lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
And the Bible says that Satan is temporarily in control of the earth and he has blinded most people to the facts about God.Scientists are just blind folks who cannot see the evidence around them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why science unable to control Death ?
- Thread starter chinu
- Start date
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Because religion (generally) claims to be the ideology or dictates from supernatural, all-knowing sources, purporting to have "the truth" about the Universe, so when facts contradict religion it can raise questions about the validity of it. Science, conversely, is a methodology we use to investigate the Universe, so it's perfectly understandable that science doesn't instantaneously come up with every answer to every question. Scientific investigation is an ongoing process.
Actually, there are many religions which absolutely wouldn't agree with big bang cosmology.
Again, why should they? Why should scientists have to pay lip service to your beliefs? I have never once read a scientific paper that says "it is possible that oxygen in the air could be the result of magical unicorns" either.
InChrist
Free4ever
Well, I don't know, some people who won't consider the possibility of a Creator, claiming there is no evidence, have no problem considering or accepting the theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation although it has been scientifically disproved and there is no evidence thus far to demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living, inanimate matter.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Science BELIEVES it is right and religion BELIEVES it is right. And again, while most religions can see the validity of some science, science does not even acknowledge the possibility of God. I would pass out if I saw one scientific paper that said anything about God but much of religion can reflect the truths of science.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I am familiar with abiogenisis, but curious about spontaneous generation. What is that?
Abiogenesis has not been disproven. Point me to a scientific paper that has as it's conclusion the statement that the result of the work disproves the theory. You are spouting nonsense. I already said that when you produce the same level of evidence for a creator as there is for evolution, I would be happy to change my mind. All you do is rant against science. To me that indicates an empty hand. You want to vilify others work but you have none to show.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Scientists of various disiplines have tons of evidence that converges to support the various theories. They believe they are right because the evidence says they are right. You believe you are right because you have a collction of short stories from the Bronze Age. Why would a scientific paper have anything to say about a supernatural being for which there is no evidence? What would it study?
Ever hear of the Templeton Foundation? That foundation has done lots of studies, including one very large one to test intercessory prayer. It failed miserably. There were three groups of hospital patients. One group that was prayed for and were told that was happening. One group that was prayed for but not told, and one group that was not prayed for. The group not prayed for had rhe best average outcomes. The group prayed for and not told had slightly worse average outcomes (in otherwords, variation expected by chance) and the group prayed for and told did the worst (in otherwords, a negative effect). Perhaps knowing a group of people were praying put phsycological pressure on them, who knows. Anyway, there is not only your mention of god in a scientific paper you wanted, but clear evidence praying to him is meaningless. You may pass out now.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I do not understand what you are trying to say here. It hardly addresses my comments. Show me how you came to the conclusion that a Bronze Age desert dweller would read Genesis and come up with billions of years......
And please spare me the Bible verses. I am looking for evidence. The fact that it is in a storybook is not evidence.
The process is:
1. Demonstrate that the god exists
2. Demonstrate that he has ever done anything
3. Have him produce something.
Quoting from a book only demonstrates that you can read.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
This doesn't really address my question though, as it is all predicated on the assumption that your scripture is correct. I asked why you think it I'd correct.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Some scientists do, some dont. Shouldn't be surprising, because there isn't a scientific theory in existence that attempts to explain the origin of life. Those mentioned are merely hypotheses, not confirmed through repeated experimentation and observation. Evolution, otoh, doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, but it is a scientific theory confirmed through repeated experimentation and obserations.
Ability to breathe is what makes us live. Continuing to breathe keeps us alive.
A "soul" in the Bible (Hebrew nephesh) according to Gen 2:7 (Strongs ref. H5315) is:
"soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
- that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
- living being
- living being (with life in the blood)
- the man himself, self, person or individual"
This is NOT what the Bible says. Ability to pass breath along to a new creature is seen in all breathing "souls"...both animals and humans. It is a process that naturally begins at birth. If it doesn't the creature dies.
The soul is the living being and does not depend upon God to exist. God created the process whereby living things can transmit life to their kind via reproduction, but we are not "given" a soul by God....we are souls created by our parents. There is no "incarnation" and there is no "reincarnation according to what the Bible teaches. This is borrowed from other belief systems.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
You are cherry picking a particular meaning to suit your belief...or rather the elders have... While I agree that the soul is the living man, the life comes from the God's spirit in the first instance...the breathing of air is just like drinking of water and the eating of food...these are all essential aspects of keeping a human soul alive... .but without the incarnation of God's spirit...there is no soul... So there can never be a particular human being living forever...it is not possible under scientific knowledge...nor religious... Now as I said to URAVIP2ME, I respect your right to believe what you will....but I can not agree with you on this matter....the best we can do is agree to disagree...
Do you believe that humans are created to die? If so what would be the cause? Please tell me where Adam and his wife were told that their life was finite? How old was Adam when he died? How does that figure with what God told them about eating the forbidden fruit?
If we are created to die, why do we grieve? If we go to a better place, shouldn't a funeral be a joyous event?
Please tell me what the only cause of death was in the garden?
Then please tell me what would have happened if Eve had refused the serpent's offer....or if Adam had refused his wife's offer.....?
