Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Hugh for example (sorry to always talk of you in third person Hugh), is a perfect illustration of someone who'll never be happy unless perhaps the ark is uncovered, an exact time is given through scientific dating methods, and then much more physical scientific evidence is given.

He doesn't care whether such a story is merely physically possible

what he wants is evidence, physical evidence.

Merely having it as naturally possible doesn't cut it ...

... so proving that it is a possibility isn't going to impress any scientist

... people who always demand to see physical evidence rather than merely have the mere possibility of something.

Now more on timings, which you Nicki also made mention of. They are complicated in a local flood theory, because the science of human origins is itself very confusing. The language used, requires understanding. For example, you might think homo sapians are us, but no, we're classified as a sub-species of homo sapiens sapiens. Earlier hominins like Australopithecines are also often referred to as human. So then, when Christians claim Adam was the first human to walk the face of the Earth, to what species a scientist might ask are we referring -- one that walked around 500k+ years ago? [...] And then again, there is still more because agriculture and farming crops and animals isn't evidenced until around 12,000 years ago.

So now, where should Adam and Eve be placed? If we place them at say 12k years ago, well then, there were anatomically modern humans also in the Americas 15,000 years ago -- are these really just a different behavioural species? When did the real behavioural modern humans arrive and the scene and where were they located? All relevant questions. Questions I haven't fully explored and don't really have strong beliefs on.

The difficulty with timing is because Scripture doesn't give the exact timing. [...] So we must try and match up the real world, with the text, and come to a compatible understanding -- that is, if Scripture indeed touches upon historical truths in our actual world.

Finally, and I'm almost reaching the end here now... IF timing is an issue, then there is always the possibility that God could have caused many localised flooding events.

Jac3510 wrote:It effects the doctrine that creation fell with mankind and is looking to be liberated along with mankind. That effects a very specific view of the imago Dei, in which man is understood to be the visible representation of God on earth. That, in turn, effects the exegesis of the commandment not to make idols or graven images, and all of that effects one's understanding of the Incarnation and Christ as the Image of God and the Second Adam. In fact, it takes away a pillar of interpretation of Genesis 1-11, in which the Fall is broadly understood as a separation between God Elohim ruling over the world through His Omnipotence and God Yahweh ruling over the world through His image (mankind) and the whole purpose of Israel being restorative of that brokenness.

Just to name a few.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:It effects the doctrine that creation fell with mankind and is looking to be liberated along with mankind. That effects a very specific view of the imago Dei, in which man is understood to be the visible representation of God on earth. That, in turn, effects the exegesis of the commandment not to make idols or graven images, and all of that effects one's understanding of the Incarnation and Christ as the Image of God and the Second Adam. In fact, it takes away a pillar of interpretation of Genesis 1-11, in which the Fall is broadly understood as a separation between God Elohim ruling over the world through His Omnipotence and God Yahweh ruling over the world through His image (mankind) and the whole purpose of Israel being restorative of that brokenness.

Just to name a few.

I think that is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

Jac3510 wrote:No, K, the text stands in pretty strong opposition to that reading if for not other reason than this: the nephilim were on the earth in the days of the flood and also after. So if the idea was to "clean out" the human race as if Noah was the only one who didn't have a messed up blood line, it was a pretty bad plan. And besides, the idea of a corrupted gene pool doesn't mean anything to that time in history. And the idea of trying to corrupt the Messiah's bloodline would be, at best, a 1500 year anachronism.

The most obvious reading of the text is that the "sons of God" was the line of Seth. The nephilim were tyrants of the day. The word doesn't mean "giant." There's absolutely no basis for that interpretation. It means "one who falls upon." And that view makes perfect sense in the context--the entire world had become corrupt and full of violence. Tyrants ruled by the sword. There was no law and no fear of God, and so the need for the flood. In fact, doubly fits because it shows the sin of Cain has permeated all of mankind.

Nope . . . a "fallen angels" view makes absolutely no sense and requires reading WAY too much into the text that isn't anywhere near the text. Take those foreign ideas out that you don't get from the text and there is just no way to get there.

Jac3510 wrote:Your point? There were all kind of fantastic ideas floating around. All that shows was that somebody saw the same "sons of God" connection in Job and Genesis and built a myth out of it. And I've already pointed out the Qumran interpretation.

