Question on faith

[PaulSacramento]

RE" Science and absolutes.

No, science does NOT deal in absolutes because science is all about best possible explanation and not ONLY possible explanation, why?
Because science is well aware that we do NOT know everything and that not everything can be observed ( we must never forget that science is observation).
Scientists, however, do tend to speak and talk AS IF science does deal in absolutes.

IN regards to the Noah story:
Science is very open to the possibility that it is about a massive LOCAL flood ( and by local I mean local in the geographical sense, which could mean 100's of sq miles) since there is both historical and geographical evidence of such.
There is NO evidence for a WORLD WIDE flood as DESCRIBED in the bible and, as some scientists have pointed out, the laws of physics AS WE KNOW THEM, make such a flood virtually impossible.

[melanie]

There are some beliefs in christianity that are open to interpretation but the core message has been held by majority of christians for many years.
God's word trumps science and man's reasoning. Interpretation in some instances very well may not discredit them as such but it is not a defining factor.
Science and reasoning cannot explain a man walking on water, feeding five thousand from a few fish and loaves of bread, talking donkey's, a virgin birth, parting of seas and ressurection from death.
If someone interprets the bible to include current scientific theories then that is absolute right to do so, but you can't look at science as the authority on all that is possible and fit scripture around man's reasoning because the bible is full of the power of God completely outside of scientific explanation.
Just because science fails to explain biblical text does not make that text therefore unreasonable.
If that were the case we would question the very core message of Christianity, Jesus' death and resurrection.

Id not suggest anyone fit all of scripture around man's reasoning. How about, tho, something like the above example of a specific thing like a date?

Well I don't believe that the bible does give us the age of the earth, and I don't believe that was an oversight on Gods part. But that wasn't what you were asking me, how do I feel about a hypothetical person discrediting a specific date that doesn't add up with their beliefs? I would like to think that I would reserve judgment.
Meaning; I personally believe that the earth is older than 6000-10,000 years old. I use my interpretation and discernment in this reasoning. Those holding to a YEC approach believe otherwise so I hold a different opinion. I guess that is your answer, I believe somewhere along the lines we have interpreted scripture and nature differently and have come to our conclusions.
What does that tell me about 'hypothetical' person. Apart from a creation stance, not a lot.
There is another thread where 'stereotypes' have been discussed. I get your frustration at being labeled as the 'typical' atheist and pigeonholed. Your frustration shows that your beliefs and stances on the existence of God are not typical to anyone but yourself.
I think that YEC's are not uneducated individuals who refuse to look at relevant data, who are so indoctrinated, dogmatic in interpretating scripture literally that they let reason and logic fall to the wayside.
Anyone can be dogmatic about anything. Across the board. Sure some are, but no more so than dogmatic atheists, OEC's ect.
I think that the closest we can come to truth is being open to all the possibilities.
Closing ourselves off to possibility leaves us not moving forward but stuck within our own limitations.
It becomes an oxymoron to accuse a YEC of being dogmatic and not accepting outside sources when by accusation are we not doing the same thing. Refusing to believe the possibility that perhaps they are correct.
Likewise God is revealed in nature and there is the possibility that the answers lie in scripture and nature. A beautiful, intertwined symphony.
Perhaps the gap theory is correct.
Or theistic evolution, I personally don't think so but I really can't be sure.
We all by human nature attach 'judgement' to people based on ideas that really don't give us the right to do so.
Someone is an atheist so therefore....... And we insert a judgment of their character, presume to know how they view Christianity. Enemy.
Ohh so your a YEC so therefore........ Head in the clouds, relying on an interpretation of scripture that leaves reason and logic by the wayside. Dogmatic.
You believe in Theistic evolution okay therefore......... placed science over the word of God, taking scripture literally at their own personal whim. Discrediting the Bible.

Maybe we need to not attach the 'therefore's'
Perhaps all one can gather from a persons interpretation is just that and nothing more.
I have done it, we all do but I think we aren't doing each other justice.

Two people can be standing side by side in the same meadow but each beholding a unique view.

[Audie]

RE" Science and absolutes.

No, science does NOT deal in absolutes because science is all about best possible explanation and not ONLY possible explanation, why?
Because science is well aware that we do NOT know everything and that not everything can be observed ( we must never forget that science is observation).
Scientists, however, do tend to speak and talk AS IF science does deal in absolutes.

