How is the Bible the Word of God?

[1robin]

Why do you think that the theories of scientists over 50 years ago (or even 20 years for that matter) should be preferred to theories from scientists now (or even the same scientists now)? The great thing about science is that it constantly second guesses itself. We are constantly finding issues with assumptions and then doing our darndest to fix them. Since we've learned a monumental amount since 1948, wouldn't those scientists views be "outdated?" Either way, they certainly do not provide too much of a backing for any argument. It is always best not to rely on the opinions of others, especially when those opinions are more than a generation old. Just a thought.

Are you saying that the algebra the Egyptians used is wrong because it is old? That the Pythagorean theorem is wrong because it is old? That Newton's gravitational equations are wrong because their old? It is not relevant how old scientific claims are but how accurate they are. Science has no produced any evidence of any kind that contradicts the BBT or the BGVT. They use them as the standard models for cosmology, why shouldn't I? What your comparing them is not science, it is speculation, or more properly fantasy. All the evidence points to a single finite universe. If anything else had as much evidence of even a meaningful fraction science would have closed the book on it. However this one they just cannot seem to stand. I don't know for certain that I am correct but I have two theories about why they just can't take a finite universe and will invent any fantastic theory to get out of it. One it limits science, you can't do science on nothing so they want desperately for their to be a infinite something so they can keep studying it, or more likely since science in the ultra modern era is dominated by atheists they can't stand a universe that lines up with the bible and does not have a natural explanation. So any alternative is doggedly adhered to despite it having any meaningful evidence. Some of the most ridiculous claims (so bad a teen ager can recognize their intellectual bankruptcy) are in this area of study. I will give two examples.

1. M-theory is a cherished creation that unjustifiably allows some scientists to think that the finite universe we know exists is not all there is. Here is what one Nobel winner said about it and he has no religious beliefs:

Sir Roger Penrose
Famed mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who worked alongside Stephen Hawking for many years developing Big Bang theory, has debunked Hawking's 'no-God-needed' theory of the universe as "hardly science" and "not even a theory" on Premier Christian Radio.

Speaking on the station's weekly faith debate programme Unbelievable? on Saturday 25 September, Penrose described Hawking's new book The Grand Design as "misleading" adding that M-theory, which Hawking claims has made God redundant as a cause of the universe, was "not even a theory" and "hardly science" but instead "a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations."

Penrose was in dialogue on the programme with Alister McGrath, professor of theology at Kings College London. The two men joined host Justin Brierley to respond to the question of whether Hawking's new theory had made God redundant as a potential explanation of the origin of the universe.

Criticising M-theory, Penrose said: "It's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. The book is a bit misleading. It gives you this impression of a theory that is going to explain everything; it's nothing of the sort. It's not even a theory."

Universe has not been shown to "create itself from nothing".

Asked whether science shows that the universe could "create itself from nothing" as claimed in the book, Penrose was strong in his condemnation of the 'string' theory that lies behind Hawking's statement: "It's certainly not doing it yet. I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many. It's not an uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto an idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observation. They are just nice ideas." He added that such ideas are ""very far from any testability. They are hardly science."

As a former colleague who worked closely alongside Hawking in developing gravitational singularity theorems, Penrose is perhaps the most high profile scientist yet to dismiss Hawking's views.

"Multi-verse" has not superseded God

He also responded to the so-called "multi-verse" hypothesis that Hawking's theory also posits. Christians, including Professor McGrath, have pointed towards the fact that our universe is incredibly "fine-tuned" for life to come into existence, thus providing evidence of a transcendent designer. Hawking's "multi-verse" hypothesis is a form of the 'anthropic principle': since ours is one in an array of universes, we inevitably only observe a universe with the correct 'settings' that support conscious life.

