people have experienced apparitions. This is a LONG documented phenomenon. If the cause is a non-material, spiritual cause, science is not equipped to study it. The Bible lends support to this in that once when Peter visited his friends after being released from prison, his friends assumed him to be dead and did not believe the woman when she told them that he'd been there. So people have always understood that spirit beings can take physical form if it is appropriate to do so.

Elves? Well, "wee men" do exist. They are called dwarfs. Whether it is accurate to say they are endowed with magical properties is another matter entirely.

Bigfoot? Never seen him. Some people THINK they've seen him. Have they? I don't know. But it is NOT unheard of for species long thought extinct to suddenly reemerge. Dig this: Lazarus taxon

UFOs? As in unidentified flying objects? People see all kinds of flying objects all the time that they can't identify. The issue is whether what people really see are giant flying saucers piloted by little green men. I personally do think we are alone in the universe, but my conclusions on that are arrived at differently than from the question of evidence. Ask "What would Carl Sagan say?"


Ok, but...

If that is so, then there is no argument. For "some cases." So where is the evidence that I should believe differently?


And THERE YOU HAVE IT, ladies and gentlemen! The dreaded ad hominem!! ! The Imperial Death Star to end all serious discussion!

This does not help you make your case, and I really am making every effort to take you seriously here.


Who said this is a matter of faith? All I was talking about was the basic assumptions necessary to assert anything.

How about I give you the same challenge I gave Benbob? Check out my response to Benbob if you think you're up for it.


Straw man. You're reasoning is flawed.

Besides, I'm not embarrassed by faith at all. I just don't see faith as relevant at this point in the discussion.


This is true, but not for the reason you think it is!


Guess again. You don't know how I feel, nor can you prove that.

My views on faith:

Faith is never enough to accept something as true, not even religious truth. Jesus taught that faith was enough to enter the kingdom of God. That's all. The experiences people have that leads them to faith are varied, however. I do somewhat envy those who've had the "Damascus Road" experience because I'd relate better to more people that way. I'm in part victim to my own brain wiring, so maybe it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. For others, it seems to be at some crossroads in life, some kind of struggle out of which the Spirit of God manifests itself in such a way that we understand and come to accept. It's a conviction that we can either accept or deny. But without SOMETHING happening to show a person that this is very real, there's no real reason why anyone should become a Christian.

For ME, acceptance came first and evidence over time affirmed what I'd accepted. It didn't have to be that way. I could have denied that evidence pointed in favor of the direction I was already going. I had every opportunity to change my mind. In the end, though, it's just that the evidence reinforces my faith. I fail to understand how this might change, and I'm not sure at this point I even CAN change. But...why would I ever want to?

My "simple" faith has always given me the comfort of knowing I have a proper relationship with God. What I lacked was understanding WHY I believe. So I started just two years ago reading through the Bible in its entirety--not just reading, but actually studying it. One conclusion I've drawn is Christian faith isn't really "blind," and was never intended to be. When Jesus walked the earth, people didn't believe Him just because He "said so." The point of miracles is to get attention or to verify the source of the message. The first disciples of Jesus did not come TO faith BY faith. They came by the evidence of what they saw and experienced. The next generation of believers came to faith through the witness of those who'd experienced Jesus firsthand, and by reliable testimony to the fact, those believers came to faith by accepting that Jesus had already fulfilled what they knew was Messianic prophecy. Without their former religious teachings, Christ didn't have a leg to stand on. Evidence that Jesus had fulfilled ancient prophecy led them to faith. The Greeks had their own religion, but even the Greeks recognized the conflicting attitudes among the gods. The result is a message of hopelessness for mankind, constantly at the mercy of the gods and condemned to a life of helpless uncertainty. They were skeptical of Christianity, but at least their minds were open to new ideas and new religions. The message of Christ made MUCH more sense to them than the inconsistent teachings they were used to.

They were very smart and highly questioning people. Back then the synagogue and the house of prayer was much more open to reaching different people with different ideas and the first churches started out of the synagogues. It wasn't until the Jews closed their doors to the Christians that "house churches" really got started. Teaching involved more open-forum debate than the almost non-participatory church of the present day. So how exactly did Christianity take root among these people? Well... Christians had to be very careful in evangelizing, they had to be very persuasive, and they had to be rock-solid in their reasoning. So in order to come to faith, these people had to understand Christianity in terms of highly rational thinking. The evidence of Christianity just plain making better sense was what it took to bring these people to faith.

So, my point here is that faith-begetting-faith is possible, but it can be problematic in that it is circular reasoning and doesn't guarantee that the faith in question is really correct. It might be, or it might be a suicide cult. Mostly, I think it results from some kind of I-told-you-so appeal to authority--which is FINE if the authority is telling the truth. But how do you know?