IN regards to the Noah story:
Science is very open to the possibility that it is about a massive LOCAL flood ( and by local I mean local in the geographical sense, which could mean 100's of sq miles) since there is both historical and geographical evidence of such.
There is NO evidence for a WORLD WIDE flood as DESCRIBED in the bible and, as some scientists have pointed out, the laws of physics AS WE KNOW THEM, make such a flood virtually impossible.

Perhaps in popular press articles you can find someone appearing to talk in absolutes. Its tiresome to qualify everything.

[Audie]

I often see people say that God's word says thus and so, so they will have faith in God's word, not in (insert science, man's reasoning, etc). It is presented as that their take on something is solidly backed up by God's words.

I wonder if it isnt often that they have faith in themselves, as having the sure power to know just what God meant by what is in the Bible.


How would anyone know which is which?

You must be born again by Jesus to understand but I would like to know why you seem to trust man so much?Don't you know how many times man has thought one way for years and thought they had evidence and everything only to later be proven wrong?I cannot understand how you can put your faith in what man says is true,it is very unwise to me.Whole countries have been indoctrinated before and so the truth is very important to me.How do you know man is right this time?

It makes no difference whether man believed in God or not man is sinful,lies,hates,slanders,propagandizes whole societies,man is evil,lies andd needs God's truth for it is the only thing we can put our faith in.I learned this as a Christian realizing all of the doctrines of man and not of God in Christian churches.Imagine a time when Christian preachers were rascists while preaching Satan's lies instead of God's truth.I do not put my faith in what man says is true at all,my faith goes into believing God's word because it is the inspired word of God,and only it to the best of my ability do I put my faith in,I ignore lies from Satan and try to expose them.

If you read my post you will see I asked how some people can be so sure that they know the exact meaning of "god's word" .
Given that people with the same claim to "born again" understanding read the same passage and get a rainbow of different meanings, it looks to this observer that their faith is in themselves as inerrant readers.

If you have no response on topic, that is fine. Twisting the question around to invent faults in me and make it about me is not fine, Why would you think it is?

Of course people make mistakes in science. Distrust of authority is essential to science. (Opposite to religion, that way) My question had to do with how people can think they cant make any mistakes regarding what they believe "god" is telling them.

You present as very confident in your ideas about science, to the extent of making some rather extreme statements on the
mentality, character and eternal destination of those who dont see it your way.

I asked about football, because I know very little about it, so you know more.
If I started in talking about the rink, the goalie and so forth, you'd soon see I was not in a position to say anything credible
about the game.

It is obvious to me that I know science at least that much better than you; your talk of proving a theory for example is as amateur a bit of ignorance as thinking there is a football net and home base would be to you, if I argued for those things.

And yet you are confident that "god's word" backs the falsehoods that comprise the substance of your posts
trying to denounce science.

Think well who is preaching "Satan's Lies".

I think you are dodging my points that address your question,you seem to imply that truth cannot be known and yet it can,yet you take it as an offense when I point out your faith in what man says is true yet having this idea that truth cannot be known in science and this is all to prop up the atheistic side of science and evolution because it cannot be proven and they know it.I don't understand why you accept this idea,and yet still put your faith in evolution science.

You claim you know more about science than I do and you might but one thing I know is that if you believe in evolution science you cannot prove,show or demonstrate life evolves,you've never seen it happen,you've never observed it and yet know it could be wrong yet put your faith in it anyway.I try to denounce unproven science that is propped up and promoted above all other areas of science.

Meanwhile because I believe there was a former world on this earth full of life that perished I look for evidence to back it up and yet if you'd perhaps stop looking at the evidence of fossils and death in this earth that you know about because of evolution,but if you'd look at it from a former world perspective instead of an evolution perspective,you would see evidence for a former world full of life that perished and since you've never seen or observed life evolving there is no reason to keep looking at the evidence from that perspective.If a former world full of life perished you should expect to find evidence for it in this earth and you do,but you just don't look at it from that perspective.