Responding to the 'multi-verse' hypothesis, Penrose, a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association who describes himself as having "no religious beliefs," said: "Its overused, and this is a place where it overused. It's an excuse for not having a good theory."
Scientist debunks Hawking's 'no God needed' theory - Independent Catholic News


2. This is a statement by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Science | The Guardian

That is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard from a distinguished scientists. I think in one sentence he made at least 3 glaring errors. Why would a man so brilliant suddenly become so dumb in this one area. His next statement probably sums it up.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Science | The Guardian

He is an atheist who must get rid of a finite universe without a natural cause even if it requires a fantasy and self contradictory statements to do it.

 

[leibowde84]

I do not know for certain but I do not think they lean that way, if they do they are doing so in spite of the evidence not because of it. I also would suspect their theological motivations or lack there of may be forcing this. An absolute beginning is a hard pill to swallow for an atheist scientist. Anyway, you can copy and paste the best claim your link contained if you want. If I find it compelling I will read the whole article. Up to you.

Not really ... if all that has been proven in existence does so in time/space or the "natural world," why wouldn't we "lean" toward the assumption that matter (or anti-matter) has existed since the beginning of time? Further, it seems plausible that the Cosmos is eternal in that it has existed for all of time, as time is a natural phenomenon. Wouldn't you agree? Not that this is fact by any means, but a reasonable hypothesis.

 

[maggie2]

Okay. I think I put this in the right forum. It has to do with religion.

Anyway, I was thinking. When I think of the "Word of God" I think of Jesus' message to His believers and those He said His Father sent Him to save. His message--the words--are the Bible. Since Jesus is said to be God, it is God's words as well.

However, when I think of God I do not think of His message written in a book. God (or so have you) speaks to us through our heart, minds, and souls. The Bible (and any other Abrahamic scripture: Quran and so forth) is more the message written through the hearts of the people who believed in Him. It is "their words; their testimonies" not God's.

Of course, there is opposition with this statement. I do not think of God as a person, so Him having a full conversation written or spoken with me and anyone else in our native tongue is foreign to me.

"God" has no language. He has no tongue. He is the spirit or mystic law imprinted in our hearts that motivates us to fulfill our calling and purpose in life. We are born through the Spirit, live by it, and die by it to live the next stage of life in a continuous cycle.

Who can ever limit "God" by language alone.

I do not believe the Bible is the word of God. I believe it is the words of men. With all the wars and killing of innocent children and tempting Job and I could go on and on if that's God then I want no part of Him/Her. I don't see God in the Bible at all.

I see God in many things, however. For example, in the smile of a child, in the delight in their eyes when they discover something new, in a beautiful sunset, in all of God's creation, in the love between people, in the delicious food provided by God for us, in the hands that make that food, in the wonder of a bumblebee who should not be able to fly but does. I could go on and on but you get the idea. Those and many, many other things are what speak to me of God not some book that is full of hate and killing and war and slaughter.

 

[1robin]

Here we go, directly from Penrose himself:


"Penrose, however, takes issue with the inflationary picture and in particular believes it cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was believed to have been born – an extremely high degree of order that made complex matter possible. He does not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang but that the Big Bang was in fact just one in a series of many, with each big bang marking the start of a new "aeon" in the history of the universe."

Source: physicsworld.com

An infinitely old universe. Do you still trust him?


Ciao

- viole

Are you suggesting that Penrose supports the oscillating universe theory?

BTW if I use a quote from a man that does not automatically bind me into supporting every claim he ever made about anything.

 

[leibowde84]

Are you saying that the algebra the Egyptians used is wrong because it is old? That the Pythagorean theorem is wrong because it is old? That Newton's gravitational equations are wrong because their old? It is not relevant how old scientific claims are but how accurate they are. Science has no produced any evidence of any kind that contradicts the BBT or the BGVT. They use them as the standard models for cosmology, why shouldn't I? What your comparing them is not science, it is speculation, or more properly fantasy. All the evidence points to a single finite universe. If anything else had as much evidence of even a meaningful fraction science would have closed the book on it. However this one they just cannot seem to stand. I don't know for certain that I am correct but I have two theories about why they just can't take a finite universe and will invent any fantastic theory to get out of it. One it limits science, you can't do science on nothing so they want desperately for their to be a infinite something so they can keep studying it, or more likely since science in the ultra modern era is dominated by atheists they can't stand a universe that lines up with the bible and does not have a natural explanation. So any alternative is doggedly adhered to despite it having any meaningful evidence. Some of the most ridiculous claims (so bad a teen ager can recognize their intellectual bankruptcy) are in this area of study. I will give two examples.

