Jump to content


Photo

Literal Biblical Interpretations


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
56 replies to this topic

#41 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 January 2006 - 09:39 AM

You have posed some difficult questions that are near and dear to out hearts, I hope some of my answers do not offend.  As I have no faith, my atheistic outlook towards life will in some aspects be quite different to your own, so we must expect some amount of candour in such answers I provide.


No problem. I accept your answers in the spirit which they are given. And, you do have faith. You have faith that your materialistic, naturalistic worldview is the only correct way to perceive the reality of the universe. There is a saying that there is a God-shaped hole in everyone's heart. We fill ours with God. You fill yours with a worldview that is absent God. Your materialistic, naturalisitic worldview is your god.

(1)The difference in my outlook is one of starting from a blank, no assumptions. This means I put the existence of God into the “yet to be proved basket”. (2) But you must realise you have already made the commitment to acknowledge the literal truth of the Bible at this point, before any results come in. My numbering to keep it to 10 quotes - Dave.


(1) But, Chance, that's not true. You have a whole basket full of assumptions -- the main one being that reality is merely what we can see and observe in the materialistic, naturalistic world. That would be fine if you were to confine your scientific interests to things under "operational" science, but you want to maintain your materialistic, naturalistic assumptions while drawing huge conclusions in historical science.

(2) No. The Bible is not just some new book hot off the press. Its authenticity, authority and historical accuracy are well-documented and proven.

If one took the same attitude using a different faith as a benchmark, one could logical expect to have the Hindus, Buddhists, or any religion rejecting/accepting evidence that did not fit with their faith, and you would get a variety of ages for the earth, and all claiming scientific confirmation.


True. And it would indeed be a babel of confusion if all those other faiths believed in the one true God and his word in the Bible. But, they don't. God is not the author of confusion, Satan is. There is only one true God. You can put your faith in Him and his word.

This shows that the difference is not the science, but the individuals or societies world view. The question then becomes one of: Which ideology should prevail?


Yes. Yes. Yes. Amen. That's exactly what all the YECers here are trying to tell ya. Your worldview tells you to look for the unanswerable answers for historical science from strictly materialistic, naturalistic sources. Consequently, you will never, ever, ever be able to find the answers. Why wouldn't you want to entertain a more realistic "ideology" that helps you find those answers?

But I don’t think the analogy is apt, the electron microscope or any new hardware, is aimed at using known scientific principles.  I can’t think of a single tool that has a built in biblical reference.


My electron microscope analogy was weak in that it deals strictly with operational science. Your radiometric dating argument for trying to understand historical science uses assumptions way beyond the boundaries of scientific principles. Whereas, the Bible is a solid, authoritative body of work based in reality.

Eventually however the evidence alone will carry the day and contrary opinion will diminish.


Yes. The Bible contains the best evidence of what went on in past times. Materialistic, naturalistic scientists only have best guesses, wishful thinking, and odds playing with no evidence. I believe that's why ToE is faltering and splintering into a myriad of different "theories" to explain origins. However, God's word will never fail and will always "carry the day."

I’m trying to imagine how a device that measured radioactivity would work, if subject to a 10,000 year maximum, how could such a machine be built?  I would venture that it would need artificial calibration to tweak the results


Yes. That describes how it is done today by scientists blinded by the materialistic, naturalistic mindset who are having to tweak their assumptions in order to maintain the necessary "old earth" paradigm. There is a saying that if you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything you want. That's why we need a proof-text or checksum to check the data against. Study the ICR RATE project. Really study it. Do not just accept the negative criticism on Talk.Origins.

I think at this point I need an example of how you propose a biblical tool be used. Obviously you have your interpretation and other’s their’s, but is there a way to tell who is right?


I'll be doing that when I begin the discussion that we have talked about.

(1) Is Biblical literalism a requisite for Christian salvation? (2) I would have thought such parts of the Bible could be interpreted as allegorical. My numbering - Dave.


(1) No. As I said before, there are many Christians who have not allowed themselves to completely trust God's word. They are saved Christians, in the sense that they have accepted Christ's gift of salvation, but they are (hopefully) still working out the other details. Chance, if you would open your heart and accept Jesus Christ as your savior you would not have to give up your belief in evolution. However, you would then be subject to the Holy Spirit's influence and intercessory prayer from folks like me who would help you to see the truth.

