Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Question ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Actually, it's both.

    If (IF!) we were not in a Fallen state, we would not be seeing the general revelation as though through a dark glass.
    We would be seeing God's truth plainly and clearly.
    But in our Fallen state we do NOT see anything plainly and clearly.

    IOW, it's not that it isn't plain and clear (it is!); it's that we cannot see it plainly and clearly.

    God does not lie nor does He obfuscate things. We are totally to blame: sin in, clarity out.

    Jorge
    But Paul doesn't say that general revelation would be plain and clear if we were not fallen. He says that general revelation IS plain and clear in spite of the fact that we are fallen.

    And Paul doesn't say that "we cannot see it plainly and clearly" because of our fallen state. He implies that we do see it plainly and clearly, but that we reject it because of our fallen state.
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      vs.



      So, which is it?
      Obviously Jorge knows better than Paul.

      For instance, in I Corinthians 15:14, Paul informs us that
      And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

      But Jorge realizes that poor old Paul mucked it up and left out an important part that he'll happily include
      And if Christ has not been raised and if life changes over time and the creation is more than a few thousand years old, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

      Likewise, when Paul informs us in Romans 10:9 that
      because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

      Jorge is quick to "correct" Paul by adding
      because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead and disagree that the creation is more than a few thousand years old and that life changes and adapts over time, you will be saved.

      Similarly when Luke tells us in Acts 16:31 that Paul and Silas told their jailer that...
      “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

      ...they "really" meant to say that in order to be Real Christians™
      “Believe in the Lord Jesus and that life does not change and adapt over time and that the creation is only a few thousand years old, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
        "Chance" in a mathematical or scientific sense does not preclude God from directing the outcome. I can't explain how this works scientifically; there are no "hidden variables" in the science which God can use. But God transcends science. Thus we can have real chance controlled by an omniscient God.

        Source: Prov 16:33


        The lot is cast into the lap,
        But its every decision is from the LORD. (NASB)

        The dice are thrown into the lap,
        but their every decision is from the LORD. (NET)

        © Copyright Original Source

        I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race [is] not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. --Ecclesiastes 9:11-12

        And take the ark of the LORD, and lay it upon the cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return him for a trespass offering, in a coffer by the side thereof; and send it away, that it may go. And see, if it goeth up by the way of his own coast to Bethshemesh, then he hath done us this great evil: but if not, then we shall know that it is not his hand that smote us: it was a chance that happened to us. --I Samuel 6:8-9

        And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. --II Samuel 1:6

        But a certain man drew his bow at random and struck the king of Israel between the scale armor and the breastplate. Therefore he said to the driver of his chariot, “Turn around and carry me out of the battle, for I am wounded.” --2 Chronicles 18:33

        So she set out and went and gleaned in the field after the reapers, and she happened to come to the part of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the clan of Elimelech. --Ruth 2:3)

        See also The Message Study Bible translation of Psalm 32. As you noted, for Christians, God is the author of what we perceive as chance and is in charge of it and Proverbs 16:33 expresses that point magnificently.

        Thus when the Apostles cast lots in order to determine who would replace Judas among the apostles (Acts 1:12-26) they knew that God was guiding the results. Now if someone were to examine the lots (which could have been rocks, sticks, bones or dice) afterwards they wouldn't ever find evidence that God controlled the results. All they would see are perfectly ordinary items. Nevertheless, Christians (and Jews for that matter), believe that God was in charge and ordained the results. The same would be true of evolution -- something that God established during the creation just like he did every other process or mechanism such as gravity, atomic structure, photosynthesis or anything else.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Actually, it's both.

          If (IF!) we were not in a Fallen state, we would not be seeing the general revelation as though through a dark glass.
          We would be seeing God's truth plainly and clearly.
          But in our Fallen state we do NOT see anything plainly and clearly.

          IOW, it's not that it isn't plain and clear (it is!); it's that we cannot see it plainly and clearly.

          God does not lie nor does He obfuscate things. We are totally to blame: sin in, clarity out.