K, it's ridiculous. You are literally appealing to a myth written over a thousand years later to try to make a serious interpretation of text. REALLY?!?! And further, Enoch wasn't even recognized as canonical by Jews! So why should we take it seriously? I've taken the time to offer some serious thoughts on the actual text and you are going to return with this rubbish? I expect that from ACB, but you know better. You been drinkin' tonight, buddy?

They read it. They thought it was stupid and rejected it.

hughfarey wrote:

Now more on timings, which you Nicki also made mention of. They are complicated in a local flood theory, because the science of human origins is itself very confusing. The language used, requires understanding. For example, you might think homo sapians are us, but no, we're classified as a sub-species of homo sapiens sapiens. Earlier hominins like Australopithecines are also often referred to as human. So then, when Christians claim Adam was the first human to walk the face of the Earth, to what species a scientist might ask are we referring -- one that walked around 500k+ years ago? [...] And then again, there is still more because agriculture and farming crops and animals isn't evidenced until around 12,000 years ago.

This is getting a teeny bit bonkers, if I may say so. In a thousand years, if we last that long, historians will say that full human behaviour didn't really emerge until the invention of the steam-engine, or electricity, or the internet, and they will be just as correct as saying that human behaviour was 'full' at the invention of cooking, or farming, or painting.

Jac3510 wrote:I've already told you why I think it is ridiculous, K. I suppose you can keep calling me a liar, that if I were honest I'd admit that my arguments are just smokescreens and it really isn't about hermeneutics at all, and then just conveniently ignoring my arguments if you like. But the bottom line will remain the same: What I really think the angelic view is patently stupid because it has absolutely no hermeneutical or textual basis. It is a conspiracy theory based on a text that dates over 1000 years after the Genesis story was first penned. Following standard interpretational principles, you come to the Sethite view. (And a global flood, and YEC, by the way. I've no interest in what is ridiculous from a scientific or naturalistic or sensibilities perspective (except where those sensibilities refer to interpretational principles). My question is only what the text says. You simply cannot begin to try to reconcile or even answer questions related to how God and science relate if you won't be honest about what God says in the first place.

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Hugh for example (sorry to always talk of you in third person Hugh), is a perfect illustration of someone who'll never be happy unless perhaps the ark is uncovered, an exact time is given through scientific dating methods, and then much more physical scientific evidence is given.

Not at all! I'm very happy person! Christians usually are!

He doesn't care whether such a story is merely physically possible

Not quite. I think the story is physically impossible, and have adduced evidence to demonstrate my opinion. If I thought the story was possible but undemonstrated, I would have said so.

what he wants is evidence, physical evidence.

Yup.

Merely having it as naturally possible doesn't cut it ...

It would be better that nothing.

... so proving that it is a possibility isn't going to impress any scientist

Who knows? No such proof has been offered.

... people who always demand to see physical evidence rather than merely have the mere possibility of something.

No. If something is possible it will not be rejected as impossible. So, you don't have to prove the flood killed all mankind, only that such a flood was possible. But you haven't got anywhere near that yet, without invoking massive divine intervention. Given that, then of course you can be completely correct, and no scientist could deny it, but we just don't think God works like that.

Now more on timings, which you Nicki also made mention of. They are complicated in a local flood theory, because the science of human origins is itself very confusing. The language used, requires understanding. For example, you might think homo sapians are us, but no, we're classified as a sub-species of homo sapiens sapiens. Earlier hominins like Australopithecines are also often referred to as human. So then, when Christians claim Adam was the first human to walk the face of the Earth, to what species a scientist might ask are we referring -- one that walked around 500k+ years ago? [...] And then again, there is still more because agriculture and farming crops and animals isn't evidenced until around 12,000 years ago.

This is getting a teeny bit bonkers, if I may say so. In a thousand years, if we last that long, historians will say that full human behaviour didn't really emerge until the invention of the steam-engine, or electricity, or the internet, and they will be just as correct as saying that human behaviour was 'full' at the invention of cooking, or farming, or painting.

So now, where should Adam and Eve be placed? If we place them at say 12k years ago, well then, there were anatomically modern humans also in the Americas 15,000 years ago -- are these really just a different behavioural species? When did the real behavioural modern humans arrive and the scene and where were they located? All relevant questions. Questions I haven't fully explored and don't really have strong beliefs on.

Good.

The difficulty with timing is because Scripture doesn't give the exact timing. [...] So we must try and match up the real world, with the text, and come to a compatible understanding -- that is, if Scripture indeed touches upon historical truths in our actual world.

