Why the Bible is true... (Revised June 2015)

[PaulSacramento]

Science:
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

When you say that science proves nothing what you are trying to say is that science is open that any point, whatever is known to be can be changed or over ruled:

Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it.

Which is fine BUT lets not play around with words.

Science proves things like water freezes at 0 celcius and boils at 100 and where gravity is present, things that go up, come down, etc, etc.

So say that science is not in the business of proving things is like saying that science doesn't care about HOW things work, it simply is not correct and used by people that don't want to be held accountable for mistakes.
Reality:
if 1+ 1 = 2, then mathematical science has proven that 1+ 1= 2

I invite you to try boiling water at 100C. Let us know if you succeed.

A dictionary is not a very good source for science, generally. None of what you posted says that science proves things.

Math is not science.

UC Berkeley..



MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.

CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. To learn more about this, visit our page describing



Psychology today..https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... ific-proof

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Are you trying to prove that there are no proofs?



I am in the steam business, I can tell you exactly how steam comes to be AND control it's flow by pressure AND prove it.

Since science can't prove anything, I guess what we do in steam engineering is far better than science !!
LOL.
Proof may not be the "currency" of science BUT it is the goal.

You do realize We can prove the majority of observable physical laws ( like gravity), right?

[PaulSacramento]

I invite you to try boiling water at 100C. Let us know if you succeed.

Are you suggesting that water boils at another temperature?
How do you know?
Do you have any proof?

[PaulSacramento]

Proof:
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Full Definition of PROOF. 1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.

[B. W.]

How do you imagine, God would show up, if he was? What would you expect?

I dont speculate on that. IF there is a god, and he she it cared to make their presence clear, Im sure they are fully capable of it.

God is. Of course. He likes the humble ones.

Proverbs 3:34, James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5, Proverbs 16:18, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalms 25:9, Psalms 18:27, Proverbs 11:2, Matthew 23:12, James 4:10, ...

I see the eye of a needle up ahead.

Hint, walk through sideways, works every time.

Actually more accurately by means of Tsade...

Which is Hebrew Letter denoting humility...
-
-
-

[B. W.]

So Audie. do you attend Berkeley?

If so, that explains a lot!
-
-
-

[Philip]

Audie: But sure, multiple lines of evidence are good; it increases the probability that the data is not a fluke, or the hypothesis wrong.

And so exactly what does all of that data show: Experiments, data and observations reveal what is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible - that a universe "exploded" into existence where before there was none, from a exceptionally tiny space, with unimaginable power, immediately guided with laws of great precision and complexity. All this means is that there was something where there was nothing and that it was not in the least bit possible to be self-created, driven or random. The probabilities of this are ZILCH! No one believes this about anything else. Why? Because they would say these are impossible events that would have to be metaphysical in nature - which would also mean almost anything is possible even if unproven. But speak of the Big Bang, the origins of the universe, the alternative that all of this precision and these sophisticated planetary laws creating themselves, and atheists are on board with that likely being true. Inconsistent, unscientific, IMPOSSIBLE!!! At the very least, one must admit that whatever caused all of this must have always existed , as NOTHING can create itself! And whatever it was, it had to have been unimaginably powerful and intelligent. These are all a given. So what was "IT?" As unquestionably, it is unreasonable to not at least believe that "IT" existed.

Here is what most planetary scientists, astronomers and physicists believe happened (from why-sci.com):

(It starts from the tiniest space) "The singularity was so small that it has to be observed using quantum physics, which deals with things on the smallest scale scientists have ever postulated. At the beginning of existence, the universe had a temperature of 1 x 1032 degree Celsius and only covered a region of 1 x 10-33 centimeters. It’s hard to believe that expanded to become the universe spanning billions of light years we know today!

As tiny fractions of a second passed after the big bang, the universe expanded rapidly. It doubled in size several times in less than a second and cooled during the process.

At t = 1 x 10-11 seconds after the big bang began, the universe had expanded to a point where we could graduate from speculating on events from the quantum viewpoint to being able to simulate the environment in lab conditions with particle accelerators.

Then, the period of standard cosmology began .01 seconds after the big bang. Here, protons and neutrons are fully formed. After a full second,the nuclei of light elements like hydrogen, helium, and lithium were forming."

And so it is believed by current science that, at less than a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang began, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light during its period of inflation. And check this out: It is now widely believed by scientists that when the universe was only a few billion years old, it was getting bigger in every dimension by 1% for every 44 million years that passed. But, today, it takes 140 million years to get bigger by 1%. And so all of these have been guided by precise laws of great complexity, even within moments of its very beginning! And so, within mere seconds of the universe's beginning, what is theorized as having occurred is absolutely astonishing!

But it really doesn't matter if the scientists have it correct as to how the origin of our universe went down. We know that it all could not have existed forever, and that it is now expanding at a phenomenal rate of speed.

