The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[Shwa]

"Like I said, you don't understand science."

Tsk, tsk, tsk. And here I thought you had more potential than that. But alas your obstinacy is more related to closed-mindedness than any sort of "logic." Unless you consider conclusions based upon false assumptions and 'non-existent data' to be logic and, if you do, please tell us what colour the sky is in your world also.

Firstly, you do not know who I am, but I can tell you that I make my living upon the foundations of hard science every single day. Secondly, since hard science can be wear at one's enthusiasm, I am what people would call an amateur archaeologist. As a hobby. So I believe I have a very good understanding of science and the scientific methods employed in several fields.

Secondly, you mistook what I had asked to assume that it meant something more because you have this weird invested interest in in the "something more." That's your issue, not mine. It is hardly 'scientific' to assign ones personal issues to someone else. I believe those in the psychology field call this 'projecting.'

Next time you want to invoke "science" or "logic" to bolster your false assumptions, try not to be so wet behind the ears about it. The universe is larger than you think.

[GostHacked]

"Like I said, you don't understand science."

Tsk, tsk, tsk. And here I thought you had more potential than that. But alas your obstinacy is more related to closed-mindedness than any sort of "logic." Unless you consider conclusions based upon false assumptions and 'non-existent data' to be logic and, if you do, please tell us what colour the sky is in your world also.

If you understand science, then you know that you simply cannot apply science when dealting with the god question. Science deals with the natural physical world. Geology is just another science that deals with natural physical things. You don't philosophise on why the rock exists when you are doing your science, because those questions cannot be answered by science.

So, if you were going to test the god question. What kind of hypothesis can you surmise? Then you need to find evidence for your hypothesis. And test the evidence against the hypothesis.

I am no scientists by any means. But I think I got a grasp on what science can and cannot do.

[ToadBrother]

"Like I said, you don't understand science."

Tsk, tsk, tsk. And here I thought you had more potential than that. But alas your obstinacy is more related to closed-mindedness than any sort of "logic." Unless you consider conclusions based upon false assumptions and 'non-existent data' to be logic and, if you do, please tell us what colour the sky is in your world also.

When you can apply a naturalistic test for a supernatural claim, you let me know.

Firstly, you do not know who I am,

True, I can only tell from your words. Maybe you're a scientific genius pretending to say rather ridiculous things.

but I can tell you that I make my living upon the foundations of hard science every single day. Secondly, since hard science can be wear at one's enthusiasm, I am what people would call an amateur archaeologist. As a hobby. So I believe I have a very good understanding of science and the scientific methods employed in several fields.

Then write like you have some understanding of science. Science cannot deal in questions like the existence of God. It is necessarily agnostic on questions involving entities of that nature.

Secondly, you mistook what I had asked to assume that it meant something more because you have this weird invested interest in in the "something more." That's your issue, not mine. It is hardly 'scientific' to assign ones personal issues to someone else. I believe those in the psychology field call this 'projecting.'

Next time you want to invoke "science" or "logic" to bolster your false assumptions, try not to be so wet behind the ears about it. The universe is larger than you think.

The last sentence is used so often to justify the unjustifiable. "Oh, you're so small minded..."

If you understand science, then you understand why what you wrote was absurd.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The whole thing just took place on it's own. Nothing turned into something. It evolved. Why are people willing to believe in this magic but not in the idea that there is a creator? The idea of there not being a God makes less scientific sense than there being a God. To say that reality and mass and energy came from nothing and evolved sounds more superstitious than the alternative.

Science does not say everything came from nothing.

[Shwa]

When you can apply a naturalistic test for a supernatural claim, you let me know.

You are the one that defined the "miracle" with Lazarus as a "supernatural" claim. Therefore you are a victim to your own folly. Stuck in Plato's cave as it were.

True, I can only tell from your words. Maybe you're a scientific genius pretending to say rather ridiculous things.

Neither a genius nor a pretender. You are projecting again.

Then write like you have some understanding of science. Science cannot deal in questions like the existence of God. It is necessarily agnostic on questions involving entities of that nature.

The last sentence is used so often to justify the unjustifiable. "Oh, you're so small minded..."

If you understand science, then you understand why what you wrote was absurd.

Now you are just wallowing in your own crapulance.

The question stands. The methods are public. If you are not up to the "scientific" challenge, go back to the cave and maybe someday you will learn how to free your view from that self-imposed myopia.

[Shwa]

"If you understand science, then you know that you simply cannot apply science when dealting with the god question."