Faith-from-evidence or faith-from-reason is a much more secure faith. It is not less faith just because someone doesn't arrive there FROM faith. I'm less likely to waver because I have good reasons to believe what I do.

Look at it also from a scientific perspective: A good scientist by necessity has to place faith in the tools he uses in collecting data. The problem, though, is while one must trust that the tools do what they are supposed to do, all of them aren't reliable all of the time. So--ASSUMING that conditions are normal and instruments are working properly, one may expect certain results. Consistent anomalous results require reevaluating the hypothesis or theory at work in the test. But--it COULD be an equipment malfunction. Once all things check out as behaving as they should, the scientist can rule out operator error and verify that the information gathered is true and correct. Further testing is not necessary at this stage. One may place confidence that the recorded results are still true and correct the next day.

Now, as far as what faith IS: I prefer the definition "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." I think faith CAN be a strong belief in God without proof, but I'm not sure this is really the best definition in terms of Christianity. It isn't for me, anyway. I trust completely in God, which is faith. HOW I came to completely trust in God is no indication of a lack of faith.

Perhaps the biggest evidence AGAINST against your claim is you and faith heads like you. You exaggerate what you see to confirm your faith. When others give natural explanations you just say 'no it cannot happen'. Therefore there is no way to pin down what actually happened based on the few lines in the Bible.


Even heard of the cargo cult, practitioners of witchcraft or followers of the great disappointment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment ? How rational do you think they are? Your claim that whoever follow the Jesus cult must be a cool rationalist holds no water.


Wrong again. That is why the equipment are calibrated by measuring known results AND repeated by other scientists using other sets.

Oh.

You wanted to confirm your simple faith in the bible's teaching was on solid footing. Ok. So you went to the bible and read it carefully. Ok. And you found it was true because it said so and invoked the names of other people who thought so. Ok.

Sure, you used many paragraphs, invoked science, seem to imply that your way (?) is better than faith alone. But I honestly have no idea what your way might be. Reading the bible to prove it's true? er, what?

Yeah, this.

Straw man. You're not getting anywhere misrepresenting my views.


I've pointed out in other threads that the Bible is not a single book. It is a collection of books penned by those inspired by God to write what God wanted them to write.

At the moment, I couldn't tell you that the Bible says the Bible is true--I don't recall reading that anywhere. I doubt it, though, but if it does I'm sure I'll run across it again eventually. However, if YOU know where in the Bible it says that, go ahead and give me the reference and I'll check it out.

But what I CAN tell you is that there are numerous examples in the Bible in which the human author was instructed by God to relay instructions "in the Lord's name." The purpose is to show that what is being said is not just "made up" but that it really is the will of the Lord speaking through a spokesman known to be a reliable human agent of God. The format varies somewhat, but you see a lot of "And the Lord came to X, saying, "Say this to the Israelites: The Lord says, '...'" Jeremiah will interrupt the regular text with a parenthetical "this is the Lord's declaration--" So the Bible isn't saying that it is true because it said it's true. Jeremiah, et al, is claiming to be speaking as an authorized agent of God. The best evidence available shows that the component parts of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia has been reliably copied throughout its history. Much of what is recorded in the writings and the prophets reflects known history about the kingdom period through the exile. The books of the aforementioned Masoretic Text show internal theological consistency. Comparative texts show relatively little alteration from the oldest manuscripts to the MT, really the best copying accuracy of any historical document the world over. So if you have a reliable document that makes truth claims, why assume those claims to be unreliable when there really doesn't exist much to challenge the plausibility of those claims?

Moreover, Christians don't have the same connection to ancient law and ceremony that the Jews do. Forgive the oversimplification, but for us the Tanakh represents a compendium of the history, faith, and philosophy of God's covenant people. You need to have a basic understanding of it to get what Jesus was talking about. We tend to follow the gospels more closely, which in the case of the Synoptic gospels are frank accounts of Jesus' life and teaching. The theology of Christianity is more in John's gospel while Acts and the letters help us understand how the church came to be organized and the gospel spread. Again, no real reason exists to challenge the plausibility of those books. Taken together they are inspired writings initially given to God's chosen by God's chosen and show internal theological consistency. They were written remarkably soon after the events they record and so can be trusted to reliably report what is therein written. The earliest manuscripts of separate books match nearly 100% word for word later bound volumes, which indicates very little alteration over the years.

So, no, I don't believe the Bible because the "Bible said so." I believe it because evidence shows it to be believABLE.


Another straw man, but I've already addressed that.

