No conflict between God and science

[74x12]

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.

Well I just think it's ignorant. No offense. I don't judge people who believe in God and the Bible and yet evolution/Big bang. That's between you and God. But as for me ... I know better.

What I believe is that the Bible tells the truth. The 7 days of creation are on going now and each day was a day to God; not us. There was no sun yet. God made all things in light that He Himself shined. That is the Light of God. That means it wasn't 7 solar days like we know.

Why should we even care about this whole argument? I don't even usually talk about evolution/big bang because i think it's waste of time. I know the Bible is true so I don't really care. Why people think it's the ultimate argument when it comes to religion is beyond me. I think the spiritual things of the Bible are most important. Rather than talking about how literal the Bible is to be interpreted. Get the spiritual meat of it and believe the truth. When you see how it really is you'll laugh to think it was ever an issue.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

G-d has created the Universe and its laws that are the backbone of Science, I understand, so there cannot be any real conflict between G-d and Science. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

All we know is this universe.

And that says it all. Anything other than this universe is pure speculation. it is unknowable.

So, we can look at what can be known and learn about it through observation and testing of our hypotheses.

Any religion that conflicts (demonstrably) with what we learn from the universe must, by necessity, be wrong.

Any religion that has no conflict is at least consistent with what can be known, even if it is unprovable.

 

[Polymath257]

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

But, if you drop the doctrine of divine inspiration, what reason is there to accept 1?

 

[osgart]

Is this a thread made to discuss the Bible and science, or God in general as being in accordance with science?

I think this conversation devolved into a debate about the Bible's scientific accuracy.

 

[Polymath257]

Is this a thread made to discuss the Bible and science, or God in general as being in accordance with science?

I think this conversation devolved into a debate about the Bible's scientific accuracy.

Somewhat. But the same can be said for all religious texts. If they are contradicted by the findings of science, then they cannot be valid. And there are many religiously based ideas that have been shown to be wrong by science.

Is there a basic conflict? Gould had the idea of 'non-overlapping magisteria', where science and religion simply stay out of each other's ways. Science deals with what is, and religion deals with meaning and what we want to happen. Science is literal and specific. Religion is more metaphorical and literary.

The problem is that there are many times when those magisteria do overlap and that often does lead to conflict. The methods are too different.

 

[osgart]

Somewhat. But the same can be said for all religious texts. If they are contradicted by the findings of science, then they cannot be valid. And there are many religiously based ideas that have been shown to be wrong by science.

Is there a basic conflict? Gould had the idea of 'non-overlapping magisteria', where science and religion simply stay out of each other's ways. Science deals with what is, and religion deals with meaning and what we want to happen. Science is literal and specific. Religion is more metaphorical and literary.

The problem is that there are many times when those magisteria do overlap and that often does lead to conflict. The methods are too different.

I was thinking that there were people out there that have considered that there might be a God apart from any religion. I believe its called natural theology!

That would be far more interesting to me as a topic of debate or conversation!

 

[Trailblazer]

I was thinking that there were people out there that have considered that there might be a God apart from any religion.

That is not farfetched because God is not the One who actually establishes the religions; man does that, with God's help, when God sends Messengers.

 

[osgart]

That is not farfetched because God is not the One who actually establishes the religions; man does that, with God's help, when God sends Messengers.

Mankind establishing religion always sounded like disaster to me.

There is the limits of knowledge, and perception for each day and age.

Mankind is of finite mind!

Then of course human bias, and faulty passions and intuitions.

There are a lot of limits to human perspective.

 

[gnostic]

@IndigoChild5559

I think the problems only arise are those people (some people, not all) who religious, trying to mix their religious beliefs and their scriptures with (natural or physical) science.

Science attempt to explain and test the natural world and physical world.

The “God did it”, the the miracles, and other supernatural phenomena are not nature, and therefore outside the scopes of physical sciences or natural sciences.

Too often, some religious people allow their belief bias scientific works/research, and biased how they interpret evidence.

People, especially creationists, often tried to force the evidence to meet the conclusions, instead of letting evidence decide the conclusion.

 

[gnostic]

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” …

The Bible have always been man-made.

The individual books were written by men, not by god, inspired or not.

 

[joelr]

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

what about prophecies that did not happen?
Genesis
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17


God promises Abram and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Hebrews 11:13) show that God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14

God promises to make Isaac's descendents as numerous as "the stars of heaven", which, of course, never happened. The Jews have always been, and will always be, a small minority. 22:17-18, 26
Exodus
God promises to cast out many nations including the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But he was unable to keep his promise. 33:2

1. Deuteronomy
   
   
2. God says that the Israelites will destroy all of the peoples they encounter. But he was unable to keep his promise. 7:1, 7:23-24, 31:3

1. Joshua
   
   
2. God promises to give Joshua all of the land that his "foot shall tread upon." He says that none of the people he encounters will be able to resist him. But later we find that God didn't keep his promise, and that many tribes withstood Joshua's attempt to steal their land. 1:3-5, 3:10, 15:63, 16:10, 17:12-13, 17:17-18, 21:43-45

1. Judges
   
   
2. God promised many times that he would drive out all the inhabitants of the lands they encountered. But he failed to keep that promise 1:19, 1:21-27, 3:1-5
   
   
   
   
   2 Samuel
   
   
3. "Thy kingdom shall be established for ever."
   God says that Davids's kingdom will last forever. It didn't of course. It was entirely destroyed about 400 years after Solomon's death, never to be rebuilt. 7:13, 16

I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." But the Davidic line of Kings ended with Zedekiah; there were none during the Babylonian captivity, and there are none today. 89:3-4, 34-37

Isaiah

1. 
   