Also even science teaches that the earth was flooded before the continents rose up and yet you overlook a flood that wiped out the former world,yet it is evidence for Lucifer's flood that caused the former world to perish,plus there is snow ball earth that says the earth was completely frozen at one time which backs up Jeremiah 4:23-28 and Genesis 1:2 inwhich the heavens became black and no sun light which means death to all life,of course though for the sake of evolution before it could be accepted they had to make sure life survived it so it can evolve,you see this is how they interpret everything in this earth and evidence.But it is evidence for Lucifer's flood in which the heavens and earth and all life perished,yeah I know you'll think "snow ball earth"happened billions of years ago but that is because of evolution.

Plus according to NOAA the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet this is deeper than the tallest mountains on land this means if we could level out the earth's surface and fill in the deep trenches that make it so deep,the whole earth would be flooded right now up to the tallest mountains on land,so there is clear evidence for global floods,now read Psalm 104 and tell me how King David could've knew what he did.Did he have scuba equipment,sonar,he could tell by boating or swimming?I don't think so.He was inspired by God.

There is no point in me answering other than to observe that your making up things about me is reprehensible. Im sure you are a nice person who is sincere and means well, but even, as they say, good people do bad things. Seek self improvement in this regard, svp.

[Audie]

There are some beliefs in christianity that are open to interpretation but the core message has been held by majority of christians for many years.
God's word trumps science and man's reasoning. Interpretation in some instances very well may not discredit them as such but it is not a defining factor.
Science and reasoning cannot explain a man walking on water, feeding five thousand from a few fish and loaves of bread, talking donkey's, a virgin birth, parting of seas and ressurection from death.
If someone interprets the bible to include current scientific theories then that is absolute right to do so, but you can't look at science as the authority on all that is possible and fit scripture around man's reasoning because the bible is full of the power of God completely outside of scientific explanation.
Just because science fails to explain biblical text does not make that text therefore unreasonable.
If that were the case we would question the very core message of Christianity, Jesus' death and resurrection.

Id not suggest anyone fit all of scripture around man's reasoning. How about, tho, something like the above example of a specific thing like a date?

Well I don't believe that the bible does give us the age of the earth, and I don't believe that was an oversight on Gods part. But that wasn't what you were asking me, how do I feel about a hypothetical person discrediting a specific date that doesn't add up with their beliefs? I would like to think that I would reserve judgment.
Meaning; I personally believe that the earth is older than 6000-10,000 years old. I use my interpretation and discernment in this reasoning. Those holding to a YEC approach believe otherwise so I hold a different opinion. I guess that is your answer, I believe somewhere along the lines we have interpreted scripture and nature differently and have come to our conclusions.
What does that tell me about 'hypothetical' person. Apart from a creation stance, not a lot.
There is another thread where 'stereotypes' have been discussed. I get your frustration at being labeled as the 'typical' atheist and pigeonholed. Your frustration shows that your beliefs and stances on the existence of God are not typical to anyone but yourself.
I think that YEC's are not uneducated individuals who refuse to look at relevant data, who are so indoctrinated, dogmatic in interpretating scripture literally that they let reason and logic fall to the wayside.
Anyone can be dogmatic about anything. Across the board. Sure some are, but no more so than dogmatic atheists, OEC's ect.
I think that the closest we can come to truth is being open to all the possibilities.
Closing ourselves off to possibility leaves us not moving forward but stuck within our own limitations.
It becomes an oxymoron to accuse a YEC of being dogmatic and not accepting outside sources when by accusation are we not doing the same thing. Refusing to believe the possibility that perhaps they are correct.
Likewise God is revealed in nature and there is the possibility that the answers lie in scripture and nature. A beautiful, intertwined symphony.
Perhaps the gap theory is correct.
Or theistic evolution, I personally don't think so but I really can't be sure.
We all by human nature attach 'judgement' to people based on ideas that really don't give us the right to do so.
Someone is an atheist so therefore....... And we insert a judgment of their character, presume to know how they view Christianity. Enemy.
Ohh so your a YEC so therefore........ Head in the clouds, relying on an interpretation of scripture that leaves reason and logic by the wayside. Dogmatic.
You believe in Theistic evolution okay therefore......... placed science over the word of God, taking scripture literally at their own personal whim. Discrediting the Bible.

Maybe we need to not attach the 'therefore's'
Perhaps all one can gather from a persons interpretation is just that and nothing more.
I have done it, we all do but I think we aren't doing each other justice.

Two people can be standing side by side in the same meadow but each beholding a unique view.