(2) Do not confuse a "literal" definition of literal as it applies to the Bible with what we mean when we say we take the Bible literally. There are more than 200 different types of figures of speech used throughout the Bible, such as metaphors, similies, types, allegories, etc. They are well-documented in a book called "Cosmic Codes" by Chuck Missler. What many of us like to say in place of "literally" is that we take the Bible seriously. We take the Bible as plain text where plain text is meant, and we apply the various figures of speech where they are meant.

Now, you are asking: Well, gosh Dave, how are we supposed to know the difference? The answer, Chance, is that you can't. You could read the Bible 10 times from cover to cover with your current attitude and worldview and not get a single glimpse of what God has to say there. Allow the Holy Spirit to guide you in understanding, however, and the world of truth, or truth of the world, will come to you in a flood.

That's why uncompromising YECers are able to do so much more accurate science in the operational fields as well as have a better handle on the historical fields of science. And, that's also why compromising IDers are still so confused about their science. They haven't allowed the Holy Spirit to lead them to the truth.

Interestingly our library has two copies with slightly different titles, I have reserved the first (ashton 1999), should be available in a week.
In six days : why 50 leading scientists believe in creation (Ashton 1999). or
In six days : why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation (Sydney 2003)


Interesting. My book is "In Six Days -- Why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation" by John F. Ashton 2000, third printing 2002. It will be interesting to see if we are talking about the same book.

#42 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 24 January 2006 - 10:26 AM

A very difficult question to answer without seeming to offend, however I think you will agree that not all Christians take the position that you do, and accept that the Bible is the literal word of God.  Starting from this position it can be understood how some Christians can accept both God and evolution. 

Is that being dishonest? I’m not sure if that is the correct wording to use in these matters because dishonesty implies one really knows the truth and is deliberately ignoring such for a specific purpose. If a Christian told me that he truly believed that the Bible is not the literal word of God, who am I to say that he is lying, which is not to say that he is in error or has been misguided, or even deliberately tricked!

View Post


I will never be offended by honesty and agree with you suppositon about all Christians. Maybe I am judging unfairly when I say dishonest. It is possible they are honestly ignorant. The Bible is its own greatest ally or condemnation. The Bible claims to be 100% accurate. It is either all true and must be reconciled with itself entirely or is a waste of paper.

#43 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 January 2006 - 01:45 PM

Curious, does everyone have to accept the view of evolution?

I don’t think it’s possible for people to be forced to accept an idea, any idea, one should reason with individuals using persuasive argument.


For I don't go from forum to forum, website to website, trying to push a view.

Neither do I, however if one wishes to discuss such things, forums such as this are an appropriate place to make your case. The text you copied was my interpretation (of a widely held position) on the differences materialism and the supernatural.

YEC believes everyone should have a choice. Does evolutionist believe this also?


I certainly do uphold the principle that one can chose to believe what one wishes to believe. But when it comes to science the answer is moot, as there is no belief required in science, in fact it’s actively discouraged by way of warning about how preconceptions can hinder the process. How so? Science is not a philosophy, science is a discipline a tool, one can no more vote on an issue of science than one could vote on, does 1+1=0, 1+1=2, or 1+1=3? But I hear you say what’s all this about scientific consensus, is that not voting? Again the answer is no, because the ‘vote’ is not one taken with a simple yes or no it is a considered process where the proposition is scrutinised, and all aspects given critical review, and the answer tentative.

Choice seems like the popular and right thing to do, as we in a democracy, have been conditioned to think that more choice is good. This is a fallacy, should we vote on the speed limit, should we vote to obey the speed limit, to pay our taxes, acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m2 , these things cannot be voted on when people are swayed by emotion. They are laws, laws of man and nature, men make laws and men use science to discover scientific laws.

#44 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 January 2006 - 02:18 PM

I certainly do uphold the principle that one can chose to believe what one wishes to believe.  But when it comes to science the answer is moot, as there is no belief required in science, in fact it’s actively discouraged by way of warning about how preconceptions can hinder the process. 


This is sort of true regarding operational science. Its is not at all true regarding goo-to-you evolution, which people(whether they wear white lab coats or not) believe in.

Its sort of true regarding operational science, because some believe that the universe can be explained from a 100% materialistic viewpoint.

All scientific evidence is interpreted within a given framework, when it come to origins science.