1. M-theory is a cherished creation that unjustifiably allows some scientists to think that the finite universe we know exists is not all there is. Here is what one Nobel winner said about it and he has no religious beliefs:

Sir Roger Penrose
Famed mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who worked alongside Stephen Hawking for many years developing Big Bang theory, has debunked Hawking's 'no-God-needed' theory of the universe as "hardly science" and "not even a theory" on Premier Christian Radio.

Speaking on the station's weekly faith debate programme Unbelievable? on Saturday 25 September, Penrose described Hawking's new book The Grand Design as "misleading" adding that M-theory, which Hawking claims has made God redundant as a cause of the universe, was "not even a theory" and "hardly science" but instead "a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations."

Penrose was in dialogue on the programme with Alister McGrath, professor of theology at Kings College London. The two men joined host Justin Brierley to respond to the question of whether Hawking's new theory had made God redundant as a potential explanation of the origin of the universe.

Criticising M-theory, Penrose said: "It's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. The book is a bit misleading. It gives you this impression of a theory that is going to explain everything; it's nothing of the sort. It's not even a theory."

Universe has not been shown to "create itself from nothing".

Asked whether science shows that the universe could "create itself from nothing" as claimed in the book, Penrose was strong in his condemnation of the 'string' theory that lies behind Hawking's statement: "It's certainly not doing it yet. I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many. It's not an uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto an idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observation. They are just nice ideas." He added that such ideas are ""very far from any testability. They are hardly science."

As a former colleague who worked closely alongside Hawking in developing gravitational singularity theorems, Penrose is perhaps the most high profile scientist yet to dismiss Hawking's views.

"Multi-verse" has not superseded God

He also responded to the so-called "multi-verse" hypothesis that Hawking's theory also posits. Christians, including Professor McGrath, have pointed towards the fact that our universe is incredibly "fine-tuned" for life to come into existence, thus providing evidence of a transcendent designer. Hawking's "multi-verse" hypothesis is a form of the 'anthropic principle': since ours is one in an array of universes, we inevitably only observe a universe with the correct 'settings' that support conscious life.

Responding to the 'multi-verse' hypothesis, Penrose, a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association who describes himself as having "no religious beliefs," said: "Its overused, and this is a place where it overused. It's an excuse for not having a good theory."
Scientist debunks Hawking's 'no God needed' theory - Independent Catholic News


2. This is a statement by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Science | The Guardian

That is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard from a distinguished scientists. I think in one sentence he made at least 3 glaring errors. Why would a man so brilliant suddenly become so dumb in this one area. His next statement probably sums it up.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Science | The Guardian

He is an atheist who must get rid of a finite universe without a natural cause even if it requires a fantasy and self contradictory statements to do it.

Geeze o' flip, man. I didn't say that theories should be excluded merely for being old. Stop putting words in my mouth. I merely pointed out that more modern theories should be given more weight than older ones, since scientific discoveries happen every day, and understanding improves as a result. If there is a theory that is not challenged, then the old one will be fine.

 

[leibowde84]

Are you suggesting that Penrose supports the oscillating universe theory?

BTW if I use a quote from a man that does not automatically bind me into supporting every claim he ever made about anything.

But, if you quote someone who comes to a different conclusion than you, it doesn't help your argument too much.

 

[viole]

Are you suggesting that Penrose supports the oscillating universe theory?

Yes, obviously. He is quite enthusiastic about it. A modern version thereof with evidence, apparently. That would make Hawking closer to your position, wouldn't it?

BTW if I use a quote from a man that does not automatically bind me into supporting every claim he ever made about anything.