GH, go back a page or two to the question and challenge that was issued. I am not trying to "simply...apply science when dealing with the god question."

The lesson is that some people are so narrow-minded about either view, it clouds their judgement to any understanding whatsoever. This is called narrow mindedness or close mindedness. If you are not honest enough to go back and see what I was referring to then you are as bad as the most closed-minded findamentalist Christian or Muslin walking the earth today.

And jumping into the middle of something when you are not fully appraised of the actual issue is simply bad form.

[Oleg Bach]

What debate? You just invoke tired old arguments that were countered while our great great great grandparents were still in nappies.

What person in their right mind would really and truely attempt to actually debate such a subject? Ten thousand years later and we are still pondering the universe with out any answers as in regard to how it originated...also some acedemics recently found some "proof" that we existed in our present form a million years ago - that we are not apes...no one seems to want to talk about this....all I know is that it gets down to this question....Is there a God or am I god? Well maybe those atheists who believe that they are God - can grow back a few missing teeth by willing it - good luck.

[Guest TrueMetis]

What person in their right mind would really and truely attempt to actually debate such a subject? Ten thousand years later and we are still pondering the universe with out any answers as in regard to how it originated...also some acedemics recently found some "proof" that we existed in our present form a million years ago - that we are not apes...no one seems to want to talk about this....all I know is that it gets down to this question....Is there a God or am I god? Well maybe those atheists who believe that they are God - can grow back a few missing teeth by willing it - good luck.

Current theory basically says the universe has always exsisted.

also some acedemics recently found some "proof" that we existed in our present form a million years ago

Link?

[rad79]

I agree faith is powerful and we as human beings should never forget about the human condition in healing ourselves. But, it should not matter if its faith from religion, science, spiritual or the the self for that matter? All of them can effect the well being of a person in many ways.

Hey - I have a friend who sits on the board of a few major hospitials - I was telling him - that I had a chest pain - it was either pull over and go to emerge or have faith and keep going - I kept going and survived - faith does control the mind and the mind has great influence over the body - the man I told the story too - did not disagree - He is an honouary chief of surgery - and he did not disagree on my decision - all of us during our life times will develope different little cancers - and our bodies will cure them in most cases - instant and natural remission - but - sometimes if the wrong doctor gets a hold of you - he will kill you with chemo - not saying that I am against medical science - but there is more to life than having others ensure your survival - You have to have faith - it is powerful - and in the end - if you need a doctor - hopefully - you find a skilled one with a healing spirit and faith....and a guy that understands his cosmic science.

[Oleg Bach]

Current theory basically says the universe has always exsisted.

Link?

I don't do links..you find a link! If the current theory exists that the universe always existed then that is exactly what God said - I am...I have always existed - I am the alpha and the omega - and vise versa - to para-phrase...Why do some modernist believe that ancient man was stupid? Is it a golden rule that as we move forward in time we get smarter - or we evolve? We might be in a state of de-evolution and not know it..as for the GOD factor...I'm with GOD and don't need to take chances as I leave this body - those that perfere oblivion are welcome to it..enjoy - But as I said before this battle or "debate" is and always will be between the mortals and the immortals.....Your choice where you want to be.

[rad79]

There is no doubt that you cant prove that God does not exist or vice versa, but which interpretation from the many religions is right? Now, Myself I think i see God more from Albert Einstein point of view - "About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."

Edited November 20, 2009 by rad79

[GostHacked]

If you are not up to the "scientific" challenge, go back to the cave and maybe someday you will learn how to free your view from that self-imposed myopia.

OK, sure. I am game. You start. Go.

[Shwa]

OK, sure. I am game. You start. Go.

Post #160 & #167

How can science reconcile these seemingly incompatible facts? Hint: use an anthropological perspective.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don't do links..you find a link!

You really don't know how this works.

If the current theory exists that the universe always existed then that is exactly what God said - I am...I have always existed - I am the alpha and the omega - and vise versa - to para-phrase...Why do some modernist believe that ancient man was stupid?

Not stupid just ignorant. God's supposed to have created the universe if the universe has always exsisted it doesn't need a creator.

Is it a golden rule that as we move forward in time we get smarter - or we evolve?

No evolution just says we change it doesn't matter how as long as we do.

We might be in a state of de-evolution and not know it

There is no such thing as de-evolution.

..as for the GOD factor...I'm with GOD and don't need to take chances as I leave this body - those that perfere oblivion are welcome to it..enjoy - But as I said before this battle or "debate" is and always will be between the mortals and the immortals.....Your choice where you want to be.