Terry

#45 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 24 January 2006 - 06:34 PM

chance>
You have posed some difficult questions that are near and dear to out hearts, I hope some of my answers do not offend.  As I have no faith, my atheistic outlook towards life will in some aspects be quite different to your own, so we must expect some amount of candour in such answers I provide.

Dave>
No problem. I accept your answers in the spirit which they are given. And, you do have faith. You have faith that your materialistic, naturalistic worldview is the only correct way to perceive the reality of the universe. There is a saying that there is a God-shaped hole in everyone's heart. We fill ours with God. You fill yours with a worldview that is absent God. Your materialistic, naturalisitic worldview is your god.

my emphasis.

I fear we are headed for a definition of faith and atheism. In the simplest terms I have an absence of faith, where faith is the belief in some aspect without accompanying proof (i.e. you do not actually need proof of God to believe in God). With that explanation I would not compare my ‘faith’ in naturalism to be any where near as strong as I presume your faith in God. My ‘faith’ is tentative, i.e. given new evidence my allegiance to any idea could turn in a second. I think you will agree that that philosophy does not align very well with faith.


chance>
(1)The difference in my outlook is one of starting from a blank, no assumptions. This means I put the existence of God into the “yet to be proved basket”. (2) But you must realise you have already made the commitment to acknowledge the literal truth of the Bible at this point, before any results come in. My numbering to keep it to 10 quotes - Dave.

Dave>
(1) But, Chance, that's not true. You have a whole basket full of assumptions -- the main one being that reality is merely what we can see and observe in the materialistic, naturalistic world. That would be fine if you were to confine your scientific interests to things under "operational" science, but you want to maintain your materialistic, naturalistic assumptions while drawing huge conclusions in historical science.

(2) No. The Bible is not just some new book hot off the press. Its authenticity, authority and historical accuracy are well-documented and proven.


answer to reply 1): not exactly my assumption is a) that science can only investigate the natural, because it to is trapped within the natural. b)Science that encompasses time is no different in principle to any other aspect of science, the only difference being you may have limited answers because of the obvious limitations. This in no way excludes science from investigating.

Even if your remarks were true you are then left in the position of needing a mechanism to determine who’s assumptions are correct, given that there can only be one truth. IMO investigating the evidence is the only logical choice and the scientific method the best tool.


chance>
If one took the same attitude using a different faith as a benchmark, one could logical expect to have the Hindus, Buddhists, or any religion rejecting/accepting evidence that did not fit with their faith, and you would get a variety of ages for the earth, and all claiming scientific confirmation.

Dave>
True. And it would indeed be a babel of confusion if all those other faiths believed in the one true God and his word in the Bible. But, they don't. God is not the author of confusion, Satan is. There is only one true God. You can put your faith in Him and his word.


I have no way to determine what you say is true (not that you do not believe it true). This puts me in the same position as “Doubting Thomas” and if my recollection of Biblical text is accurate (setting my self up), Thomas was convinced not by say so, but by physical evidence.


chance>
This shows that the difference is not the science, but the individuals or societies world view. The question then becomes one of: Which ideology should prevail?

Dave>
Yes. Yes. Yes. Amen. That's exactly what all the YECers here are trying to tell ya. Your worldview tells you to look for the unanswerable answers for historical science from strictly materialistic, naturalistic sources. Consequently, you will never, ever, ever be able to find the answers. Why wouldn't you want to entertain a more realistic "ideology" that helps you find those answers?


Believe me, that I have never suspected these EvC arguments are triggered by some scientist saying “hay this is wrong…….” I have always maintained that the ‘big bosses’ of YEC are ideologically driven.

My position is then, Science works well for materialistic endeavours, the world man has created is self evident that science works, and that includes areas that delve into time/history. Materialism gives results of old earth and evolution. If I am to give YEC any credence at all, it their science that will convince me, and as I have maintained all along when you delve into the details of their science it is found seriously wanting.


chance>
But I don’t think the analogy is apt, the electron microscope or any new hardware, is aimed at using known scientific principles.  I can’t think of a single tool that has a built in biblical reference.

Dave>
My electron microscope analogy was weak in that it deals strictly with operational science. Your radiometric dating argument for trying to understand historical science uses assumptions way beyond the boundaries of scientific principles. Whereas, the Bible is a solid, authoritative body of work based in reality.


