Article "shut down the prayer"

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

22 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

While I am inclined to agree with your position, your post kind of conflicts with itself.  You state that the Old Testament wasn’t recorded  until hundreds of years after Christ and yet portions of the Old Testament are quoted in the New Testament.  The Old Testament was most certainly recorded prior to the birth of Christ and the New Testament writings were recorded before AD 100.  The canon was largely agreed upon before the Council of Nivea in the early 300s.  What you may be getting confused about is the age of the extant copies of the Bible (codices) that we have today.  But we have portions of the Old Testament books that date to before Christ (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls).

Not to argue but the first bible as such where things were put together was probably about 1000’A.D. there were individual writings that we have. While we are on the subject of the word bible there are many versions of the Bible all are different. Some to a great degree. Not one I have ever witnessed was signed by God. Did he inspire these writing yes in the same way JFK inspired all the books written about him. Are there truths in all of these versions probably so most agree God created the world. Are all of them 100 % accurate ? No. All man made religions and there versions of the scripture result from what is in their interest. That doesn’t mean that God is not truely here it means that people pick and choose what part the choose to believe based upon what makes them look the best. Let take a look at the King James Version which was actually created in 1605 I believe . Not by a cleric or minister but by a King. If you notice in his version he centers on how you should honor men over women and kings over clerics. Surely it wouldn’t have anything to do with his problems that he faced with the man made church at the time. Man made churches do the same thing using parts that help them survive and prosper. Kind of like if you go to a Ford dealer he will tell you all the good about ford and all the bad about Chevy . He doesn’t actually lie but he omits telling you about the bad in the ford and the good in the Chevy . God endorses no man made religion. Your results with God will be based total on your and His connection. No one can intervene for you nor can you intervene for someone else. Everyone has to make the choice for theirselves.

[augolf1716 21,140]

Excellent thread and civil...... props to all

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I am not insinuating anything about the post you responded to, rather I just want to ask you a question. You're a reasonable guy and your perspective intrigues me. (also, judging by other comments, we aren't very concerned with "derailing" the thread.) 

Do you think there is a problem when people try to use the Bible to prove or dispel a scientific assertion? In other words, do you see how it might not be wise to use the Bible as a textbook? I certainly answer in the affirmative. For example, Genesis says that God created the universe in 7 "days." However, prior to the creation of the sun, must it not beg the question how days were calculated? I am not well-versed in Biblical languages, so I suppose an argument from semantics could cut the other way. Nonetheless, on the surface it just seems somewhat counterintuitive at times to treat the Bible as a science textbook. The same goes for people who appeal to the Bible when casting their argument for the earth's age. I mean, of course God created things that were already "aged," if that makes sense (I doubt most Christians think Adam and Eve were created as newborns - the same logic could be used for trees, etc.). But still, it just doesn't seem to fit uniformly. 

I'm with you.  I think when you try to argue science with theology, it's fundamentally a losing proposition for the latter.  To believe in any God/religion takes faith.  Science is based upon hard evidence and earthly facts, so faith is inherently discredited in those arguments.

There are absolutely great lessons to be learned from the Bible and many other religions.  But, as you said, it's counterintuitive to use a faith based text when debating hard science.

[triangletiger 1,599]

Just read this in a devotional and found it to be relevant to the direction this thread has taken: 

 Case for the Creator 

Along with many naturalists, Richard Dawkins believed that the origin of life is merely an impression of design and there is no need at all for a divine watchmaker. In his book, “The Blind Watchmaker” he writes, “the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics …...Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life…” 

Therefore, one can argue that if everything can be accounted for by the naturalistic processes, then there is no need for a Creator. However, naturalists such as Dawkins who insist that the naturalistic evolution operates merely on the principles of time and chance forget that it also depends on the laws of a universe that is not the product of time and chance. Physicist Stephen Barr in his book, “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith” writes, “What Dawkins does not seem to appreciate is that his blind watchmaker is something even more remarkable than Paley’s watches. Paley finds a “watch” and asks how such a thing could have come to be there by chance. Dawkins finds an immense automated factory that blindly constructs watches and feels that he has completely answered Paley’s point. But that is absurd. How can a factory that makes watches be less in need of explanation than the watches themselves?”