One what empirical evidence to you conclude that. The people who wrote the bible could have been lunatics, charlatans or people like L.R. Hubbard who founded a religion as a joke.

ruveyn

Well, to be accurate the biggest flaw in my claim just now is how I said "what is recorded in the Bible couldn't possibly have happened if we ASSUME...only natural phenomena." Sometimes I type quickly just to get a thought out and fail to refine those statements to be exactly what I meant; all I can do is hope that the reader will forgive the mistake and understand the point I was trying to make. If things happen, they happen whether we assume they happened or not! Perhaps I should have said this:

"Given what we know about natural phenomena, such as in those photos, what is recorded in the Bible to have happened couldn't possibly be UNDERSTOOD to have ACTUALLY happened if ALL we ASSUME is that only natural phenomena happen."

As to the rest, I have no problem accepting a natural explanation for something IF that something has a natural explanation. But we know, or at least think we know, certain occurrences are physically impossible. So based on the ASSUMPTION that observed phenomena as recorded in the Bible is physically impossible, the only parsimonious alternative is supernatural activity.


I made no such claim about anyone following the "Jesus cult." I said that the Greeks were rationalists. The ancient Greeks have a HISTORY of rational thought and an intense love of wisdom (philo=love, sophia=wisdom). They enjoyed learning new things and digging into progressive thought and religion, but they weren't that easily persuaded. That Christianity spread so quickly among them speaks volumes for how they perceived the claims of Christianity relative to their own previously-held religious ideas.

Like I said, they weren't always so easily persuaded. There are a few instances recorded in the NT that can only be best described as EPIC FAIL for early Christian evangelism.


You missed the context.

I have a few vague memories of my high school biology and chemistry classes, so I do have an elementary knowledge of how this works. If I were used to working more in a scientific setting, I'd be better with terminology and not have to speak so much in generalities. My only professional scientific training was a one-semester graduate course in research methods and was a required course. I learned a lot about data gathering and statistical reporting. So, yeah, I know how this works. If I'm weak in that area at all, it has to do with the fact my master's degree was not in research though I did a lot of research in the classes I took. Too bad my degree wasn't a master of arts; I could be working for the CIA right now and making much more money by virtue of the research experience I would have accumulated in earning that degree rather than the master of music. Amazing how much useless information you can accumulate when forced to take classes irrelevant to your specialty!

Back to the point--at a basic level we agree, and I knew that already. One problem, though: It's always a good idea to somehow "peer-review" your work by having your colleagues repeat your tests with your methods. So how do you know that results reported by one scientist really are the results of a test? They could be a variation of the predicted results because the guy performing the test didn't have enough time, was lazy, didn't have enough to eat, or some other reason and didn't actually do any testing at all. He might just "get lucky" and have his falsified data confirmed when someone else performs a real test. Or how do you know ANYONE is telling the truth? They could just be getting paid to show the results the company they work for wants customers/clients to see in order to sell a product. Ask the guys over at Fukushima Daiichi what happens when you falsify safety records. Heck, ask the Japanese people! Do you mean to say that when we look at scientific work, we should just "take their word for it"?

As a kiwi I am bemused by this statement could you please substantiate this claim as I have experienced no evidence of this and I recieved a Catholic education and lived with a teacher for seven years. This is a secular nation with a moral and legal system loosely based around christian philosophy, we are however active participants and sometimes leaders[Rutherford who split the atom was one of us] within the scientific world and do not teach creationism within the science curriculum.

peace j

what she said but with more beligerence

peace j

The problem with your argument is the lack of drift and the fact the Jewish people had a written language even as far back as Moses, notice the Ten Commandments were written down on stone tablets. King David started out as a sheppard boy, that isn't typical of mythic heros like Hercules whom was a half-god, or the hero being a prince. Solomon's desire to want the wisdom to rule the Israelites justly was unusual from a mythic hero's standpoint. The fact that there are numerous mentions of where kings screwed up on something, which is atypical from the period.

I would say the Bible is laid out as a historical text/religious text not a mythic text. Many atheists have a problem with God on the basis that they think he is callous or cruel, fact of the matter is God is good and that God isn't simply considering what happens today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now. We're dealing with a being that was here in the beginning, whom arguably caused the Big Bang which was probably an incredible light show. He is thinking of things centuries down the road or longer, the fact someone dies may in fact spur someone to work to discover a cure for cancer. We also have the fact that we all have free will, and God didn't want a bunch of slaves. God could have chosen to strip away all free will from our ancestors after Adam and Eve essentially sinned, he did not.

Then we have the fact Jesus sacrificed himself for all mankind, which is entirely different from most deities; then he turns around and rises from the dead. There are lots of items in the Bible that shows a striking difference from other religions.