With regard to yec beliefs, id have to disagree with you. My experience has been that without exception, their presentation for their side or against ToE is in fact, uneducated.

As for the dogmatic, reason by wayside etc, possibly the yec best able to speak from an educated pov would be Dr. Kurt Wise, PhD, paleontology. But... "I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture". " if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate"

How does that seem to you?

i see only intellectual dishonesty in yec, for those who are not innocent but ignorant.

Regarding being open to possibilities: Sure, yec could be right. No way to say its impossible. But its like Last Thursdayism that way.

The chance that yec could be right is vanishingly small. One would make a better bet, figuring to retire when a gold meteor fell in the yard. Could happen, yec could be true, but its deeply insensible to think either.

The gap theory might be correct, if there were a gap theory. There isnt.

As for seeing different things, sure. Its nice we arent all the same.
Recall tho we dont all get our own facts. If there is no mountain range to be seen, nor yet a unicorn in the meadow...unique view or no, there's still no unicorn and there is no gap theory.

Does it matter? I think it does. I expressed my thoughts earlier, how there is too much at stake in such a toughly competitive world to be indulging in fantasies of yec and flood. Its a dangerous indulgence to be anti intellectual. Im concerned for the future of the West. But nobody cares to listen. Ok..im not a citizen here, I shouldnt care either.

[Audie]

Hi Audie,
It's not my intention to derail, but I'm just following my thoughts.
You know me-ish. Best intentions intended.

Just what you are asking (as I see it) ultimately comes down to how we can know any truth.
If you're of the opinion that truth cannot be known, then the crux of your questioning runs much deeper than just faith in some holy book.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding matters here completely.

Re: Science, if it does not deal in truth but only probabilities...
Then I'd be interested to know what the probability of humanity evolving being true is?
Is that probability built upon other probabilities or beliefs that we accept as facts?
These are a side questions, but ones that my mind seems to find interesting to ask.

Ultimately, there is obviously always a possibility that our beliefs may be wrong.
If that is all you are meaning by there being "no absolutes" in science, clearly this isn't just in science but across the board of all knowledge.
Whenever someone makes a claim that "this" is the truth. What they are truly saying is "I believe this is what the truth is, but there is a chance I'm wrong."
In which case Scripture wouldn't deal in absolutes either since there is always a possibility our knowledge might be wrong.

I did not say "truth cannot be known". Science does not do truth.

A large and consistent data indicates that humans evolved. Its highly improbable that all such data actually means something else.

Regarding facts- The word, as used in science goes like this:
"it is a fact that this is my data".

If anyone even says that. Anyone who likes can check, and see if they get the same data.
A scientist must always be aware that there is chance he is wrong. Math, not so much. I think those guys would say that two and two is four, and that is that.

I rather doubt the "chance of being wrong" thing applies to many of our religious friends, at least not on basic issues.

[Audie]

Then you just reject it, Audie--at least the part about Noah. That's between you and God. I was primarily responding to your original question and then restated to Abel. It isn't as difficult as people make it out to be to figure out what the Bible means. And, having discerned what it means, then the question is, "Do I believe it?" I do. You say you reject it--that it falls like a house of cards. To which I say, "Okay." You are especially right in one thing. It is a matter of faith on the source of Scripture. I take it on faith that God inspired Scripture and therefore it is correct in all that it says. It's not a blind faith. I have what I am persuaded are solid reasons as to why I ought to accept the authority of the Bible, and that's enough for me.

With that said, I wouldn't counsel you to take or leave the Bible in toto. I have adopted a conclusion based on a series of arguments. But those arguments are themselves based on more fundamental arguments, and it is those more fundamental arguments relating to Scripture that I would recommend to you. My suggestion would be (as always here) that you look into the existence of God based on some of the reasoning you have been provided elsewhere. I would then encourage you to look at the historical evidence for the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In light of that, I would advise you to focus on the question, "Who is Jesus?" That's really all that matters in the end. The Gospel of John puts it this way: "I write these things so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." Frankly, I don't really care about Noah or Genesis 1 or talking donkeys or floating axe heads or anything like that. I care about who Jesus is. Everything else is of secondary importance, so secondary that compared to that question, it is absolutely meaningless.