The problem for you here is, what do you do if a radiometric (or other dating methods) produce dates covering dates from 100 to 1MYA, do you keep the dates below 10,000 and dismiss the rest as erroneous? I will make a point here, the principle of the various dating methods are well understood and the various methods complimentary, I do not agree with you that the science is suspect at all, as there are a number of topics currently running ill leave it up to you if yo wish to debate such.


chance>
I’m trying to imagine how a device that measured radioactivity would work, if subject to a 10,000 year maximum, how could such a machine be built?  I would venture that it would need artificial calibration to tweak the results

Dave>
Yes. That describes how it is done today by scientists blinded by the materialistic, naturalistic mindset who are having to tweak their assumptions in order to maintain the necessary "old earth" paradigm. There is a saying that if you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything you want. That's why we need a proof-text or checksum to check the data against. Study the ICR RATE project. Really study it. Do not just accept the negative criticism on Talk.Origins.


The machines as they currently stand have no calibration, the result is the result, this goes for who ever uses the facilities. When the RATE project sent their samples in they were only too happy with the result because it seem to go against established wisdom. So here we have the same machine giving accurate results accepted by both, the ‘interpretation’ is in the understanding the raw data.

I have made comment elsewhere about the RATE project, and yes I have read both sides.


chance>
(1) Is Biblical literalism a requisite for Christian salvation?

Dave>
(1) No. As I said before, there are many Christians who have not allowed themselves to completely trust God's word. They are saved Christians, in the sense that they have accepted Christ's gift of salvation, but they are (hopefully) still working out the other details. Chance, if you would open your heart and accept Jesus Christ as your savior you would not have to give up your belief in evolution. However, you would then be subject to the Holy Spirit's influence and intercessory prayer from folks like me who would help you to see the truth.


Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

I have a couple of problems with just “accepting Jesus” as you put it.
a.) To me this implies acceptance of an idea before it’s authenticity is confirmed.
b.) I would be being dishonest if I tried, and by that I mean, if I truly did not believe in Christ (as a God), how could I accept him while in this state. By just saying “I accept” to myself, does not mean that I truly mean it (and I’m fairly certain a God would know that). So in this respect I feel a little trapped by my own logic. Not sure if I conveyed my position accurately.



chance>
(2) I would have thought such parts of the Bible could be interpreted as allegorical.

Dave>
(2) Do not confuse a "literal" definition of literal as it applies to the Bible with what we mean when we say we take the Bible literally. There are more than 200 different types of figures of speech used throughout the Bible, such as metaphors, similies, types, allegories, etc. They are well-documented in a book called "Cosmic Codes" by Chuck Missler. What many of us like to say in place of "literally" is that we take the Bible seriously. We take the Bible as plain text where plain text is meant, and we apply the various figures of speech where they are meant.



Yes, no problem with that, a parable is a story told to convey an idea, that parable need not have happened in real life just because it is in the Bible. By literal I mean events like, genesis, 6 day creation, Noachian flood, the characters, etc.







Now, you are asking: Well, gosh Dave, how are we supposed to know the difference? The answer, Chance, is that you can't. You could read the Bible 10 times from cover to cover with your current attitude and worldview and not get a single glimpse of what God has to say there. Allow the Holy Spirit to guide you in understanding, however, and the world of truth, or truth of the world, will come to you in a flood.

That's why uncompromising YECers are able to do so much more accurate science in the operational fields as well as have a better handle on the historical fields of science. And, that's also why compromising IDers are still so confused about their science. They haven't allowed the Holy Spirit to lead them to the truth.


But such YEC science then hinges on the literal interpretation of Biblical events. You have a pre conceived time frame that science results must fit into (no ifs buts or maybes, no possibility that you could be wrong) and my first response is, is such an attitude justified in the first place? Science did not have an agenda to disprove the Bible, geology has, by slow realisation, come to the conclusion that the earth is ancient, not through any wilful disobedience, or errors, but because the evidence just does not show a young earth. I’m sure the people who first realised the implications of their discoveries were somewhat at odds if to go ahead and publish, many got a lot of flack for doing so, but that’s where the evidence leads.

