No conflict between God and science

[blü 2]

God is the author of all truth, and that includes scientific truth.

I define truth as a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

What definition of truth are you using?

And as far as I can tell, God does not have objective existence, and exists only as a concept or thing imagined in individual brains.

What definition of God are you using appropriate to beings with objective existence?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

God is the author of all truth, and that includes scientific truth. This post is NOT proposing that we should start with the Bible and then go looking for evidence to support it. Scientific Method is fine as it is. What I'm saying is that there is no conflict between those truths that science genuinely comes by and the Creator of the Universe.

For example, we know about the Big Bang. I see no reason not to see the Big Bang as the moment God created the universe. We also know about evolution. I see no reason not to see evolution as God's modus operandi for creating all the various life forms, including humanity.

Come on, folks. It's not like all scientists are atheists.

I'm fine with this. There are a whole lot of things we need to temporarily park at the door to be able to perform the best possible science.
Science can tell us a lot about the world around us, but it's never going to disprove God, per se.

 

[Brian2]

Actually, this is a common, but I think, inaccurate description of how science works.

Science does NOT depend on 'methodological naturalism'.

It depends on hypotheses that can make testable predictions. In other words, the hypotheses have to make predictions that, if wrong, can be shown to be wrong.

The problem with the 'God Hypothesis' is that it makes no testable predictions.

It's more the philosophy of science than how it works.
Science comes up with answers that cannot be tested and cannot be shown to be wrong,,,,,,,,,,answers about how things happened in the past.
The God Hypothesis, well at least the Biblical God hypothesis does make many predictions, and they are called prophecies in the Bible, and can be tested. If any of them do not happen, or did not happen then the Biblical God hypothesis can be thrown out.

 

[Polymath257]

It's more the philosophy of science than how it works.
Science comes up with answers that cannot be tested and cannot be shown to be wrong,,,,,,,,,,answers about how things happened in the past.

But those answers are based on descriptions that we can test today. Also, the answers about events in the past *can* be tested by requiring consistency in the various ways to get those answers.

It isn't uncommon to have conjectures about past events shown wrong by more data: that is testing.

The God Hypothesis, well at least the Biblical God hypothesis does make many predictions, and they are called prophecies in the Bible, and can be tested. If any of them do not happen, or did not happen then the Biblical God hypothesis can be thrown out.

Sorry, those 'prophesies' are universally vague or made after the fact.

Contrast this to what science does on a daily basis. For example, I can predict that there will be a total eclipse of the sun on August 8, 2024 where the shadow of the moon will travel from the pacific ocean, through Mexico, into the US, crossing through the midwest. I can predict *to the minute* where that shadow will be at any time.

Religion has NOTHING even close to this type of prediction.

 

[Brian2]

By all means, list these prophecies which must not be vague enough in any way to fit any future situation.

There are many prophecies in the Bible. Here is one if you are interested in doing the reading to verify it. If that is not what you want to do then you can take it as having been verified. But I could find another for you if you want.

Tyre in Prophecy

 

[Polymath257]

There are many prophecies in the Bible. Here is one if you are interested in doing the reading to verify it. If that is not what you want to do then you can take it as having been verified. But I could find another for you if you want.

Tyre in Prophecy

But, for example, even some central 'prophesies' mention in the New Testament, are clearly misreadings of what was actually said.

The NT claims that a virgin was supposed to give birth when the actual OT description is of a 'young woman' who need not be a virgin.

When prophesies are too vague, it is trivial for them to be true eventually.

 

[Brian2]

OK, how would the universe be different if there is no God versus if there is?

All we know is this universe. I say there is a God and you say there is no God. I could tell you what I think but so what. I'll do it anyway.
Without God there would be no universe here.
If God died tomorrow the universe would fall apart.
If someone says the universe would be the same with or without God, that is a statement of faith as much as mine is.

 

[Polymath257]

All we know is this universe. I say there is a God and you say there is no God. I could tell you what I think but so what. I'll do it anyway.
Without God there would be no universe here.

Please prove this.

If God died tomorrow the universe would fall apart.

And this.

If someone says the universe would be the same with or without God, that is a statement of faith as much as mine is.

In other words, your God is another hypothesis on top of the already known universe. And that hypothesis suggests that the known universe will disintegrate if that hypothetical entity doesn't exist. You suggest this without evidence or proof.

Sounds like an unnecessary complication to me. Why not just say the universe is self-sustaining?