Adam Riess, American astrophysicist at Johns Hopkins University and the Space Telescope Science Institute, and his team say their latest data, measurements and calculations show that, for every megaparsec (about 3 million light years) you go out, the universe is expanding 74.2 km/sec faster. So a galaxy 10 Mpc away would be moving away from us at 742 km/sec. So, has the rate sped up, slowed down, or fluctuated? However accurate the answers are to this question, we know that what started incredibly small is now both vast and extremely fast, and its moving at incredible speeds.

Audie: People have followed what they took to be evidence for various gods and ended up with a lot of different gods.

And so what they THINK about whether there was a God or gods does not change the reality of whether or not there actually was, were or is.

Audie, do you know anything about Biblical prophecies? Those with known, specific times of utterance and detailed, and verifiable to have been historically fulfilled with amazing accuracy, that were highly improbable, and given far before their fulfillments? Do you know of any supposed book of any religion that can offer such powerful evidences?!!! It's very foolish to only look to science or what can or can not be validated by that or our experiences, to determine God's existence or which one He might be - or if He's the ONLY One.

[Audie]

Science:
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

When you say that science proves nothing what you are trying to say is that science is open that any point, whatever is known to be can be changed or over ruled:

Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it.

Which is fine BUT lets not play around with words.

Science proves things like water freezes at 0 celcius and boils at 100 and where gravity is present, things that go up, come down, etc, etc.

So say that science is not in the business of proving things is like saying that science doesn't care about HOW things work, it simply is not correct and used by people that don't want to be held accountable for mistakes.
Reality:
if 1+ 1 = 2, then mathematical science has proven that 1+ 1= 2

I invite you to try boiling water at 100C. Let us know if you succeed.

A dictionary is not a very good source for science, generally. None of what you posted says that science proves things.

Math is not science.

UC Berkeley..



MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.

CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. To learn more about this, visit our page describing



Psychology today..https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... ific-proof

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Are you trying to prove that there are no proofs?



I am in the steam business, I can tell you exactly how steam comes to be AND control it's flow by pressure AND prove it.

Since science can't prove anything, I guess what we do in steam engineering is far better than science !!
LOL.
Proof may not be the "currency" of science BUT it is the goal.

You do realize We can prove the majority of observable physical laws ( like gravity), right?

A Man of Steam such as yourself could handle the atmospheric pressure and purity of the water, so you among the few could do it.

I was so thoroughly taught that we leave "proof" to geometry and spirits, that I'm disinclined to use the word even tho for any other than theoretical or g-nazi purposes, that is all practical purposes, of course water is proven to boil at 100C.

I will continue to say that it has beem "demonstrated" lest ghost of teacher past get me.

As for proving laws, no, never will I agree, never will that be correct.

You can demonstrate that (prove that) the law applies in every situation you think up.
Probably.

You do know that you can never test all possible applications so the law, a general statement, cannot be proven?

On something of maybe more general interest, I have looked thru the proffered proofs of a primer mover, and a couple of articles criticizing same.

I suppose there are criticisms of the criticisms.

A book I looked at the other day, "our mathematical universe" had quotes from this or that sage, about how if you dont know what you dont know, you are far from wisdom, and that if you dismiss something while knowing nothing about it, you are likewise far.

I get on people's case for dismissing ToE while demonstrating they havent a clue about it.

I know I dont know much about philosophical proof of god, so I will keep that in mind as something I should dive into with my full attention, starting maybe a year and a half from now when Im out of school.

[PaulSacramento]

Audie, there is no argument that refutes the first mover/first cause arguments of Aquinas AS THEY ARE CORRECTLY stated because they are based on observable facts that must be if the universe is to actually exist.
Science itself starts of with those very premises.
The premise is indisputable:
All things that come into being/existence, have a cause.
All things that are moved/changed from what they are to what they have potential to be, are moved / changed by another.

[Audie]

Audie, there is no argument that refutes the first mover/first cause arguments of Aquinas AS THEY ARE CORRECTLY stated because they are based on observable facts that must be if the universe is to actually exist.
Science itself starts of with those very premises.
The premise is indisputable:
All things that come into being/existence, have a cause.
All things that are moved/changed from what they are to what they have potential to be, are moved / changed by another.

OK, whatevs. I know the basic premises, I know where others find fault.
If you say those arguments dont exist (?) or that they dont succeed in refuting, perhaps you have gone thru them to your satisfaction.

Im not going to start with a conclusion.

[PaulSacramento]

Audie, there is no argument that refutes the first mover/first cause arguments of Aquinas AS THEY ARE CORRECTLY stated because they are based on observable facts that must be if the universe is to actually exist.
Science itself starts of with those very premises.
The premise is indisputable:
All things that come into being/existence, have a cause.
All things that are moved/changed from what they are to what they have potential to be, are moved / changed by another.

OK, whatevs. I know the basic premises, I know where others find fault.
If you say those arguments dont exist (?) or that they dont succeed in refuting, perhaps you have gone thru them to your satisfaction.

Im not going to start with a conclusion.