          Jorge
          Paul's statement in Romans is addressed to us, all of whom are in a fallen state. You're essentially saying it is worthless. As are all the instructions in Scripture to go out examine God's creation to gain some insight into God's nature. For you that is a waste of time

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            With all due respect, you need to cease and desist reading and interpreting things as you want to in order to serve your personal agenda. There is nothing wrong with the General Revelation BUT we see as though through a dark glass -- I had made that point previously. The reason for this is because we are in a fallen state and there is no way around that for now. That is why we should not ever make the mistake of elevating our natural observations and theories based on the General Revelation over what God has revealed to us in the Special Revelation. Yet, that is precisely what TEs/OECs constantly do - Evolution and giga-years invariably 'trump' Genesis. Though that is denied and indignation is expressed, the proof is in the pudding.

            To wit: The Universal Flood account in Genesis 6:9-9:17 is fairly simple and straightforward language. So, what do the vast majority of TEs and OECs believe about that account? How many rescuing hypotheses have they fabricated in order to dismiss the "simple and straightforward" account in Genesis? And all of these shenanigans are aimed primarily at allowing them to retain Evolution and giga-years - Genesis is invariably trumped.

            No, absolutely NOT - I do NOT "assume a conflict between science and Scripture" nor do I "pit the two against each other". What you're doing is attributing to me the typical lying propaganda of TEs and OECs against Biblical Creationists. The same applies to your accusations regarding the OT and NT. We Biblical Creationists uphold a total unified harmony between the OT and NT. The Bible - God's Word - is a single book composed of 66 'sub-books'. It doesn't get any more harmonious than that.

            Jorge
            You are misusing the 'dark glass' metaphor. That is used by Paul in Corinthians to describe the state of our SPIRITUAL understanding - and specifically the need for special spiritual gifts like prophesy - it does not refer to our capacity to understand the physical reality. You have completely turned the meaning upside down. It is Spiritual truths where we are magnificently prone to error, not our understanding of the physical. In fact, Jesus expressed exasperation several times over why it was possible for us to be so astute in regarding the physical, yet so blockheadedly stupid as regards the spiritual!

            Jim
            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-20-2016, 01:45 PM.
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
              But Paul doesn't say that general revelation would be plain and clear if we were not fallen. He says that general revelation IS plain and clear in spite of the fact that we are fallen.

              And Paul doesn't say that "we cannot see it plainly and clearly" because of our fallen state. He implies that we do see it plainly and clearly, but that we reject it because of our fallen state.
              That humans reject Truth is undoubtedly true.
              When men rejected God they rejected Truth and so the rest logically follows.

              That said, I think you are taking Paul without considering ALL of Scripture -- a common mistake.
              Once again, "we see as though through a dark glass" is meant to convey the fact that we do not see clearly.
              We cannot see 'clearly' because of the fact that we see only in part - i.e., incompletely.
              Those words "in part" are also contained in 1 Corinthians 13:12.

              I'll add this, which isn't from the Bible: one of my all-time favorite reads was Plato's Allegory of the Cave (from his Republic). I'll assume you know the story. The men in the cave made meticulous observations, calculations, measurements and created all kinds of extravagant theories based upon their observations. Figuratively and sarcastically, some probably got their PhD's based on their superior, scholarly theories; some may have won a Nobel for their work. All of this only to find out, in the end, that the entire thing was based on mere shadows of a greater reality. Wow, what a revelation!

              That, to me, is analogous to where we are at in this world. Perhaps not quite to that extreme but perhaps even more so (who knows?). Just as the men in the cave were able to have some measure of correlation between their theories and observations, we also have the same. This is what enables technologies and other applications. But it is only some measure of correlation. We are not directly face-to-face with Reality.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                You are misusing the 'dark glass' metaphor. That is used by Paul in Corinthians to describe the state of our SPIRITUAL understanding - and specifically the need for special spiritual gifts like prophesy - it does not refer to our capacity to understand the physical reality. You have completely turned the meaning upside down. It is Spiritual truths where we are magnificently prone to error, not our understanding of the physical. In fact, Jesus expressed exasperation several times over why it was possible for us to be so astute in regarding the physical, yet so blockheadedly stupid as regards the spiritual!