This specific debate seems to be the bullshit false dichotomy of science vs religion.

[GostHacked]

Post #160 & #167

How can science reconcile these seemingly incompatible facts? Hint: use an anthropological perspective.

Post 160

What seers? The contemporary seers of Christ in Jerusalem? Heck, there are entrail reading seers nowadays.

The interesting thing about the stories of Jesus Christ - the rest of the Bible aside - is that he had a peculiar knack for using psychological treatments with much reported success. Now, supposing he was some mere holy man, but discovered some means to correct or 'heal' afflictions that were considered serious in that day, well, yeah that would excite his followers wouldn't it?

Do we have any other account of Jesus other than the bible?

167

Ok so now apply the science. It is very easy. Let's say the report is true and accurate. How can it be scientifically true and factually true from the Biblical report as well?

Any ideas?

If you are studying anthropology, you are also studying evolution of humans. And that seems to fly in the face of the biblical account saying god created everything as you see them today.

Post 158 you replied of entertainment value in my response that Jesus was more of a majician or illusionist. One is a slight of hand which anyone with enough time and energy can duplicate. The other plays with how suceptable people are to being hypnotized to make you think what you are seeing is real.

Starting not to like this Jesus guy much. If he is just some entertaining illusionist.

[Shwa]

"If you are studying anthropology, you are also studying evolution of humans."

In a way yes. But I have no prior bias that would affect the outcome of our little experiment. That is, I don't have to turn an examination of a small sample into a generalization about the whole population. So don't get hung up on any potential trickery that is somehow going to lead me down some preconceived garden path.

Scientific thinking takes a form of mental discipline correct? The only thing you need to do is apply your scientific thinking to the question at hand:

How can science reconcile these seemingly incompatible facts?

As a source for anthropological information of a certain sort the Bible is invaluable. The problem of using the data in the Bible to study man is that it is seen as something far more that it was likely ever meant to be seen as. That is an opinion, not a fact.

So back to the story of Lazarus. What facts do we know about the recording of the story itself that may shed light onto those incompatible facts? Any ideas?

[charter.rights]

The first part of any scientific experiment would be to create a hypothesis. The compile some known data...

One would need to consider the scientific definition of death in that era.....and perhaps why wakes were necessary when they were first ritualized....

Edited November 20, 2009 by charter.rights

[GostHacked]

How can science reconcile these seemingly incompatible facts?

If they are incompatible facts, then you can't exactly use them together.

As a source for anthropological information of a certain sort the Bible is invaluable. The problem of using the data in the Bible to study man is that it is seen as something far more that it was likely ever meant to be seen as. That is an opinion, not a fact.

I want facts that can be tested. Now if this is your opinion, you might have a hypothesis. How do you expand on that?

So back to the story of Lazarus. What facts do we know about the recording of the story itself that may shed light onto those incompatible facts? Any ideas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus

The English variant of the name comes directly from the Latin, itself derived from the Greek Lazaros, which in turn came from the Aramaic Lazar. The ultimate origin is the Hebrew name Eleazar (אלעזר, Elʿāzār), meaning "God's assistance" or "God (has) helped".[citation needed]

Contents

[hide]

Miracles cannot be tested by science. If they can, show me. So, basicly this is a non starter because 'god helped'. Science deals with the physical natural world, Not the supernatural. This should not be that hard to understand.

Edited November 20, 2009 by GostHacked

[Shwa]

If they are incompatible facts, then you can't exactly use them together.

"Seemingly" incompatible facts. Surely you are familiar with the meaning of the word "seemingly?" Science tries to answer questions and problems that are seemingly impossible, incompatible or irreconcilable all the time. Science tries to answer these questions within a problem solving model that is open to all for inspection, questioning and further development. Be sure you fully understand the question before you attempt to answer it because it might lead to false answers.

Miracles cannot be tested by science.

This is folly because you are assigning a value based upon a definition developed in a medium of understanding that you oppose. Never mind the conclusion without showing your work. You have stated your bias - that is good, but not really applicable.

We are not here to examine "miracles." We are here to examine the content of a small Biblical passage as a piece of cultural phenomena that might lead us to see (or not) further portions of the greater piece in a new light or understanding.

I don't pick up a small pottery shard and make snap conclusions about the validity of the religious concepts of the culture I am studying. However, I can make some observations about the content of that shard that will lead to an increased understanding of that culture, even if that understanding is very small. Eventually I might be able to 'piece' something together.

Which is what we are trying to do here. I have already stated my hypothesis earlier. This is what we are trying to test. Are you up to it?