#46 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 26 January 2006 - 09:45 AM

In the simplest terms I have an absence of faith, where faith is the belief in some aspect without accompanying proof


Strictly speaking, your belief that materialistic, naturalistic science is "all there is" without accompanying proof is taken on faith. I believe that puts you and all evolutionistic, materialistic, naturalistic scientists on the same level as creationists, historical-science-wise. I will grant that your faith in naturalism is not as strong as my faith in God, and that is a very, very good sign, which gives one hope that you might be open to hearing about and learning the truth.

... a) that science can only investigate the natural, because it to is trapped within the natural.  b)Science that encompasses time is no different in principle to any other aspect of science, the only difference being you may have limited answers because of the obvious limitations.  c) This in no way excludes science from investigating.


a) That's true about operational science, but b ) science that delves into history must work from assumptions. And c) Right, I agree. But, naturalistic scientists must stand shoulder to shoulder with creation scientists, and they must recognize that they do not have a lock on the presuppositions that can be used to investigate past events. Naturalism and creationism are taken on faith, with creationism having the edge because 1) it is the truth, and 2) there is a witness who left us the blueprint.

Even if your remarks were true you are then left in the position of needing a mechanism to determine who’s assumptions are correct, given that there can only be one truth.  IMO investigating the evidence is the only logical choice and the scientific method the best tool.

My emphasis - Dave

You just jumped into the pool (of truth) and then jumped right back out again without even getting wet. :o

Thomas was convinced not by say so, but by physical evidence.


66 books by 40 authors penned over thousands of years. An intergrated message system from outside our time domain. For those of us not blessed with being able to walk the earth at the same time as Jesus, the Bible serves as some very convincing physical evidence.

My position is then, Science works well for materialistic endeavours, the world man has created is self evident that science works, and that includes areas that delve into time/history.  Materialism gives results of old earth and evolution.  If I am to give YEC any credence at all, it their science that will convince me, and as I have maintained all along when you delve into the details of their science it is found seriously wanting.


That's why you really, really need to read about and from degreed Bible-believing scientists working in all the same fields as evolutionists. For you to say that science done by a creation-believing scientist is "seriously wanting" shows you spend way too much time in Talk.Origins and not any time reading these scientists' actual works. "In Six Days" will be a good start, and I commend your open-mindedness in reading it.

I have a couple of problems with just “accepting Jesus” as you put it.


Well, most of us have been in the same boat, so to speak. Fortunately, it is a problem that can be overcome ... if you are willing to give it a try.

So in this respect I feel a little trapped by my own logic.  Not sure if I conveyed my position accurately.


Yes. I understand. Been there, done that.

#47 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 January 2006 - 01:57 PM

Chance>
In the simplest terms I have an absence of faith, where faith is the belief in some aspect without accompanying proof

Dave>
Strictly speaking, your belief that materialistic, naturalistic science is "all there is" without accompanying proof is taken on faith. I believe that puts you and all evolutionistic, materialistic, naturalistic scientists on the same level as creationists, historical-science-wise. I will grant that your faith in naturalism is not as strong as my faith in God, and that is a very, very good sign, which gives one hope that you might be open to hearing about and learning the truth.


No, an absence of faith is not the same as an alternate ‘anti’ faith, e.g. Do I need a faith, not to believe in: Thor, Vishnu, Santa Clause, Easter bunny, the list is endless of things one could make that require a faith by your reasoning, an absence of faith allows all of the above to be put in a default position requiring proof.


chance>
... a) that science can only investigate the natural, because it to is trapped within the natural.  b)Science that encompasses time is no different in principle to any other aspect of science, the only difference being you may have limited answers because of the obvious limitations.  c) This in no way excludes science from investigating.

Dave>
a) That's true about operational science, but b ) science that delves into history must work from assumptions. And c) Right, I agree. But, naturalistic scientists must stand shoulder to shoulder with creation scientists, and they must recognize that they do not have a lock on the presuppositions that can be used to investigate past events. Naturalism and creationism are taken on faith, with creationism having the edge because 1) it is the truth, and 2) there is a witness who left us the blueprint.


I dispute such a division (operational and historical) science exists, while delving into the past or invisible is more difficult, and assumptions made, those assumptions are not the same thing as an uneducated guess, there is reasoning behind the assumptions.

I postpone a reply to creationism/truth/witness as these I feel these will be covered in our upcoming debate.

chance>
Thomas was convinced not by say so, but by physical evidence.

Dave>
66 books by 40 authors penned over thousands of years. An intergrated message system from outside our time domain. For those of us not blessed with being able to walk the earth at the same time as Jesus, the Bible serves as some very convincing physical evidence.


