Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Jac, do you believe the Universe is a creation of God?

Of course. Why would you ask that?

Do you believe that the Universe is in need of redemption? or at least our Planet that is also a creation of God?

Paul, the line and approach of questioning you are taking comes across as interrogation. Neither of us are children here. If you have a point, make it. Alternatively, I could just point out that while I answered your absurd question, you simply ignored mine and proceeded to ask me another absurd question. If you have any hope of this continuing, you need to answer my questions as well so that this is an actual conversation.

Jac3510 wrote:Paul, the line and approach of questioning you are taking comes across as interrogation. Neither of us are children here. If you have a point, make it. Alternatively, I could just point out that while I answered your absurd question, you simply ignored mine and proceeded to ask me another absurd question. If you have any hope of this continuing, you need to answer my questions as well so that this is an actual conversation.

I don't wanna speak for you are assume your views, hense I am asking for confirmation.
My reasoning?
This:
The Universe is God's direct creation.
The universe is in need of redemption.
The Bible was written by man, inspired by the HS, but men nevertheless BUT, let us go with the view that ALL of scripture is God breathed, much like like creation.
The in creation is in need of redemption, why is it is so hard to view the bible in the same light?
Creation is NOT inerrant, why should we view the bible as such ??

By the way, there is no reason to take that tone with me, is there?
Have I at any point offended you or said anything to make you concerned about my motives when I discuss anything with you?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Paul, the line and approach of questioning you are taking comes across as interrogation. Neither of us are children here. If you have a point, make it. Alternatively, I could just point out that while I answered your absurd question, you simply ignored mine and proceeded to ask me another absurd question. If you have any hope of this continuing, you need to answer my questions as well so that this is an actual conversation.

I don't wanna speak for you are assume your views, hense I am asking for confirmation.
My reasoning?
This:
The Universe is God's direct creation.
The universe is in need of redemption.
The Bible was written by man, inspired by the HS, but men nevertheless BUT, let us go with the view that ALL of scripture is God breathed, much like like creation.
The in creation is in need of redemption, why is it is so hard to view the bible in the same light?
Creation is NOT inerrant, why should we view the bible as such ??

Creation is not God breathed. It is not inspired. Scripture is God breathed. It is inspired. Therein lies the difference. Now, we are certainly free to have a difference in theology here, and that's fine. I hold that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. If you adopt positions that require you to reject inspiration and inerrancy, then that's your position. One man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens. Or, to put it more concretely:

• 1. If evolution is true, Genesis 1 is incorrect as written;
  2. Gensis 1 is not incorrect as written;
  3. Therefore, evolution is not true

That would be my argument. But someone could just as easily say

• 1. If evolution is true, Genisis 1 is incorrect as written;
  2'. Evolution is true;
  3'. Therefore, Genesis 1 is incorrect as written

If (1) is accepted as true, then question is whether (2) is true or if (2') is true. My theology doesn't allow for (2) to be false. Perhaps yours does, but don't bother asking me to give up inerrancy (and therefore, inspiration). That's a step I cannot and will not make, especially not by an appeal to the corruptibility of nature in general, as if we are somehow to put creation on the same plane as Scripture. The way I see it, you may as well be saying that nature is equivalent to the 67th book of the Bible, and such logic either elevates the cosmos far above its place or debases Scripture far below its proper place.

By the way, there is no reason to take that tone with me, is there?
Have I at any point offended you or said anything to make you concerned about my motives when I discuss anything with you?

There's no tone intended. No one wants to be interrogated. No one wants to take a very basic theology quiz. You would do much better to simply say something along the lines of what you did in this post. If you somehow are worried that I don't believe that the universe is God's creation and needs redemption (although I can't imagine where you would get such a notion), you could simply say, "Now, I don't want to presume on your theology, but I would guess you probably believe that the universe is God's creation and in need of redemption. Now, if that is so . . .," etc.

edit:

As to your logic, by the way, I would ask how you know that the universe is in need of redemption. I would take it that you know this from Scripture. But if you are to abandon inerrancy (and I would say therefore inspiration), that is, if you believe that the Bible is in need of redemption because it, too, has errors, then how do you know that the Bible isn't in error in its claim that the universe needs redemption? You don't. You would simply believe that the Bible was right on this particular point. And says who? You, of course.