Actually, I have heard the refutation BEFORE I read the arguments.
As some one that frequented atheist websites, I read many of the issues and they all sound like they were 100% correct.
THEN I actually read the arguments as they were and NOT as the atheists sought to dispute them and realized that what was refuted was a fabricated argument that was never made.

While I never started with a conclusion myself, it is true that some do.
Don't be one of those Audie.

Fact is, the conclusions of Aquinas are the backbone of modern science:
There must be a HOW behind the things the exist in the universe and that we can observe.

Many of us, including myself, did NOT start off as committed believers you know and some of us actually looked for ways NOT to believe.
For myself, I realized via reason and understanding that do deny God was, well, unreasonable.

[1over137]

How do you imagine, God would show up, if he was? What would you expect?

I dont speculate on that. IF there is a god, and he she it cared to make their presence clear, Im sure they are fully capable of it.

God is. Of course. He likes the humble ones.

Proverbs 3:34, James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5, Proverbs 16:18, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalms 25:9, Psalms 18:27, Proverbs 11:2, Matthew 23:12, James 4:10, ...

I see the eye of a needle up ahead.

God is patient. 2 Peter 3:9

[Philip]

This is aimed at no one in particular: But it always amazes me the wide range of complex things - or ANYthing - that people think can come into existence without a cause. As common sense tells you that somewhere, somehow, EVERY thing sprang from some prior thing and process. So whatever came first, HAD to exist forever, uncaused, and and possesses astounding intelligence, power and ability. At the end of the day, once this is realized, you have only TWO choices of how to respond to this: You can either deny it - and thus abandon basic reason itself - OR you can just refuse to deal with it and attempt to convince yourself that the questions surrounding our origins are likely a) forever unknowable and b) likely irrelevant - and that if you never sincerely seek their answers, it really doesn't matter. Either way would be just fine - IF the Bible is just another book of wildly inventive fiction. But if it's not...

[Kurieuo]

How do you imagine, God would show up, if he was? What would you expect?

I dont speculate on that. IF there is a god, and he she it cared to make their presence clear, Im sure they are fully capable of it.

God is. Of course. He likes the humble ones.

Proverbs 3:34, James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5, Proverbs 16:18, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalms 25:9, Psalms 18:27, Proverbs 11:2, Matthew 23:12, James 4:10, ...

I see the eye of a needle up ahead.

God is patient. 2 Peter 3:9

God is love. (1 John 4:8)
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. (1 Cor 13:4)

[abelcainsbrother]

That does not disprove God.

Hi 1/137

Of course it doesnt. I believe that proof of existence or non existence is impossible.

So, it is correct to say, that your position is, that yo simply do not know. You do not know there is or there is not God. Plus you believe it is impossible to prove/disprove. Right?

Short of a god showing up to announce he is it, I say it is impossible to know, to prove.

This is not true,salvation through Jesus proves God is real,you may not understand religion very well and you are lumping Christianity in with all other religions,but in Christianity the person is changed on the inside to serve God,the person does not change their self like in all other religions on the earth,salvation through Jesus is a miracle that God does,this is why no christian can boast or brag about all of the things they've done,it means absolutely nothing without salvation from Jesus.

Also if you think that science can never know the truth,then how can you put so much faith into believing it? I could never do that whether I was a christian or not,you don't have to be religious to want to know the truth at all. It has nothing to do with the bible at all that I reject evolution.I'd reject it even if I had never read the bible because of a lack of evidence.Even non-believers should not want to be lied to or mislead by scientists.

[Philip]

Also if you think that science can never know the truth,then how can you put so much faith into believing it?

That's a good question. At the end of the day, all science is an endeavor by mortals using relatively primitive tools in attempts to correctly understand what God has done, and how and when he did it. The knowledge base of science is constantly changing. But there are certainly SOME discoveries of science and technology that we should be able to have a large degree of confidence in. Who here would deny that the earth is spherical shaped and that it rotates around our sun? And other things, showing great consistency of redundantly repeated results can give us high confidence in them. But it's where we must connect the dots between observations, analysis and data that become problematic.

We may try to analytically connect dots where there never were such connections. But just because the dots can be connected in such a way that fits our theory, it doesn't necessarily mean that those dots were ever connected in the real world or universe. Many things are possible, yet among them, far less are actually true. And many things we will never be able to PROVE. So what this means is we mostly operate on our individual understandings of the PROBABILITIES of things being true or not. As we can't and don't always wait until things are perfectly clear before developing opinion-based actions over their perceived probabilities. This is what we are forced to do. And yet God does offer us the ability - if we so desire it - to understand what He considers important that we DO understand. He also makes clear various things that He only wants certain individuals to understand. All the rest is ultimately unimportant and, often, reasonably debatable. So while there are apparently many things God doesn't seem concerned we accurately understand, keeping many mysteries to Himself, they do, however, produce copious, amusing G&S threads . I often see, here on G&S, extreme faith in scientific understandings - far more than I find reasonable, given some of its track record and when realizing its limits.