In other words, the naturalistic point of view, far from disproving the need for a Creator, arguably does nothing more than push the argument from the primary to secondary causes.

Furthermore, the naturalists very often would claim that the reason they exclude the primary cause is because it cannot be quantified, measured, or experimented on. So a question arises. Can science detect the divine watch-maker concerning questions of origin? 

The naturalist believes that just because he can understand the mechanical processes of life, he is justified in concluding that there is no God because science cannot detect God in it. This reasoning commits a logical error that confuses mechanical processes with primary causes. Let us say that a kid would like to know who designed a train engine. One way of doing it is by examining the whole train and the processes of how it works and then proclaim that there is no Mr. Train inside the engine to make it move. Besides, if the kid grows up to study train engineering, he would discover that he did not need to introduce Mr. Train as an explanation for its working. His understanding of the impersonal processes would be enough to do that. However, if he concludes that his understanding of how it works has now made it impossible to believe in the existence of a Mr. Train who made the engine in the first place, then this would be false. Had there never been a Mr. Train to design the mechanical processes, none would exist for him to understand. In the same way the creator cannot be expelled from the theory just because evolution may be a mechanism for the origin of life.

It is important to note that God is not a mechanical process but an agent who is the reason behind the processes. Now, both the agent and the mechanism are involved in the comprehensive explanation of the existence and working of the universe as a whole. In fact, Life itself warrants the existence of a personal Creator. Therefore, it makes sense when the Bible says, “In the beginning God created…”

[McLoofus 35,182]

16 hours ago, AUsince72 said:

And with that, I hope I set a GOOD example of a Christian and not one that turns poeple off.

You do. 

[AUsince72 11,084]

7 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You do. 

Greatly appreciated my friend! 🤗

[johnnyAU 3,630]

Regardless of where I stand with my personal spirituality, it is important to respect others' religious beliefs and right to their beliefs.  The more science that we learn, the greater the appreciation for the vastness of the universe, the complexity of life and the overwhelming amount of things we truly don't fully understand. 

Some may think they have all the answers, but those are the most naive and ignorant among us. 

[homersapien 11,373]

On 11/1/2018 at 6:23 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

If you're talking about God in the confines of scripture, then its impossible to maintain that "Man is basically another animal along with all the others, just with some highly evolved skills." What distinguishes "Man" in the Biblical account is that God breathed life into them, unlike all other created life. He also gave Man dominion over all creatures. 

Obviously, I am not speaking of God within the confines of scripture, which is written human myth. 

I am speaking of a (hypothetical) God that exists within the confines of the natural universe. Man - as a product of evolution - is just another animal.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 11/1/2018 at 5:27 PM, triangletiger said:

Okay, then, maybe not ad hominem, but he's certainly guilty of the genetic fallacy.  If Mr. (Dr.?) Wilson doesn't address the challenges to Darwinian evolution (such as irreducible complexity) that are presented, but merely says that Evolution News/Discovery Institute's motivations are to 'promote pseudoscience'  and 'getting creationism taught in school alongside evolution in science classes' without making the case for why the challenges presented (which he refers to as 'wedge strategies'), that is textbook genetic fallacy.  The closest he comes to actually addressing the challenges is saying that 'they have not conducted a single viable or peer reviewed experiment that supports their hypotheses'.   I don't work in the fields of biology or genetic science, but I'm not sure how one would go about conducting an experiment regarding something like irreducible complexity.  But this argument cuts both ways.  Since random mutation through natural selection has to occur over vast spans of time and is not observable in a laboratory setting, much of Darwinism is based on speculation rather than experiment.  It's largely an extrapolation to the macro scale of things that are observed on the micro scale.   

There is plethora of actual evidence that refutes the idea of "irreducible complexity".  There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity".