This is the danger of denying inerrancy. The person who denies inerrancy does not merely say that the Bible has errors but that he believes the parts that are obviously right. What he is really saying is that he, himself, is the divine authority, and that he believes those parts that line up with what he already believes or finds unobjectionable. And that, to me, is highly objectionable.

So, no, the Bible is not in need of redemption. It is not errant. On the contrary, it is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

Jac wrote:
The way I see it, you may as well be saying that nature is equivalent to the 67th book of the Bible, and such logic either elevates the cosmos far above its place or debases Scripture far below its proper place.

A subtle dig at Hugh Ross. Very clever Jac.

Hmmm . . . not subtle enough, apparently!

Jac3510 wrote:Hmmm . . . not subtle enough, apparently!

I bet nobody else caught on.

I caught the dig

Jac, thanks for all your responses so far. I'm intrigued by what you say. I have some questions if you don't mind more.

Jac3510 wrote:That's just the way biblical interpretation is. There are not multiple interpretations. There is one interpretation. The rest are misinterpretations. OEC, as far as I can tell, is a misinterpretation of the biblical text.

Are you saying only your interpretation is the right interpretation and the rest are wrong? If this is what you're saying, then I wonder what that means for the person with the wrong interpretation about such things. Particularly salvation. Can someone be denied eternity in heaven if they've misinterpreted the Bible?

If someone believes salvation is by works, I would suggest their salvation is in jeopardy. Particularly if they believe they get to heaven on their own and deny Christ is their saviour. But that's a fairly strong misinterpretation. How about someone like PaulSacramento (maybe not appropriate to use a forum member) who believes in the gift of salvation, but does not believe in biblical inerrancy. Would his interpretation lead him to Hell?

Sorry for such a touchy question. Feel free to pass on it if you feel it's innapropriate. Or shoot me a PM answer if you'd prefer.

Jac3510 wrote: If (1) is accepted as true,

Is it possible to say that the earth and universe are old and Genesis 1 is true when interpreted in such a way that is understood by all peope, past and present?

Jac3510 wrote: The way I see it, you may as well be saying that nature is equivalent to the 67th book of the Bible, and such logic either elevates the cosmos far above its place or debases Scripture far below its proper place.

Is it possible to "read" nature as supporting evidence for the Bible? If they don't agree, is it reasonable to assume one is false?

1. What we observe is real;
2. The Bible affirms what we observe;
3. Therefore the Bible is reliable.

or

1. What we observe is real;
2. The Bible does not affirm what we observe;
3. Therefore the Bible is errant.

Did I do that right? I dunno how to do those cool logic steps

My point is, God set us in an interactive Universe. Why would he inspire scripture that conflicts with what we experience. He is not deceptive.

There's a huge difference between claiming belief in the original autographs of Scripture and stating to definitively and accurately understand it all. As finite, imperfect beings, our understanding of the perfect words of an all-powerful and eternal God will always and necessarily, at least on some issues, be lacking. There are quite a few mysteries in Scripture that God COULD have easily cleared up with more detail and clarity as to how He guided it's transmission - but for whatever reasons, He chose not to. Which means He knew that discerning seekers of truth would be forced to wrestle with certain meanings. But I think He made it abundantly clear ALL that was truly and critically necessary that we understand now, is ABLE to be understood.

But the issue of the inerrancy of the original writings is FAR more important than any petty arguments over the time of the "days." Interestingly, OECs and YECs both appeal to science, as to what transpired leading up to Eve's first breath. But after THAT - they should be on the same page, as what came before, TIME wise, has many uncertainties. And what came afterward was either God's inerrant word or it was not. And THAT is what I believe truly matters. But to question it and say it was not inerrant, or that we can't know with a high degree of certainty that what we actually still have was in the originals and is important to God for us to know and understand - that's a slick slope to letting the god you see in the mirror discern the truths of God. And if God failed us in protecting His word - that would have much to say about His character, integrity and love. And how can you trust a God who has left you uncertain and guessing about key/critical understandings in His Word? Either that means His word isn't that important to Him or that, at least for us, He deems it non essential for us for Him to have so carefully protected it.