And how would you investigate those claims? Again, reason. And when you find that there are very powerful arguments, then you will finally be presented with the question Peter was: "Who do you say that I am?" Because at the end of the day, after all has been discussed, that's what it boils down to. After all arguments are done and reason has run its course, that question will be one of faith. Not blind faith. But faith all the same. And then when people ask you why you have placed your faith in Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, you will be able to answer it.

And then you can blast me and tell me why I've interpreted the story of Noah or the creation account wrong. Plenty on this site are content to do just that, but since we agree on the fundamental question, it's all good to me!

fakeedit: I agree with your general assessment, though. And the BoM is a good example. I have read it, and having read it, I have rejected it. It is not true. It is not the Word of God. I am fine saying that. The story it tells is plainly false, and therefore I don't believe what it says about Jesus.

The thing is, the noah story is just that. A story. Should it somehow be the case that you realize that, does your whole belief system fall like a house of cards? If not, why not?

I dont "reject" the bible as a whole. I do reject any belief system that calls for believing the flood story, or any system of thought / series of arguments that if applied to it, fails to find so obvious and huge a fault.

Possibly Jesus was as billed. But taking here the bible as a whole, if large sections are simply not credible, are plain not true, then what am I to think of the rest of it?

Not to be get snarky here, less still to blast you, but I am interested by your feeling a need to make the statement that such faith as you describe is not blind.

Do you recognize that there is a blind spot in it?

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
A large and consistent data indicates that humans evolved. Its highly improbable that all such data actually means something else.

I'd agree or disagree with this, depending on exactly what you mean by evolved. It's a loaded term.

Evolved, which means change over time, can be said to mean a wide range of things. At one extreme end of the meaning is that evolved means that humans evolved to modern humans from a single celled primitive life form over billions or millions of years. There is not a "large or consistent data" indicating that.

[Audie]

See, Audie, this is why I think your riff on science doing probabilities and not absolutes is a smoke screen

I dont do smokescreens, and I dont appreciate the suggestion that I do. Its not a "riff".
Its how science is.

. You seem pretty committed to the truth of the proposition that the Noah story as told by Scripture (and for others on this board, as interpreted by YECs) did not happen

Sig h. "Truth".

. You might go back and qualify it by saying something like you aren't absolutely certain that it didn't but rather that there is just a high probability, yada yada. But that doesn't get around the fact that you seem committed to the truth of the statement in general as well as to the fact that the high probability of the statement is not itself a probabilistic statement but an absolutely true statement. It is either true or false that science can say with x% confidence that there was no global flood that wiped out humanity. If modify that as "science can say with x% confidence that science can say with x% confidence that there was no global flood that wiped out humanity," then that becomes an absolutely true statement. In other words, you are just creating an infinite regress problem.

[/quote]



Talk about yada! You make it so complicated. You are the one creating some infinite regress problem.

Its very simple.

Lets try an analogy. IF you call the police to complain that 10,000 wild buffalo ran thro' your house this morning, and they come to investiage, what then?

They find no hoof prints, no hair, no droppings nor yet any odor. The flowers are in fine shape, all is in order within, to the unstained white carpet. The back fence is intact, aerial surveillance fails to find the herd, and neighbours report nothing amiss.

Now, the police dont really like false reports.

They will question you sharply. "Where is your empirical evidence?", one might ask.

No talk of philosophy or probabillities, Truth or faith will move them. If you say "infiite regress" they will not be amused.

You will be arrested.

The buffalo herd is far more probable than the flood.

Talk of regress and so forth looks like obfuscation.
Science does probabilities, not truth. The flood is almost infinitely improbable.

Do you somehow fail to recognize that?

[Kurieuo]

Hi Audie,
It's not my intention to derail, but I'm just following my thoughts.
You know me-ish. Best intentions intended.

Just what you are asking (as I see it) ultimately comes down to how we can know any truth.
If you're of the opinion that truth cannot be known, then the crux of your questioning runs much deeper than just faith in some holy book.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding matters here completely.

Re: Science, if it does not deal in truth but only probabilities...
Then I'd be interested to know what the probability of humanity evolving being true is?
Is that probability built upon other probabilities or beliefs that we accept as facts?
These are a side questions, but ones that my mind seems to find interesting to ask.

