No conflict between God and science

[Native]

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.

No we don´t KNOW about a Big Bang. It´s just a hypothesis.

 

[Native]

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.

You logically cannot automatically judge ancient texts by modern standards and you have to take into account that especially the Abrahamic biblical ones, have been heavily peeled off with its original astronomical and cosmological contents.

When studying many other cultural religious texts, you can, with a little intellectual effort, ge fine and logical explanations of the creation - which in some cases are more logical than much of the modern speculations.

 

[Brian2]

Not at all...only as time goes on...it is self-correcting.

That said, some views have been shown to be wrong: young earth, for example.

The Bible is the one that is true absolutely in all ages. It is just how it is understood which changes. The science of the day has a bearing on how it is understood. IMO science is showing the truth of Genesis and all that means is that science must be right about much of what it is finding out.

 

[Brian2]

That was the common view at the time the Bible was written because that was thousands of years ago, before we had science as we have it in modern times. Now we think it must be symbolic because we cannot imagine how people could believe it literally.... but that was then and now is now. It is time for humanity to move forward.

There is no reason to move anywhere when science is showing the Bible to be correct.

Why do people think that scriptures written thousands of years ago pertain to the age we live in? Everything else in the world changes over time and people accept those changes and move forward, but when it comes to the Bible they cannot accept that it does not pertain to the age in which we live. The strangest thing to me is that even atheists talk about the Bible as if it is the only holy book ever written for all time.

Even atheists realise that the Bible is the only plausibly true holy book.
Scripture written thousands of years ago pertains to the age we live in because it is the truth.

 

[Brian2]

Its interesting that theists cannot use science to prove a God exists, while falling back on something that is unfalsifable and ironically challenging others to prove there is one.

I would say science in that respect is very conflicting with theism.

Of course theists use science to show that a God exists,,,,,,,,,,,not prove however. Many prefer not to believe what theists point out and seem to prefer what some atheist scientists say that science shows us.
If you are saying that the idea of a creator is unfalsifiable then I can say that the idea that it all came into existence without a creator is unfalsifiable. It is not science, it is a naturalistic world view read into science.

 

[Brian2]

That is a statement of faith. The challenge faced by many theists is that their god seems to have authored a universe that operates in a way indistinguishable from one in which 'god' is conspicuously absent.

That is a statement of faith. It is a statement that a naturalistic materialist might say without any idea what the universe would be like without a God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is a statement of faith. It is a statement that a naturalistic materialist might say without any idea what the universe would be like without a God.

Hence the word "seems". Nevertheless, your response is an insightful one and worth considering. Thanks.

(However, you might wish to consider "ontological naturalist" instead of "naturalist materialist" in the future.)

 

[Polymath257]

There is no reason to move anywhere when science is showing the Bible to be correct.

Really? Please give examples. Where, for example, does science support the first book of Genesis?

Even atheists realise that the Bible is the only plausibly true holy book.

Simply wrong. Humans have invented all sorts of religious literature throughout the ages. The Bible is one example of such, but very far from the only one. it is no more 'plausibly true' than any other as far as anyone can see.

Scripture written thousands of years ago pertains to the age we live in because it is the truth.

Well, that is the claim. But details are very few and far between and subject to drastic re-interpretation of the text.

 

[Polymath257]

The Bible is the one that is true absolutely in all ages. It is just how it is understood which changes.

Do you realize that means it either was interpreted falsely or is currently so?

The science of the day has a bearing on how it is understood. IMO science is showing the truth of Genesis and all that means is that science must be right about much of what it is finding out.

Well, that is your opinion, but the scientific community disagrees.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Unfortunately, a holy book that makes inaccurate scientific claims cannot be trusted on anything it has to offer.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no reason to move anywhere when science is showing the Bible to be correct.

In what way?

Even atheists realise that the Bible is the only plausibly true holy book.

Well, that's a bold claim. Which atheists? This atheist doesn't see it like that at all.

Scripture written thousands of years ago pertains to the age we live in because it is the truth.

Much of it simply doesn't.

 

[ratiocinator]

That is a statement of faith. It is a statement that a naturalistic materialist might say without any idea what the universe would be like without a God.

All any of us have is the bare fact that the universe exists and I, for one, can see nothing that suggests it was created by any god(s).

 

[Goddess Kit]

All any of us have is the bare fact that the universe exists and I, for one, can see nothing that suggests it was created by any god(s).

If you try hard enough, I mean really try, I mean simply lose all touch with reality, you could probably almost imagine a god being there.

 

[Brian2]

Hence the word "seems". Nevertheless, your response is an insightful one and worth considering. Thanks.

(However, you might wish to consider "ontological naturalist" instead of "naturalist materialist" in the future.)

"Ontological naturalism" Hmmm OK thanks.
That ""The challenge faced by many theists is that their god seems to have authored a universe that operates in a way indistinguishable from one in which 'god' is conspicuously absent."" is in fact a challenge could very well be because of the methodological naturalism in science and the way it makes it seem as if a God is not needed. The methodological naturalism has spawned an ontological naturalism in scientists and in the teachings of science to the world.
So we end up with a science that looks anti theist when it comes to finding answers (naturalistic answers of course) to questions that the various religions have answered.
IOWs many people do not realise that science is designed to find naturalistic answers only and think that it finds the truth always.

 

[Brian2]

If you try hard enough, I mean really try, I mean simply lose all touch with reality, you could probably almost imagine a god being there.

Maybe God is trying to get through to you.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Maybe God is trying to get through to you.

I thought so once, but it was just gas.

 

[Brian2]

All any of us have is the bare fact that the universe exists and I, for one, can see nothing that suggests it was created by any god(s).

I, for one, cannot see why the prophecies in the Bible which have come true are not good evidence for the truth of the Bible and thus a creator God.

 

[Polymath257]

"Ontological naturalism" Hmmm OK thanks.
That ""The challenge faced by many theists is that their god seems to have authored a universe that operates in a way indistinguishable from one in which 'god' is conspicuously absent."" is in fact a challenge could very well be because of the methodological naturalism in science and the way it makes it seem as if a God is not needed. The methodological naturalism has spawned an ontological naturalism in scientists and in the teachings of science to the world.
So we end up with a science that looks anti theist when it comes to finding answers (naturalistic answers of course) to questions that the various religions have answered.
IOWs many people do not realise that science is designed to find naturalistic answers only and think that it finds the truth always.

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.

 

[Goddess Kit]

I, for one, cannot see why the prophecies in the Bible which have come true are not good evidence for the truth of the Bible and thus a creator God.

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

 

[Polymath257]

That is a statement of faith. It is a statement that a naturalistic materialist might say without any idea what the universe would be like without a God.

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