[GostHacked]

"Seemingly" incompatible facts. Surely you are familiar with the meaning of the word "seemingly?"

Now that is up to you to provide the evidence. If you have a hypothesis, lets see your work. Remember this is your theory. Not mine. I'll test it, but you need to show me a body of work.

Science tries to answer questions and problems that are seemingly impossible, incompatible or irreconcilable all the time.

Correct. Scientists are trying to find unifying theories. The one they are trying is the unification of planetary mechanics to quantum mechanics. They don't seem to fit. This is where string theory (more of a hypothesis at this juncture) comes in. But we have no means of really testing the string theory, so it remains a hypothesis until tests are done. It might turn out to be the wrong idea and we need to start all over again.

Science tries to answer these questions within a problem solving model that is open to all for inspection, questioning and further development. Be sure you fully understand the question before you attempt to answer it because it might lead to false answers.

I am trying to understand what your question is before I start answering it. It really is not that clear to me. If you end up with false answers, then you need to either find new evidence, modify your hypothesis, or trash the hypothesis altogether. If you can consistantly reproduce a certain outcome more than not, then you have something to go on.

This is folly because you are assigning a value based upon a definition developed in a medium of understanding that you oppose. Never mind the conclusion without showing your work. You have stated your bias - that is good, but not really applicable.

No it's not a medium I oppose. It is a medium that science opposes. You simply have no scientific way of testing a miracle. If you can, I'd love to see it. That would be a huge breakthrough.

We are not here to examine "miracles." We are here to examine the content of a small Biblical passage as a piece of cultural phenomena that might lead us to see (or not) further portions of the greater piece in a new light or understanding.

So if we are not testing miracles, what are we testing?

I don't pick up a small pottery shard and make snap conclusions about the validity of the religious concepts of the culture I am studying.

Correct, science does not deal with religion.

However, I can make some observations about the content of that shard that will lead to an increased understanding of that culture, even if that understanding is very small. Eventually I might be able to 'piece' something together.

True.

Which is what we are trying to do here. I have already stated my hypothesis earlier. This is what we are trying to test. Are you up to it?

So what evidence do you have to support your theory? Show me.

Edited November 20, 2009 by GostHacked

[Shwa]

Correct, science does not deal with religion.

Oh but it does, all the time and moreso in the anthro field than most anywhere else. In fact, science has always dealt with religon and visa versa. And sometimes with not so good results.

-------

I think I need to re-state the question/problem so we can bring it up to speed.

Can a Biblical report - specifically the report of the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus - be factual both from a Biblical and scientific perspective?

Yes or no? Please briefly explain.

[GostHacked]

Oh but it does, all the time and moreso in the anthro field than most anywhere else. In fact, science has always dealt with religon and visa versa. And sometimes with not so good results.

-------

I think I need to re-state the question/problem so we can bring it up to speed.

Can a Biblical report - specifically the report of the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus - be factual both from a Biblical and scientific perspective?

Yes or no? Please briefly explain.

That is not how this is going to work. It's not my hypothesis or theory. Show your evidence for both and then we can start making comparisons. Evidence first. Then you can make the proper hypothesis of yes or no.

[charter.rights]

That is not how this is going to work. It's not my hypothesis or theory. Show your evidence for both and then we can start making comparisons. Evidence first. Then you can make the proper hypothesis of yes or no.

Childish cop out....

"You show me yours first...."

[Shwa]

Ok GH, here we go (briefly). With apologies to the reductionists among us.

First, the content: according to recent scholarship, the Gospel of John was written some 80-100 years after the events it describes. There is a strong likelihood that this story originated in oral form, but there is no real consensus as to its first origin or the contents of that original(s) oral version. This transfer from oral to written could have resulted in data loss and revisioning. There is some indication that there has been revisioning and parts added at the time of it being written down or later revisions.

So we can deduce that in one form or another there has been contamination of the original oral version of the story whether through data loss or revisions/additions. In addition, there are several current versions of the story in different textual format, some use different words and different setup schemes.

For the purposes of assessing the validity of the claim that Biblical reports can be compatible with scientific explanations, let's use this version for the KISS principle:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/john-kjv.html

Specifically, John section 11 lines 38-44. It is this 'shard' we want to take a look at and see if the reporting in this passage can be 'true' with a scientific perspective or a test of logic if you prefer.

Agree?

[GostHacked]

Childish cop out....

"You show me yours first...."

It's not a cop out. If one says something to be true, and scientifically true, one needs to back that up. If you don't, then we can't and really are not doing any science at all.