Ultimately, there is obviously always a possibility that our beliefs may be wrong.
If that is all you are meaning by there being "no absolutes" in science, clearly this isn't just in science but across the board of all knowledge.
Whenever someone makes a claim that "this" is the truth. What they are truly saying is "I believe this is what the truth is, but there is a chance I'm wrong."
In which case Scripture wouldn't deal in absolutes either since there is always a possibility our knowledge might be wrong.

I did not say "truth cannot be known". Science does not do truth.

A large and consistent data indicates that humans evolved. Its highly improbable that all such data actually means something else.

Regarding facts- The word, as used in science goes like this:
"it is a fact that this is my data".

If anyone even says that. Anyone who likes can check, and see if they get the same data.
A scientist must always be aware that there is chance he is wrong. Math, not so much. I think those guys would say that two and two is four, and that is that.

I rather doubt the "chance of being wrong" thing applies to many of our religious friends, at least not on basic issues.

You know this what what we kind of do with Scripture.
That is, in the same way "the data" is the observable universe for scientists,
for many Christians Scripture is also a source of data.

So to say Scripture is more dogmatic, well, Scripture just is what it is like the world is what it is.
How people respond to it, interpret it, treat it and the like -- that's where tensions flair.
As would be the case with many doing science who place their money behind this or that hypothesis or even theory.

Like you, what I do see is that people read Scripture and then label "their interpretation" as "Scripture".
I'm not sure we ever can outright declare that "Scripture says" without really meaning "As I understand it, Scripture says..."
In a similar way, the scientist might say "Science says", but he/she really means "as they understand the physical data before them."

So re-read your initial post, you are quite spot on I suppose.

I often see people say that God's word says thus and so, so they will have faith in God's word, not in (insert science, man's reasoning, etc). It is presented as that their take on something is solidly backed up by God's words.

I wonder if it isnt often that they have faith in themselves, as having the sure power to know just what God meant by what is in the Bible.

People are just having faith in themselves really.
But, like you say with science, there is I think more or less data to support certain positions over others (i.e,. evolution).
Likewise there is more or less data to support one's interpretation of Scripture.

And "one's interpretation" I'm not just intending interpretations from those who believe Scripture to be the inerrant Word of God,
but would also include those who analyse Scripture as a historical collection of writings in a historical-critical context.

Perhaps one's own philosophical views more or less causes blind spots to what is actually true?
Since everyone's analysis will always be subjective (i.e., we can never remove ourselves from the picture),
then we can only see the truth more or less but never know in absolute terms as I believe God does.

[abelcainsbrother]

I often see people say that God's word says thus and so, so they will have faith in God's word, not in (insert science, man's reasoning, etc). It is presented as that their take on something is solidly backed up by God's words.

I wonder if it isnt often that they have faith in themselves, as having the sure power to know just what God meant by what is in the Bible.


How would anyone know which is which?

You must be born again by Jesus to understand but I would like to know why you seem to trust man so much?Don't you know how many times man has thought one way for years and thought they had evidence and everything only to later be proven wrong?I cannot understand how you can put your faith in what man says is true,it is very unwise to me.Whole countries have been indoctrinated before and so the truth is very important to me.How do you know man is right this time?

It makes no difference whether man believed in God or not man is sinful,lies,hates,slanders,propagandizes whole societies,man is evil,lies andd needs God's truth for it is the only thing we can put our faith in.I learned this as a Christian realizing all of the doctrines of man and not of God in Christian churches.Imagine a time when Christian preachers were rascists while preaching Satan's lies instead of God's truth.I do not put my faith in what man says is true at all,my faith goes into believing God's word because it is the inspired word of God,and only it to the best of my ability do I put my faith in,I ignore lies from Satan and try to expose them.

If you read my post you will see I asked how some people can be so sure that they know the exact meaning of "god's word" .
Given that people with the same claim to "born again" understanding read the same passage and get a rainbow of different meanings, it looks to this observer that their faith is in themselves as inerrant readers.

If you have no response on topic, that is fine. Twisting the question around to invent faults in me and make it about me is not fine, Why would you think it is?

Of course people make mistakes in science. Distrust of authority is essential to science. (Opposite to religion, that way) My question had to do with how people can think they cant make any mistakes regarding what they believe "god" is telling them.

You present as very confident in your ideas about science, to the extent of making some rather extreme statements on the
mentality, character and eternal destination of those who dont see it your way.