Gen 3:22-24 makes it clear that the means to extend human life "forever" was right there in the garden, with unrestricted access until after their disobedience when God barred the way. Humans were created to live forever in the flesh. You can disagree, but its right there in the Bible.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Deeje...scripture is mostly not a literal narrative...there's allegory, metaphor, parable, figure of speech, etc...the fall of Adam refers to the descent of spirituality to physicality...from being one with God to being separated... Eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil does not refer to eating a piece of fruit...it is a case of using the mind to discern the objects of perception with a selfish agenda....a seeing of reality from the perspective of duality rather than the unity as in Eden... Immortal beings are spiritual, mortal beings are physical.. This is a universal principle and will always be thus... The potential is there for all mortals to evolve to return to the spiritual kingdom as prodigal sons... If you do not believe this, so be it....I wish you all the best in any event....Do you believe that humans are created to die? If so what would be the cause? Please tell me where Adam and his wife were told that their life was finite? How old was Adam when he died? How does that figure with what God told them about eating the forbidden fruit?
If we are created to die, why do we grieve? If we go to a better place, shouldn't a funeral be a joyous event?
Please tell me what the only cause of death was in the garden?
Then please tell me what would have happened if Eve had refused the serpent's offer....or if Adam had refused his wife's offer.....?
Gen 3:22-24 makes it clear that the means to extend human life "forever" was right there in the garden, with unrestricted access until after their disobedience when God barred the way. Humans were created to live forever in the flesh. You can disagree, but its right there in the Bible.
Jesus believed the teachings found in the old Hebrew Scriptures to be correct. Correct enough so that Jesus could solidly base his teachings on the old Hebrew Scriptures.
Jesus used logical reasoning on the Hebrew Scriptures by often prefacing his statements with the words, " It is written............." meaning already recorded in the old Hebrews Scriptures.
Yes, quoting or referring to a book can demonstrate one can read.
By Jesus' recorded teachings often referring to the old Hebrew Scriptures demonstrated he could read. Read and comprehend because he could explain what he was reading.
God's Word ( Bible ) exists, and God's people exist.
With all the enemies within and without the church No one has been able to get rid of the Bible. Even burning it could Not stomp it out of existence.
Even under ban God people keep on spreading the international good news message to the far corners of the earth, and No power on earth has been able to stop that.
Even modern technology has made possible rapid Bible translation possible so that people even in remote areas can now read Scripture in their own mother tongue or native language.
I am Not saying a Bronze-age dweller could come up with billions, but what I am saying is that in Scripture the word ' day ' has shades of meaning.
Even in our day we speak of grandfather's day and know that is Not a set number of days but an unspecified period of time.
We today know its billions by the accuracy of microwaves. CMBR is accurate because of the use of microwave radiation.
What difference would it make to the people of Genesis or beyond how old the earth was. That was Not important to their lives.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your lengthy response. I was afraid you might not respond at all. The remark about reading was inappropriate, but I was writing while doing other things and didn't catch myself.
First, let me say that I have never seen any studies that use the CMBR to estimate the age of the universe. I have only seen studies that state the CMBR was a prediction of the existing Big Bang theory.....may have been even earlier predictions. I have neither access to nor time to try and decipher years of papers.
I don't care one way or the other that the word day has shades of meanings. You are actually saying the word was used to describe an earth formed billions of years ago if you are going with the big bang model. You cannot say Genisis uses the word day to describe the events and then say it did not indicate billions of years if you are going with the big bang.
You cannot have it both ways.
That is exactly what the big bang model predicts, and what we know about the universe seems to confirm it.
Secondly, as you can see from the notation beneath my (non-existent) avatar, I am an atheist, so quoting anything from any book and expecting me to take it as god-given is futile. I give the scriptures (any scriptures) no more standing than I do a Harry Potter novel.
When you can produce a god and then demonstrate it can create anything, much less a universe, we can talk.
When man sets off an explosion there is No organization afterwards, whereas the called Big Bang is all about organization in contrasts with other explosions.
Right, can Not say have it both ways: What the Bible really teaches is that the creative days are Not literal days but unknown time periods.
There is Nothing in Genesis to indicated a ' young ' earth because to say 'young' would mean God used deception ( lies ) to make a young earth look older.
There is Nothing in Genesis to indicate how long each creative day was, so CMBR dating is in harmony with an old earth. So, yes, billions of years Not less.
Not expecting you to take Scripture as God-given, but merely wanting to show what the Bible really teaches.
The false-religious teaching of a 'young earth made to look old' is Not what the Bible is teaching.
Can anyone demonstrate that God did Not create anything ?___________ As Antony Flew concluded," DNA research has shown by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved. There are evils in abundance which could Not be put down to a consequence of human sin."
So, where there is intelligence: there is a mind, where there is a mind: there is a person, where there is a person: there is a personality.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. This is demonstrated by all NATURAL life, imcluding many lower life forms. But it is irrelevant to the argument and does not follow from anything you said above.
If you want to claim that a god made anything, you have to produce the god, and then demonstrate cause and effect.When you can do that, you will have an argument, until then, you are just peeing into the wind.
God caused the produced pages of Scripture in that Scripture is an owner's manual that when Christ's teachings are applied the effect is always good.
Cause and effect:
Do the Laws of Nature need No lawgiver. As taught: The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have No difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. Can those laws be set by Nobody ?
Who can unaided defy the Law of what goes up must come down ( gravity )
Cause and effect:
What a person sows he reaps. Better have the wind blowing behind you.
At the caused moment of conception a person inherits 50% of his genes from each parent, so the effect is that there is No way anyone can be 100% like anyone else.
What has been set in motion between human male and female stays in motion, etc.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
The question is can you provide evidence that they were set by somebody??? Nope.
The laws are descriptive, not proscriptive.