But I align myself with Thomas’s scepticism, and I really do not think it is the wrong position to take. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


My position is then, Science works well for materialistic endeavours, the world man has created is self evident that science works, and that includes areas that delve into time/history.  Materialism gives results of old earth and evolution.  If I am to give YEC any credence at all, it their science that will convince me, and as I have maintained all along when you delve into the details of their science it is found seriously wanting.


That's why you really, really need to read about and from degreed Bible-believing scientists working in all the same fields as evolutionists. For you to say that science done by a creation-believing scientist is "seriously wanting" shows you spend way too much time in Talk.Origins and not any time reading these scientists' actual works. "In Six Days" will be a good start, and I commend your open-mindedness in reading it.


Since getting involved with EvC debates I have read a few creationist books, and thus my opinion is derived not only from talk origins, but from researching the claims made in the books, in addition to reading the AiG web site. Still waiting for “in Six days” to arrive at my library (has to sent from the adjoining district), but I’ll critique it and post my reply.

#48 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 January 2006 - 02:07 PM

Oops missed a bit

chance>
I have a couple of problems with just “accepting Jesus” as you put it.

Dave>
Well, most of us have been in the same boat, so to speak. Fortunately, it is a problem that can be overcome ... if you are willing to give it a try.


Chance>
So in this respect I feel a little trapped by my own logic.  Not sure if I conveyed my position accurately.

Dave>
Yes. I understand. Been there, done that.


“if you are willing to try” implies acceptance of a POV before that POV has been established. Or believe in me then all will be revealed. I mentally recoil at using such a thought process, a.) because it could logical be used for any faith based system (religion, politics, advertising), and b.) because it is upon the claimant to demonstrate the correctness of their POV, not me to trust them that they are correct.

#49 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 27 January 2006 - 10:00 AM

Do I need a faith, not to believe in: Thor, Vishnu, Santa Clause, Easter bunny?


No. Absolutely not. However, you do need a faith in the materialistic and naturalistic-only processes to pin a whole scientific philosophy to it absent provable evidence.

... while delving into the past or invisible is more difficult, and assumptions made, those assumptions are not the same thing as an uneducated guess, there is reasoning behind the assumptions.

My emphasis - Dave

Thank you. Hopefully, as you delve into "In Six Days" you'll be exposed to some of that reasoning from those who don't hold themselves to merely a materialistic-naturalistic mindset.

Since getting involved with EvC debates I have read a few creationist books,


Which books? Perhaps I've read the same ones and we can discuss them. Or, I can probably get them at a library and read them.

“if you are willing to try” implies acceptance of a POV before that POV has been established. Or believe in me then all will be revealed. I mentally recoil at using such a thought process, a.) because it could logical be used for any faith based system (religion, politics, advertising), and b.) because it is upon the claimant to demonstrate the correctness of their POV, not me to trust them that they are correct.


In my statement, "willing to try" was an open-ended statement. You took it to mean, "willing to believe." Whereas, I meant, "willing to listen." Does that help?

#50 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 January 2006 - 04:08 AM

Even if your remarks were true you are then left in the position of needing a mechanism to determine who’s assumptions are correct, given that there can only be one truth.  IMO investigating the evidence is the only logical choice and the scientific method the best tool.


I don't want to disrupt a good discussion, but there are a few interesting points to be covered here.

Its an undspitibale fact that the scientific method has limitations. The universe is composed of things other than materialistic observations, which the scientific method is limited to, so trying to use it to investigate things that its not possible to do, e.g. the truth about Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the human race, is simply a false position to work from.

I have no way to determine what you say is true (not that you do not believe it true).  This puts me in the same position as “Doubting Thomas” and if my recollection of Biblical text is accurate (setting my self up), Thomas was convinced not by say so, but by physical evidence.


As Dave alluded to, no one has the capability to determine the truth about God on their own before anyone believs and is saved through that belief.

We all come into this life spiritually dead, and without the capacity to communicate, or relate to God.

You will never find God through rationalism, or empericism. God's plan is Grace, through Faith alone in Christ alone.

Grace means that you cannot have any merrit in your salvation. Grace means that every person in the human race comes to the cross of Christ with nothing but faith. God's Grace and human Faith are married at the Cross of Christ, and result in eternal life.