   
   • his verse prophesies that Damascus will be completely destroyed and no longer be inhabited. Yet Damascus has never been completely destroyed and is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities. 17:1
   • God will ride in on a cloud and scare the hell out of the Egyptians. 19:1
   • The river of Egypt (identified as the Nile in RSV) shall dry up. This has never occurred. 19:5
   • "The land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt." Judah never invaded Egypt and was never a military threat to Egypt. 19:17
   • This verse predicts that there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now. 19:18
   • These verses predict that the Egyptians will worship the Lord (Yahweh) with sacrifices and offerings. But Judaism has never been an important religion in Egypt. 19:18-21
   • These verses predict that there will be an alliance between Egypt, Israel, and Assyria. But there has never been any such alliance, and it's unlikely that it ever will since Assyria no longer exists. 19:23-24

1. 
   
   
   • Jeremiah
   • Jeremiah prophesies that all nations of the earth will embrace Judaism. This has not happened. 3:17
   • Jeremiah prophesied that the Babylonian captivity would last 70 years. Yet it lasted from the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE to the fall of Babylon in 538 BCE, a period of only 48 years. 25:11
   • 1. Jeremiah predicts that humans will never again live in Hazor, but will be replaced by dragons. But people still live there and dragons have never been seen. 49:33
     2. God prophesies that Babylon will never again be inhabited. But it has been inhabited constantly since the prophecy was supposedly made, and is inhabited still today. 50:39
     3. God says that Babylon will be desolate and uninhabited forever. He says that only dragons will live there. But Babylon has been dragon-free and continuously inhabited since then. 51:26, 29, 37, 43, 62, 64
     a few of over 200:
   • Bible: Prophecy and Misquotes

 

[Brian2]

Your original claim was "even atheists realise that the Bible is the only plausibly true holy book" - the bible isn't plausibly true at all (it's not even self-consistent). Other holy books are irrelevant but to the extent I'm familiar with them, they are equally implausible.

OK it was a rash statement and I was wrong.

If

it's true - but if parts of the bible are true, it makes the god character seriously unpleasant.

I can justify God's actions and His planned actions, but I guess it is because I believe the Bible and so see an overall story and some reasons behind the actions and also see God as the creator and owner of everything and wanting the best outcome for His creation after the potential for evil turned into the actuality of evil in humanity and the world.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Who Is Allah to Muslims?

In the Quran, people are asked to look around them for the signs of Allah in the natural world. The balance of the world, the rhythms of life, are "signs for those who would believe." The universe is in perfect order: the orbits of the planets, the cycles of life and death, the seasons of the year, the mountains and the rivers, the mysteries of the human body. This order and balance are not haphazard or random. The world and everything in it has been created with a perfect plan by Allah -- the One who knows all.
Islam is a natural faith, a religion of responsibility, purpose, balance, discipline, and simplicity. To be a Muslim is to live your life remembering Allah and striving to follow His merciful guidance.

This might then mean that Islam and science can go hand in hand, because when science discover something new in nature, it is still a part islam already.
Sometimes to open the mind and eyes to new understanding is good

 

[Brian2]

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.

I wouldn't call a virgin birth, a trivial event, but I know what you mean about how vague some prophecies about the Messiah are.
Matthew however worked from a point of knowing Mary had been a virgin and knowing the things that Jesus did. Some prophecies are vague and others are just hidden in OT passages. It helps to know about Jesus and in that way you can look back at the OT and realise that God knew what was going to happen and told the Jews about it ages before Jesus came,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but He did not do that so that the Jews knew the details of the Messiah's life other wise the prophecies would be obvious,,,,,,,,,,,,,He did it so that the Jews (and everyone) could look back and realise in hindsight that God knew all along. There are other prophecies like that which we cannot know what is meant until the event happens. Then we realise what was meant. They are not there to tell or warn people but to create that "aha" moment and build faith.
So anyway, getting back to the virgin birth, my pov is that the word used in the prophecy can mean virgin at times and has even been translated as virgin in Christian OT because it can mean virgin at times and translators could see that the Isa 7 prophecy about the child was related to the Isa 9 prophecy about a child and the 2 are the same child,,,,,,,,,,,the Isa 9 child being described as Mighty God, making the Isa 7 prophecy likely to mean "virgin".

 

[Brian2]

Please prove this.

And this.

these are just things I think would happen if the God was not in the universe. They are not open to be proven,,,,,,,,,,,,,just as your view that the universe is without a God now cannot be proven.

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?

Because I believe the Bible and what it tells me about God.
It's an unnecessary complication for you because you don't believe the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Looks like you didn't read the article or if you did then you don't see his point anyway, or don't want to see it because you know prophecy is not true.
But what you call squirming is actually just called answering objections. This is a good thing. First the prophecy, then the objections to it's truth and then the answer to the objections. Can't just let the objections go unanswered when they are not true.

 

[Brian2]

Matthew 16:27-28.

There are a number of things that the prophecy could point to. The transfiguration is the one I go for and that happened straight after this prophecy in each of the gospels it is mentioned.

 

[Brian2]

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.

I was asked to say what I thought would happen if God was not here. I did. It's a matter of belief just as any belief which says that God is not here now. If I need reasoning then it comes from my reasoning about the Bible and how that shows God is here.

 

[Brian2]

There is also a difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

I think most interpretations of Genesis are eisegesis, including the ones where people throw up their hands in disgust and say it is just myth.
The thing is that we don't know what happened in the beginning and we (or at least I) tend to use what science finds to interpret what the Bible meant.