Why would he inspire scripture that conflicts with what we experience. He is not deceptive.

Better questions: If we might inaccurately interpret how we perceive certain phenomena or evidences, does that necessarily mean that God intended to deceive us or does it perhaps mean that He didn't immediately allow or provide us with the technical ability or knowledge necessary to accurately understand what He did in the distant past? Does God owe us the ability to fathom all of His mysteries?

Before men had the necessary instruments to confirm that our solar system's planets rotate around the sun instead of the earth, was He deceiving them, back then?

Philip wrote:
Before man had the necessary instruments to confirm that our solar system's planets rotate around the sun instead of the earth, was He deceiving them, back then?

No He wasn't, but that was just limited knowledge becoming less limited. We are still limited in our knowledge, but less limited than we were 100 years ago. If the Bible is inerrant, I suggest that it cannot say X = Y while we observe that X = Z. Your example is such that one day we didn't know what X equaled, and then we eventually figured out it equals Z.

ryanbouma wrote:Are you saying only your interpretation is the right interpretation and the rest are wrong? If this is what you're saying, then I wonder what that means for the person with the wrong interpretation about such things. Particularly salvation. Can someone be denied eternity in heaven if they've misinterpreted the Bible?

If someone believes salvation is by works, I would suggest their salvation is in jeopardy. Particularly if they believe they get to heaven on their own and deny Christ is their saviour. But that's a fairly strong misinterpretation. How about someone like PaulSacramento (maybe not appropriate to use a forum member) who believes in the gift of salvation, but does not believe in biblical inerrancy. Would his interpretation lead him to Hell?

There is always one right interpretation, and it is always the case that other interpretations are wrong. Now, just like in the rest of life, there are consequences for misunderstanding things, but how bad those consequences are depends on what you've misunderstood. So it is with Scripture. To misunderstand the gospel has eternal ramifications. To misunderstand inerrancy is severely problematic, but probably no so much as to keep you out of heaven (unless it causes you to misunderstand the gospel). Getting Genesis 1 wrong is less problematic still, but it does tend to cause misunderstandings elsewhere in Scripture, and those misunderstandings might be more or less problematic.

Is it possible to say that the earth and universe are old and Genesis 1 is true when interpreted in such a way that is understood by all peope, past and present?

Sure. You'd just be challenging (1). A debate about that would ask the question of whether or not Genesis 1 can be legitimately squared with multiple interpretations. I would submit to you that, in fact, it cannot be, but that's just the nature of this specific case and would needed to be argued on the merits. There are other passages that do only have one proper interpretation but are open to multiple valid interpretations.

Is it possible to "read" nature as supporting evidence for the Bible? If they don't agree, is it reasonable to assume one is false?

1. What we observe is real;
2. The Bible affirms what we observe;
3. Therefore the Bible is reliable.

or

1. What we observe is real;
2. The Bible does not affirm what we observe;
3. Therefore the Bible is errant.

Did I do that right? I dunno how to do those cool logic steps

Nature should be read on its own merits. The Bible should be read on its own merits. Just as the scientist should not start with Scripture but should let science be science, so theologians should not start with science and read that into Scripture. In the vast majority of cases, there is no conflict between the natural record and Scriptural record. In some cases, the Scriptural record is actually to be read as a part of the natural record (here, we read Scripture not as Scripture but as a historical document and apply typical historiographical techniques). In a few places, it seems that the Scriptural record and natural records are not compatible. In that case, we revisit each source independently and reassess each bit of evidence on its own merits. So YECs should not reassess science in light of Scripture in order to make science come up with a "Scriptural" answer, and just so, OECs should not reread Scripture to see if an OEC interpretation can be found. The question is simply and only, What does the text intend to say? The question "How can I read this?" is rather uninteresting.