 

[Brian2]

Once again I'm prompted to recommend the Barbara Forrest article and note her Arthur Strahler quote:

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience).... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: "You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable." This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.​

Yes I can see the reasoning in not being concerned about gods and fairies etc when studying the material universe.
Nobody worries until science starts saying things about the past as if they are true but there is no way of checking or testing or verifying or falsifying and the methodological materialistic philosophy is pushed aside as if it does not exist and science speaks and is heard as if it is actually speaking truth. This is especially so when it starts treading on the toes of religious beliefs.

 

[Brian2]

There is certainly no question regarding your imagination.

Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,I think.

 

[ratiocinator]

There are many prophecies in the Bible. Here is one if you are interested in doing the reading to verify it. If that is not what you want to do then you can take it as having been verified. But I could find another for you if you want.

Interesting how the author has to spend a lot of the article squirming out of obvious problems with the supposed prophecy, like the fact that it included the claim that Tyre would never be rebuilt and "be no more forever", whereas it's still very much here.

 

[ratiocinator]

The God Hypothesis, well at least the Biblical God hypothesis does make many predictions, and they are called prophecies in the Bible, and can be tested. If any of them do not happen, or did not happen then the Biblical God hypothesis can be thrown out.

Matthew 16:27-28.

 

[Brian2]

If Genesis is inaccurate in how the world was created according to science, then why should I believe that anything else in the book is accurate? I mean, these supposed divinely inspired writers were receiving the word of god, correct? Wouldn't god know the workings of the world? Apparently not, according to the bible.

There are many ways to interpret Genesis. Some Christians see it as myth and some as hard line literally true and some, like me, as literally true but not hard line. (there are other ways also of course) You don't seem to like the myth approach even if it has things to recommend it. I prefer the approach that says it's true also.
I certainly don't expect Genesis to go into detail about creation, as in telling us about atoms and gravity and microbes etc. That wouldn't make much sense in a book of faith, and wouldn't make much sense to most people.
I also don't necessarily believe all that science tells us about origins because a lot of it may have involved direct action by God but science does not and cannot see it that way and so gives educated guesses about what happened, not knowing if they are actually true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is especially so when it starts treading on the toes of religious beliefs.

For example?

 

[Brian2]

Is this even serious? The bible isn't even self-consistent; it's disjointed, incoherent, and riddled with contradictions.

Yes of course it is serious. Prophecies were made to actually predict things and we can see if they did happen or not.

 

[ratiocinator]

Without God there would be no universe here.
If God died tomorrow the universe would fall apart.
If someone says the universe would be the same with or without God, that is a statement of faith as much as mine is.

Not really. We know the universe exists but we don't know (because of a lack of evidence) if anything else is necessary for it to exist, and continue to exist, or not. Even if such a 'thing' is necessary, there is no reason to choose one sort of 'thing' (any one or more of the many gods humans have described) rather than something else (a multiverse, a mortal being or beings in a meta-universe, multidimensional fairies, the Great Green Arkleseizure, and so on, and so on...).

Nothing can be anything more than a guess unless you can provide additional reasoning or evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are many ways to interpret Genesis.

There is also a difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

 

[firedragon]

The NT claims that a virgin was supposed to give birth when the actual OT description is of a 'young woman' who need not be a virgin.

Thats because the person who wrote the NT book you are referring to read greek, but not the Hebrew scripture. Thus, the septuagint said Parthinos which means virgin which is the wrong translation so he was inspired by a wrong translation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Science comes up with answers that cannot be tested and cannot be shown to be wrong

Wha....??????

 

[leroy]

Let's put it this way.

IF there is a God, then he/she/it is the originator of the universe. So science cannot produce and answer that is different than how that happened.

The *real* question is whether the Bible is really the word of God. If it disagrees with the science, then we know it is not.

If the bible seems to contradict a scientific fact, then the worst case scenario is that we (Christians) would have to drop the doctrine of divine inspiration and accept the bible as “manmade books” … God could still exist, Jesus could have still die and resurrect for our sins etc……..I am not aware of any argument for the existence of God that presupposes the doctrine of divine inspiration.

The doctrine of divine inspiration is based on the following premises.

1 Jesus had some sort of divine authority

2 Jesus claimed that “the scriptures” are inspired

3 what Jesus called “the scriptures” corresponds to what we call “the bible”

As Christians we are only committed to “point 1” point 2 and 3 could be historically false and Christianity would not be falsified or affected.

My point is that the bible is not (or shouldn’t be) a corner stone for Christians