I asked about football, because I know very little about it, so you know more.
If I started in talking about the rink, the goalie and so forth, you'd soon see I was not in a position to say anything credible
about the game.

It is obvious to me that I know science at least that much better than you; your talk of proving a theory for example is as amateur a bit of ignorance as thinking there is a football net and home base would be to you, if I argued for those things.

And yet you are confident that "god's word" backs the falsehoods that comprise the substance of your posts
trying to denounce science.

Think well who is preaching "Satan's Lies".

I think you are dodging my points that address your question,you seem to imply that truth cannot be known and yet it can,yet you take it as an offense when I point out your faith in what man says is true yet having this idea that truth cannot be known in science and this is all to prop up the atheistic side of science and evolution because it cannot be proven and they know it.I don't understand why you accept this idea,and yet still put your faith in evolution science.

You claim you know more about science than I do and you might but one thing I know is that if you believe in evolution science you cannot prove,show or demonstrate life evolves,you've never seen it happen,you've never observed it and yet know it could be wrong yet put your faith in it anyway.I try to denounce unproven science that is propped up and promoted above all other areas of science.

Meanwhile because I believe there was a former world on this earth full of life that perished I look for evidence to back it up and yet if you'd perhaps stop looking at the evidence of fossils and death in this earth that you know about because of evolution,but if you'd look at it from a former world perspective instead of an evolution perspective,you would see evidence for a former world full of life that perished and since you've never seen or observed life evolving there is no reason to keep looking at the evidence from that perspective.If a former world full of life perished you should expect to find evidence for it in this earth and you do,but you just don't look at it from that perspective.

Also even science teaches that the earth was flooded before the continents rose up and yet you overlook a flood that wiped out the former world,yet it is evidence for Lucifer's flood that caused the former world to perish,plus there is snow ball earth that says the earth was completely frozen at one time which backs up Jeremiah 4:23-28 and Genesis 1:2 inwhich the heavens became black and no sun light which means death to all life,of course though for the sake of evolution before it could be accepted they had to make sure life survived it so it can evolve,you see this is how they interpret everything in this earth and evidence.But it is evidence for Lucifer's flood in which the heavens and earth and all life perished,yeah I know you'll think "snow ball earth"happened billions of years ago but that is because of evolution.

Plus according to NOAA the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet this is deeper than the tallest mountains on land this means if we could level out the earth's surface and fill in the deep trenches that make it so deep,the whole earth would be flooded right now up to the tallest mountains on land,so there is clear evidence for global floods,now read Psalm 104 and tell me how King David could've knew what he did.Did he have scuba equipment,sonar,he could tell by boating or swimming?I don't think so.He was inspired by God.

There is no point in me answering other than to observe that your making up things about me is reprehensible. Im sure you are a nice person who is sincere and means well, but even, as they say, good people do bad things. Seek self improvement in this regard, svp.

How am I making up things about you? You obviously believe in evolution science and this means putting your faith in it.I also think you are skimming over points and evidence I have given to back up the gap theory and I give evidence for global floods and you seem to ignore it and yet keep on believing a global flood is less credible than life evolving and I'd strongly argue against that but if evidence cannot change your mind then you have no reason to be believing life evolves.I am not trying to offend you at all just backing myself and what I believe up with evidence from secular science.

I give you the benefit of the doubt you're more knowledgeable about science than me and if you are I'm talking to you on scientific terms that is not just made up talk,you may not choose to look at the evidence from a former world perspective but if you did,everything I've said is what science says I'm just showing how it really backs up a former world that existed that perished and not evolution.

I think Christians and secular scientists are divided but the gap theory and secular science can bridge the gap between science and Christianity because I see how science does not have the complete picture because of evolution and gap theorists can help them put the pieces of the puzzle together to see more clearly,but they might would have to drop evolution and I doubt they'd ever do that.Remember The gap theory was being preached and taught before Charles Darwin wrote his book in 1859.

Have you ever did what I suggested and read " On the origin of species" and seen how he was trying to thwart the gap theory? I did not just make it up and I realized it from an atheist who posted a portion of the book and I read it and pointed it out, I am not making it up.I think Neo-x has it posted on his evidence for evolution thread so you might can read it there on here.