Of course. You support only the claims you find to agree with your a priory beliefs, i suspect. It is called confirmation bias.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Geeze o' flip, man.

Well that is at least original.

I didn't say that theories should be excluded merely for being old. Stop putting words in my mouth. I merely pointed out that more modern theories should be given more weight than older ones, since scientific discoveries happen every day, and understanding improves as a result. If there is a theory that is not challenged, then the old one will be fine.

No, modem theories should not automatically be given more weight. Modern theoretical science is extremely unreliable IMO. Even the massively more reliable modern applied science is not always better. I work in an electronics defense lab and we are upgrading a test system for a modern fighter. We have ordered about 10 modern "supposedly" drop in replacements. We have had 100% failure, we have even given up on 2 ever working, and about three still do not work after more than a year of redesigns. The date of the science is irrelevant. It's veracity and foundations are all that matter. The science that shows the universe is finite is in every category, orders of magnitude better, than the fantastic theories used to bypass it's theological inconvenience for atheist scientists.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

They are again starting to think that the big bang was merely one in an eternal process of expansion and retraction.

anything to get around what it looks like

 

[viole]

Well that is at least original.

No, modem theories should not automatically be given more weight. Modern theoretical science is extremely unreliable IMO. Even the massively more reliable modern applied science is not always better. I work in an electronics defense lab and we are upgrading a test system for a modern fighter. We have ordered about 10 modern "supposedly" drop in replacements. We have had 100% failure, we have even given up on 2 ever working, and about three still do not work after more than a year of redesigns. The date of the science is irrelevant. It's veracity and foundations are all that matter. The science that shows the universe is finite is in every category, orders of magnitude better, than the fantastic theories used to bypass it's theological inconvenience for atheist scientists.

Unfortunately, Vilenkin's theorem premises ARE based on modern theoretical science. If inflationary theory is not modern then I wonder what is modern.

What makes it reliable to your eyes, apart from confirming what you believe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand what you mean. I went into Christianity three years ago and studied the Bible after "giving my life to Christ." What I found in the history of Christianity, I told myself I didn't want to be a part of that history. Among many things, that's one reason I stopped revering Christ. Hence, the reason I do not see the Bible as the word of God. If any Christian wrote a book about our testimonies, they would be inspired by God; the Bible is no different.

I do not believe the Bible is the word of God. I believe it is the words of men. With all the wars and killing of innocent children and tempting Job and I could go on and on if that's God then I want no part of Him/Her. I don't see God in the Bible at all.

I see God in many things, however. For example, in the smile of a child, in the delight in their eyes when they discover something new, in a beautiful sunset, in all of God's creation, in the love between people, in the delicious food provided by God for us, in the hands that make that food, in the wonder of a bumblebee who should not be able to fly but does. I could go on and on but you get the idea. Those and many, many other things are what speak to me of God not some book that is full of hate and killing and war and slaughter.

 

[outhouse]

When I think of the "Word of God"

The best way to look at this is how they teach it in universities.

Only the religious view the book as "scripture"

Everyone else it is viewed as "text"


When used as "scripture" only these people view it as the words of god.

To everyone else it is text factually written by men.

 

[outhouse]

Who gifted Adam with language ?

Adam is a literary creation, so there was never a person taught language. By all credible historical accounts.

Well, according to Scripture, who created language?

Scripture is not credible history, it never has been.

Language goes back before this text.

So, Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

unsubstantiated.

of Jesus' coming 1000-year kingdom rule over earth

unsubstantiated.

 

[1robin]

But, if you quote someone who comes to a different conclusion than you, it doesn't help your argument too much.

No, a quote only assumes the burden of what the quote concerns. BTW if you follow the discussion about his conclusion I am having with the other person who originally mentioned you will see both why I have no responsibility for everything Penrose ever said and why his conclusion is not just wrong but impossible. What is your conclusion of the other quote by Penrose that was posted anyway?