This is the great paradox that God has setup for the human race. Inspired by God the Holy Spirit, the Aposlt Paul wrote about it in the book of 1st Corinthians:

1CO 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void.

1CO 1:18 ¶ For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1CO 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside."
1CO 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1CO 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
1CO 1:22 For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom;
1CO 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness,

You see, Christ is the very "power of God, and the wisdom of God". Which is superior to any human endeavor to understanding the universe.

1CO 1:24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.


1CO 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

I have a couple of problems with just “accepting Jesus” as you put it.
a.) To me this implies acceptance of an idea before it’s authenticity is confirmed.
b.) I would be being dishonest if I tried, and by that I mean, if I truly did not believe in Christ (as a God), how could I accept him while in this state. By just saying “I accept” to myself, does not mean that I truly mean it (and I’m fairly certain a God would know that). So in this respect I feel a little trapped by my own logic. Not sure if I conveyed my position accurately.


You undoubtedly do, and if you ever have positive volition toward God, then its something that you will be able to let go of. If you hang on to your own wisdom, you will never have a chance to know God.

Christ said:

JOH 5:44 "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and
you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God
?

Humans are impressed with themselves, and seek to glory from other humans, e.g. the clever(but false) arguments of evolution, and are not interested in seeking the glory of God. This is because God's Glory only glorifies himself, and not the person involved.

Christ also said:
MAR 10:15 "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all."

IOW, you just have to believe, as a child does when his parrent tells him not to touch the hot stove, or he will get hurt.

In summary, you have no chance to believe because your wrapped up in your own thinking, and yes you are certainly trapped by your own logic, that is God's wisdom. Its my prayer, that you will one day have positive volition toward God, and he will reveal the truth to you.

That you are a sinner, and you cannot stand before God with your sins and justify yourself to him.

That Jesus Christ died on the Cross for your sins, and arose from the grave to demonstrate that he is God, and if you believe the truth about him, you will not only be freed from the trap of your human wisdom, but more importantly you will be forgiven and given eternal life.


ACT 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household."

Terry

#51 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 28 January 2006 - 11:52 AM

Oops missed a bit
“if you are willing to try” implies acceptance of a POV before that POV has been established.  Or believe in me then all will be revealed.  I mentally recoil at using such a thought process, a.) because it could logical be used for any faith based system (religion, politics, advertising), and b.) because it is upon the claimant to demonstrate the correctness of their POV, not me to trust them that they are correct.

View Post


I brought this up elswhere but as I "watch' this discussion I believe it may be of some help here.
Chance, you have used the term "natualist" in self description. By definition anything beyond the physical and testable universe is not acceptable; everything exists within nature. Is this your view?

#52 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 January 2006 - 01:45 PM

Do I need a faith, not to believe in: Thor, Vishnu, Santa Clause, Easter bunny?


No. Absolutely not. However, you do need a faith in the materialistic and naturalistic-only processes to pin a whole scientific philosophy to it absent provable evidence.


So where is the difference between, a.) the fictitious characters I proposed, to b.) the God you believe in? it is in the faith you have in your God, else if you were born into a different culture and time the object of your faith would have be different. Now compare that condition to the materialistic out look, there is no object of devotion, everything is able to be touched, seen, measured, investigated, either directly or indirectly, the only axiom (not faith) is that one accept that science is limited to investigating that world.
What does this logically mean then with respect to our EvC discussions.

1.) If the universe truly is old, then science is correct.
2.) If the universe truly is young and created, then science is incorrect, somehow we have got it all wrong and are either:
a.) misreading or misinterpreting what is found, or
b.) the universe is deliberately made to look old. In which case science is still right.

Materialism is just the state where science allows it’s investigation, I do not need an un-faith or alternate faith

Since getting involved with EvC debates I have read a few creationist books,


Which books? Perhaps I've read the same ones and we can discuss them. Or, I can probably get them at a library and read them.


Note to self “record the list of creationist book I have read to have an easy reply”. However from memory, “in the minds of men”, “Darwin’s black box” (skimmed the tech), and one other whose title escapes me for the moment.


“if you are willing to try” implies acceptance of a POV before that POV has been established. Or believe in me then all will be revealed. I mentally recoil at using such a thought process, a.) because it could logical be used for any faith based system (religion, politics, advertising), and b.) because it is upon the claimant to demonstrate the correctness of their POV, not me to trust them that they are correct.