[FlawedIntellect]

To Audie:

You often say that science deals with probabilities rather than truth.
While the statement is somewhat accurate in practice, it ignores the spirit and purpose of science.

Science is an endeavor to uncover the truth to the best of humanity's ability to observe and analyze.
As such, science presumes that absolute truth exists, and more than that, it presumes that absolute truth is knowable and worth pursuing.
In this respect, science is built on the roots of philosophy. Like philosophy, science seeks to be as close to the truth as possible. Though while philosophy focuses on logic, science goes a step further into something more direct: experimentation. Hands-on interaction and analysis. Because of this, science is an excellent tool for understanding the material aspects and workings of reality.

However, due to this, science is also limited in that it can't touch upon metaphysics in any direct fashion. It is in this respect that philosophy is well suited for learning about metaphysics. Science is a tool. It's not meant to throw the supernatural away, contrary to what some may claim. It's only meant to deal with the physical world. Philosophy deals with the supernatural, and the meaning and purpose of reality (the matter of "why".)

Anyway, to throw philosophy out the window entirely is to uproot and throw out science as well, as philosophy the foundation where science's roots are planted. Science borrows many principles from philosophy and that largely deals with the hypothesis stage, but it also extends a bit further than that, into experimentation.

As for the matter of "faith", if I remember correctly, someone on this forum explained "faith" as meaning to trust in something or someone.

Faith is simply a matter of trusting. As for the question on the original post, regarding whether or not one really understands what God is saying or if they're trusting more in themselves, well, Jac answered the question better than I ever could. So, what he said.

(Context is everything. The text contains clues in and of itself as to what it means. It can also help to learn about the history and the culture of the people of those days and to figure out how people felt about things of the time.)

[PaulSacramento]

Science does not do truth.

Really?
All the laws we have are not true?
Water doesn't boil at 100 C or freeze at 0C ?
Gravity doesn't exist?
There are no electrons?
Nuclear energy doesn't exist ?

Science is ALL ABOUT discovering the truth about the world we can observe AND starts from the premise that we CAN discover the truth.

[B. W.]

Science does not do truth.

Really?
All the laws we have are not true?
Water doesn't boil at 100 C or freeze at 0C ?
Gravity doesn't exist?
There are no electrons?
Nuclear energy doesn't exist ?

Science is ALL ABOUT discovering the truth about the world we can observe AND starts from the premise that we CAN discover the truth.

I was thinking the same thing...
-
-
-

Regarding the answer on the first page - the souse of power should have read the sure power, my typo error. I was referring to your own words. Now re-read the quote below as I corrected it and then note your own statement: Science does not do truth and again look at what I wrote corrected below...

I often see people say that God's word says thus and so, so they will have faith in God's word, not in (insert science, man's reasoning, etc). It is presented as that their take on something is solidly backed up by God's words.

I wonder if it isnt often that they have faith in themselves, as having the sure power to know just what God meant by what is in the Bible.

How would anyone know which is which?

Being a former atheist and a militant one at that and then coming to Jesus I discovered how real the Holy Spirit is when he teaches. So it is more on relationship with the living God in a manner that is omni-personal, as Canuckster1127 mentioned. The Lord uses the bible to reveal to us himself in a wide range of ways that serve as a guide to the blind teaching how to see. From that living relationship we discover, by him, how each number has meaning in the bible that tell his story, as do the meanings of names. Even the colors mentioned in the bible and items in the old temple reveal things that all connect to Christ and all add up to this: that a superior intelligence inspired this amazing book beyond all doubt. In this, you are blind too, as I once was.

So you ask if it isn't all just about having faith in oneself as the sure power in how the bible is interpreted or not. So I answer with a question I once asked you earlier:

You claimed earlier to be good but are you perfect?

[Audie]

Science does not do truth.

Really?
All the laws we have are not true?
Water doesn't boil at 100 C or freeze at 0C ?
Gravity doesn't exist?
There are no electrons?
Nuclear energy doesn't exist ?

Science is ALL ABOUT discovering the truth about the world we can observe AND starts from the premise that we CAN discover the truth.

Can you identify which scientific laws are "true"?

How would you determine that any are "true"?

Try this: get your thermometer and see at what temperature water boils.
I guarantee it wont be 100 degrees.

Im not just messing with you. Please try these things, and you will learn more than I've
time to try to discuss.