Search "why irreducible complexity is wrong"

Again, the burden upon those who promote that concept is to prove it true.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 11/1/2018 at 5:27 PM, triangletiger said:

Okay, then, maybe not ad hominem, but he's certainly guilty of the genetic fallacy.  If Mr. (Dr.?) Wilson doesn't address the challenges to Darwinian evolution (such as irreducible complexity) that are presented, but merely says that Evolution News/Discovery Institute's motivations are to 'promote pseudoscience'  and 'getting creationism taught in school alongside evolution in science classes' without making the case for why the challenges presented (which he refers to as 'wedge strategies'), that is textbook genetic fallacy.  The closest he comes to actually addressing the challenges is saying that 'they have not conducted a single viable or peer reviewed experiment that supports their hypotheses'.   I don't work in the fields of biology or genetic science, but I'm not sure how one would go about conducting an experiment regarding something like irreducible complexity.  But this argument cuts both ways.  Since random mutation through natural selection has to occur over vast spans of time and is not observable in a laboratory setting, much of Darwinism is based on speculation rather than experiment.  It's largely an extrapolation to the macro scale of things that are observed on the micro scale.   

This is totally false.  Evolution is has been proven every time it has been tested, either through observation or experimentally.

And significantly, it has been confirmed across every branch of science that has tested the question. It is a natural phenomenon.

Just search "experimental evidence for evolution" and "observational evidence for evolution".

[homersapien 11,373]

On 11/2/2018 at 8:19 AM, triangletiger said:

Just read this in a devotional and found it to be relevant to the direction this thread has taken: 

 Case for the Creator 

Along with many naturalists, Richard Dawkins believed that the origin of life is merely an impression of design and there is no need at all for a divine watchmaker. In his book, “The Blind Watchmaker” he writes, “the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics …...Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life…” 

Therefore, one can argue that if everything can be accounted for by the naturalistic processes, then there is no need for a Creator. However, naturalists such as Dawkins who insist that the naturalistic evolution operates merely on the principles of time and chance forget that it also depends on the laws of a universe that is not the product of time and chance. Physicist Stephen Barr in his book, “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith” writes, “What Dawkins does not seem to appreciate is that his blind watchmaker is something even more remarkable than Paley’s watches. Paley finds a “watch” and asks how such a thing could have come to be there by chance. Dawkins finds an immense automated factory that blindly constructs watches and feels that he has completely answered Paley’s point. But that is absurd. How can a factory that makes watches be less in need of explanation than the watches themselves?”

In other words, the naturalistic point of view, far from disproving the need for a Creator, arguably does nothing more than push the argument from the primary to secondary causes.

Furthermore, the naturalists very often would claim that the reason they exclude the primary cause is because it cannot be quantified, measured, or experimented on. So a question arises. Can science detect the divine watch-maker concerning questions of origin? 

The naturalist believes that just because he can understand the mechanical processes of life, he is justified in concluding that there is no God because science cannot detect God in it. This reasoning commits a logical error that confuses mechanical processes with primary causes. Let us say that a kid would like to know who designed a train engine. One way of doing it is by examining the whole train and the processes of how it works and then proclaim that there is no Mr. Train inside the engine to make it move. Besides, if the kid grows up to study train engineering, he would discover that he did not need to introduce Mr. Train as an explanation for its working. His understanding of the impersonal processes would be enough to do that. However, if he concludes that his understanding of how it works has now made it impossible to believe in the existence of a Mr. Train who made the engine in the first place, then this would be false. Had there never been a Mr. Train to design the mechanical processes, none would exist for him to understand. In the same way the creator cannot be expelled from the theory just because evolution may be a mechanism for the origin of life.

It is important to note that God is not a mechanical process but an agent who is the reason behind the processes. Now, both the agent and the mechanism are involved in the comprehensive explanation of the existence and working of the universe as a whole. In fact, Life itself warrants the existence of a personal Creator. Therefore, it makes sense when the Bible says, “In the beginning God created…”

There is no case to be made for a creator from what we currently know about the universe and it would be a basic error to say otherwise.

If you want to discover a "case" for a creator, the place to look would be advanced physics. But I wouldn't expect to find a case there either - more likely just more unknowns.

All of this of course does not prove a case against a creator but the absence of proof does not make a case for.

As I said before, if the belief in a creator is important for you there's still plenty of room for faith, beyond scientific knowledge. But one cannot declare the existence of God based on current scientific understanding. 

In short, while you can believe in a creator, you cannot prove a creator.