In my statement, "willing to try" was an open-ended statement. You took it to mean, "willing to believe." Whereas, I meant, "willing to listen." Does that help?


You are quite correct that’s the interpretation I projected. I am always willing to listen, and look forward to reading about your POV in these forums.

#53 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 29 January 2006 - 07:13 PM

Materialism is just the state where science allows it’s investigation, I do not need an un-faith or alternate faith.


This particular aspect is not so important to me that we can't just "agree to disagree" and move on. OK with you?

Note to self “record the list of creationist book I have read to have an easy reply”. However from memory, “in the minds of men”, “Darwin’s black box” (skimmed the tech), and one other whose title escapes me for the moment.


"Darwin's Black Box" I've obviously read. "In the Minds of Men," I've never heard of and will have to look up. Currently, I'm reading "Mere Creation," articles by IDers in a book edited by Michael Dembski. It's interesting watching those guys waltz around with their confusion. They truly are in the place of the proverbial "fence sitters" -- neither Bible-believing creationists, nor full-blown evolutionists, but somewhere inbetween. I appreciate them for their good science debunking naturalistic evolution, but wish they would stand up for God of the Bible, whom many of them profess to believe in.

Dave

#54 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 30 January 2006 - 10:53 AM


1.) If the universe truly is old, then science is correct.
2.) If the universe truly is young and created, then science is incorrect, somehow we have got it all wrong and are either:
    a.) misreading or misinterpreting what is found, or
    b.) the universe is deliberately made to look old. In which case science is still right.

Materialism is just the state where science allows it’s investigation, I do not need an un-faith or alternate faith


This seems to be a spot in which (I have?) there is confusion. Science is an acedemic field. Science is neither right or wrong? Those within the field can be wrong. Science is the compilation of facts. Example-I can make a mathematical error, 1+1=3. I am wrong, mathematics, remains intact?

View Post



#55 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 January 2006 - 01:40 PM

This seems to be a spot in which (I have?) there is confusion. Science is an acedemic field. Science is neither right or wrong? Those within the field can be wrong. Science is the compilation of facts. Example-I can make a mathematical error, 1+1=3. I am wrong, mathematics, remains intact?


I would say science is working towards right (with the occasional falter). It’s certainly possible to draw the wrong conclusion based on what you currently know, e.g. “Light travels in straight lines” or “Atoms are the smallest unit of matter” both of which are now known to be in error. Science provides a tentative explanation to observations, is more correct.
But it is, in principle, how you have described it (1+1=3) if you make an error, the universe remains intact.
Although even the error may not be a problem, e.g. Newtonian mathematics works fine for most calculations (i.e. navigating around the solar system) but if high speeds or gravity is to be included you will need Einsteinian modifications. Electrical theory is also similar, e.g. when reading a circuit it does not really matter to the calculations if you use the positive of negative current flow.

Science is far more than a straight compilation of facts, it is the explanatory mechanism that follows the facts that’s important.

#56 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 31 January 2006 - 02:14 AM

...
Science is far more than a straight compilation of facts, it is the explanatory mechanism that follows the facts that’s important.

View Post


Then I need to re-assess my understanding of science. It is the study of compiled facts or knowledge?

#57 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 31 January 2006 - 01:21 PM

Then I need to re-assess my understanding of science. It is the study of compiled facts or knowledge?

View Post


The Wikipedia, has as good a definition as any, from the link:


Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to a system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism – aimed at finding out the truth. The basic unit of knowledge is the theory, which is a hypothesis that is predictive. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

Most scientists feel that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge under the working assumption of methodological materialism, which explains observable events in nature by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it. Particular specialized studies that make use of empirical methods are often referred to as sciences as well. This article concentrates on the more specific definition.

Science as defined above is sometimes termed pure science to differentiate it from applied science, the application of research to human needs.

Fields of science may also be classified along two major lines:

Experiment, the search for first-hand information, versus theory, the development of models to explain what is observed
Natural science, the study of the natural phenomena, versus social science, the study of human behaviour and society
Mathematics is often referred to as a science, but the fruits of mathematical sciences, known as theorems, are obtained by logical derivations, which presume axiomatic systems rather than a combination of observation and reasoning. Many mathematical methods have fundamental utility in the empirical sciences, of which the fruits are hypotheses and theories.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users