 

[metis]

I tend to think that most scriptures in most religions are attempts to deal with the issue of God(s), so I certainly cannot subscribe to any one of them being the "word of God". I'm not saying this because I think all scriptural narratives are equally valid, imo, but simply that it is virtually impossible to know which are more or less accurate.

 

[leibowde84]

No, a quote only assumes the burden of what the quote concerns. BTW if you follow the discussion about his conclusion I am having with the other person who originally mentioned you will see both why I have no responsibility for everything Penrose ever said and why his conclusion is not just wrong but impossible. What is your conclusion of the other quote by Penrose that was posted anyway?

I didn't see it. Can you repost it for me?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Basically, religious views does not make the Bible the literal (universally accepted) word of God, just makes it that to themselves?

The best way to look at this is how they teach it in universities.

Only the religious view the book as "scripture"

Everyone else it is viewed as "text"


When used as "scripture" only these people view it as the words of god.

To everyone else it is text factually written by men.

 

[outhouse]

Basically, religious views does not make the Bible the literal (universally accepted) word of God, just makes it that to themselves?

Yes exactly.

And most people of said faith, tend to interpret differently, to how much each person attributes to their god, in said pages of scripture.

 

[1robin]

Yes, obviously. He is quite enthusiastic about it. A modern version thereof with evidence, apparently. That would make Hawking closer to your position, wouldn't it?

Hawking is the same polarity of my position, you can't get them near each other.

As for the oscillating model I thought it was on the out, I know it is not a widely accepted model in modern cosmology. There are massive but simplistic problems with it.

1. The universe does not act with perfect efficiency. It's contractions and expansion would not be perfectly efficient and would lose energy with each cycle. If infinitely old it would have lost it's contraction energy long ago and ceased to cycle an infinite time ago.
2. The universe is not only not showing any signs of contraction, it's actually expanding at a greater rate. This is one of the models BGTV specifically renders impossible.
3. There is not enough mass or gravitation pull of any kind (not dark matter, not dark energy, nothing known of any type) to lead to an eventual contraction.
4. I do not understand this exactly but supposedly the universe is not like a typical explosion with debris contained throughout a rough circle. Our universe is completely contained on the surface of an expanding bubble. It has nothing in it's center to cause anything to contract.

That last one I am not sure if I agree with because I can barely understand it but it is the most popular model.

Of course. You support only the claims you find to agree with your a priory beliefs, i suspect. It is called confirmation bias.

No, that is called a guy being right in one place and wrong in another IMO. There are a whole host of things I believe and grant are true that are not convenient for my world view.

There is also an order of magnitude concerning probability between the two claims.

1. A brilliant man saying of his old partners theory that it is an excuse for not having an actually theory. That it is not even science. Now it is almost certain that with a review that extreme Hawking's theory in unreliable. IOW Penrose is more than qualified to find a theory pathetic.
2. That same man speculating about oscillating universes cannot state anything with the same level of certainty. Anyone from any time period is merely speculating with the minutest data if they are commenting on things beyond this one universe we do know exists. Penrose nor anyone is qualified to make reliable claims about multiverses, cracked eggs, something from nothing, or oscillating universes.

So just on the grounds of reliability and access I can distinguish between the two.

 

[1robin]

Unfortunately, Vilenkin's theorem premises ARE based on modern theoretical science. If inflationary theory is not modern then I wonder what is modern.

What makes it reliable to your eyes, apart from confirming what you believe?

Ciao

- viole

I see it is technicality day. Technically there is only theory, nothing is known. Let's establish what I mean since this discussion is between you and I when I say theoretical. I mean conclusions or models that the evidence does not make probable. The evidence does make this universes being finite very probable. The evidence does not make multi-verses very probable because there is virtually no evidence. I believe the evidence makes evolution highly probable, but I think the conclusions that naturalism explain genetic reality alone to be theoretical. Though I would come closer to believing we have evidence that does justify evolution being responsible for all genetic change than I do the evidence suggesting that there is anything before the bib bang or beyond this universe. The only merit those ides have is they are not yet proven impossible to a certainty. Does that at least clear up the distinction made by MY use of the word theoretical?