I don't think it does in this case.

Finally, and I'm almost reaching the end here now... IF timing is an issue, then there is always the possibility that God could have caused many localised flooding events.

Of course, God could have done all these things, but he could just as easily have caused a worldwide flood that destroyed all living things and then removed all the evidence. No need to create intricate scenarios once you call in divine intervention.

Audie wrote:For those who want to say the world wide flood could have happened, sure, with divine intervention. But it didnt.
A giant meteor could have wiped out NYC yesterday, but, it didnt.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:For those who want to say the world wide flood could have happened, sure, with divine intervention. But it didnt.
A giant meteor could have wiped out NYC yesterday, but, it didnt.

Or how about the universe could have popped into existence, but it didn't. Oh hang on...

Philip wrote:

Audie: You respond with a long rather hysterical personal attack, that appears to say that if I cant answer the deepest mysteries of the universe, then i have nothing to say about the 'flood".

Audie, you always respond to your POSITION being critically examined with your "little girl is being attacked by the clueless, heartless mods." Quite your whining and put on your "big girl" pants!

You in no way critically or otherwise examined my position, tho you did there and elsewhere make up "positions" to savage to your satisfaction. Or else you dont look at the topic at all, which in this case was "flood", and off you go into
origin of the universe and all in it.

Also, of course, you are simply lying with what you say I "always", or ever for that matter, do.

My point wasn't about the WHEN or technical questions about many questions concerning the flood. My point was merely that you are always very condescendingly spouting about "the magic God of gappisms,"

See there you go with another lie; I have never said that. If, since you have to make things up in order to find something to 'critically examine", why do you bother?

without realizing that you yourself have admitted you have NO, ZIPPO, ZERO idea of what began the universe or HOW it began.

Another lie, how could I possibly not know what I have said? "Admit" of course is reluctantly confess, which I did not do. I dont to theoretical astrophysics, neither do you. The origin of the universe is completely irrelevant to the subject of a primitive superstition about a flood, something you dont seem to realize; else, why do yo keep bringing it up?

. And that source either had to be eternally powerful and unfathomably intelligent, OR it randomly developed into such power and intelligence

Oh yaeh, I saw this lie about me in another post, that this is what I believe in.

- which is as unscientific as it gets. Leave those rocks in the backyard for vast trillions of years, and at the end of that time, they'll still be dumb rocks.

Really. Once a 'rock" that may have existed for millions of years is exposed to the surface, it virtually explodes. It will be reduced to its smallest constituents chemically and mechanically, and be absorbed by plants, enter the atmosphere, or be washed downstream.

Audie: I do see a lot of what you called, yes, Wild speculation, upon which there is no ability to apply the scientific method to replicating, testing, falsifying - well, just don't call it science, because it is NOT - concerning this "flood".

Of COURSE there is wild speculation. But the wild speculation on the non-theist side seems very unreasonale, immensely and mathematically improbable. But it's not telling lies as to what you believe, Audie, it's stating parameters which you refuse to accept, that nonetheless exist.

I accept that there could be supernatural. Dont see it, but hey.
Now as to things you are capable of accepting? But that is another topic.

Audie, please tell me:

What OTHER possible and necessary certainties must the Cause of the universe include?

This should be good. I predict less detail and more attitude! But I do hope to be pleasantly surprised!

You do love to be insulting and condescending, and, you do so love your irrelevancies.

Remember this exchange?

ME
, Wild speculation, upon which there is no ability to apply the scientific method to replicating, testing, falsifying - well, just don't call it science, because it is NOT - concerning this "flood"

YOU
Of COURSE there is wild speculation. But the wild speculation on the non-theist side seems very unreasonale, immensely and mathematically improbable

You are saying that the non theist (like, say geology) side of looking at whether there was a flood is umreasonable and improbable?

Coz if not, you are, speaking of wild, wildly off topic. I was talking about whether there was a flood, remember? Why do you insist of wildly flying off to the origin of the universe?

I predict it is reflective of an inability on your part, on the part of your bible-reading, to cope with what happens when faced with some hard realities.

Jac3510 wrote:The "liar" comment is directed at your suggesting that if I were honest I'd say it was my modern sensibilities. I get that is the position you are coming from. I am telling you that it is not the position I'm coming from. My own sense regarding your swing is that you've got a pendulum swining too far in the other direction.