My point is, God set us in an interactive Universe. Why would he inspire scripture that conflicts with what we experience. He is not deceptive.

He does not give us Scripture that conflicts with experience. He gives us Scripture, which we do our best to interpret, and sometimes we do so poorly. He gives us experience, which we do our best to interpret, and sometimes we do so poorly. I take it on faith that Scripture and experience do not contradict. I do not, however, force them not to contradict by making one authority over the other.

Now, I am not a trained scientist, so I cannot, indeed I am not qualified, to do science on its own merits. I am, however, qualified to read Scripture on its own merits. As best as I can tell, the Bible teaches YEC. Therefore, scientific interpretations of experience that directly contradict the YEC worldview must be wrong somewhere. I don't know where, and I can't answer that question. And I'm okay with that. I became okay with not knowing everything a long time ago. That may sound like a cop out, but to me, it's just getting to the bottom line. I don't know everything. You don't know everything. So neither of us need to pretend we do. I do, though, know what I know, and that's what I work from.

I hope that's at least somewhat helpful.

If the Bible is inerrant, I suggest that it cannot say X = Y while we observe that X = Z.

IF we ACCURATELY observe and TRULY understand, you are correct. I'm postulating that where we see disagreement, it is either that we don't correctly understand what the Scriptures are truly saying or our science or scientific understandings are incorrect or insufficient. Scripture/GOD cannot say that which is not true - but that doesn't mean that we can ALWAYS accurately understand it in its entirety.

Your example is such that one day we didn't know what X equaled, and then we eventually figured out it equals Z.

I'm not saying anything of the sort! And if Scripture teaches that X won't/can't ever equal Z, then that would be impossible. And if it says that X = Y, forever/unchanging, then X must ALWAYS equal Y.

... that was just limited knowledge becoming less limited. We are still limited in our knowledge, but less limited than we were 100 years ago.

And, of course, this will continue to be true. That maxim will be true until the end of the age.

As BEST as I can tell, the Bible teaches YEC. Therefore, scientific interpretations of experience that directly contradict the YEC worldview must be wrong somewhere. I don't know where, and I can't answer that question.

And because of the necessary human insufficiency of Jac to validate his "BEST" analysis, the blue part of his quote cannot be known with confirmed accuracy and the green portion, including his "must be wrong somewhere" musing, is mere, debatable, speculation.

The bigger question is whether it truly matters whether Jac is right about the Days/time issue or whether OEC/Progressives like myself are. I say, NO! If you're an OEC and you come across unbelievers who only believe in a godless naturalism - your touting OEC views is not going to move them toward the Gospel. It might LATER help them reconcile some of the scientific evidence so that they don't outright reject the Gospel, but it's not an effective early conversation issue. Neither are YEC views. Now, presenting evidences showing the impossibility of our universe and the appearance of life without God may well be effective, but I really don't see the time issue being very important. Salvation doesn't require that we understand every aspect of Genesis or Scripture. But the detailed history of Jesus and the Gospel comes FAR after Genesis - and how one broaches THAT with an unbeliever is likely going to be FAR more important than making points about one's Creation time views.

However, the only part of the time issue that is of practical importance to MAN has to do with God readying the planet for Adam, Eve and the rest of mankind - not HOW LONG, but THAT HE DID SO. Once God begins speaking and instructing about matters outside of the debatable time issues, that is what truly matters. Those YECs and OECs/Progressives who don't get this - especially those who wish to have constant, aggressive and hostile debates over it - are only causing division within the Body of Christ.

Jac3510 wrote:
I hope that's at least somewhat helpful.

Very. Thank you.

Philip wrote:
I'm not saying anything of the sort! And if Scripture teaches that X won't/can't ever equal Z, then that would be impossible. And if it says that X = Y, forever/unchanging, then X must ALWAYS equal Y.

I gotcha now. Cool