                Jim
                Read my last post (to KB) and try again.
                God is able to cover more than one base.

                Jorge

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Paul's statement in Romans is addressed to us, all of whom are in a fallen state. You're essentially saying it is worthless. As are all the instructions in Scripture to go out examine God's creation to gain some insight into God's nature. For you that is a waste of time
                  Try rephrasing the above is coherent English

                  Or you could try 'sleeping it off' first and then taking another stab at it.

                  **********************

                  After my third read I finally grasped your meaning.
                  Not surprisingly, it is an ad hominem and a misrepresentation of what I am saying.

                  No, it is not worthless.
                  No, not for all instructions - in fact, not for any instructions.
                  No, it is not a waste of time.

                  Even partial knowledge provides something.
                  Even partial knowledge allows technologies.

                  Get a clue, R06!

                  Jorge
                  Last edited by Jorge; 06-20-2016, 01:59 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Read my last post (to KB) and try again.
                    God is able to cover more than one base.

                    Jorge
                    Yes God is ABLE, but the point is DID He in this text. You ripping the text out of context and applying it outside the scope of that entire chapter so as to justify your particular view of scripture is NOT a time honored method of scriptural exegeses! You must first show the rest of scripture supports that re-vectoring of the text. And that is wholly inappropriate here as Kirk and Rogue (and myself) pointed out. The rest of scripture is quite content to recognize we tend to understand physical things well. The problem is our understanding of God and Spiritual things.


                    Jim
                    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-20-2016, 01:58 PM.
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      There are a few reasons:

                      1. ID doesn't make testable predictions. If it could be formulated for testable predictions, I'd be more inclined to it as more than philosophy.

                      2. ID is beholden to theistic personalism, which I think deeply problematic.

                      3. ID lacks explanatory power. Simply saying "intelligent design is the best explanation" is not a useful description of how something happens.

                      4. ID makes God incompetent. Under ID, God cannot create a self-consistent natural order. Instead, He is forced to intervene to rectify his mistakes.

                      5. ID is theologically problematic. God intervenes to give a bacterium a flagellum, but not to save starving children?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                        I'd be quite interested to hear how we'd do science if we had to allow for the undetectable intervention of a supernatural entity every time we did a scientific experiment. Let's hear your methodology.
                        Still waiting for an answer Jorge. Tell us how to do science that includes supernatural intervention.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Yes God is ABLE, but the point is DID He in this text. You ripping the text out of context and applying it outside the scope of that entire chapter so as to justify your particular view of scripture is NOT a time honored method of scriptural exegeses! You must first show the rest of scripture supports that re-vectoring of the text. And that is wholly inappropriate here as Kirk and Rogue (and myself) pointed out. The rest of scripture is quite content to recognize we tend to understand physical things well. The problem is our understanding of God and Spiritual things.

                          Jim
                          When I read Scripture, I take into account ALL of Scripture (certainly all that I am able to bring into memory). BTW, you ought to try that sometime. I am NOT "ripping the text out of context" I am simply bringing the other Scripture into the context of the text. And that other Scripture (all of it) is what establishes my position.

                          My last post to KB details this to some extent.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                            Still waiting for an answer Jorge. Tell us how to do science that includes supernatural intervention.
                            You should know that much better than I. I mean, your 'Nature' 'god' does some pretty-hefty supernatural interventions in bringing about the universe, life, consciousness and all else. I have a book titled I Do Not Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist. Fits you to a 'T'.

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              You should know that much better than I.

                              Jorge
                              It's your claim Jorge. You whine that science excludes the supernatural so explain how to do science and include the supernatural.

                              You won't of course. Empty blustering is all you've ever been able to muster,
                              Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 06-20-2016, 02:35 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                                Just to clarify: Roy's post was ignored because of Jorge's stupidity and intellectual dishonesty.

                                You're welcome.
                                How is it, that the smartest man in the world, still doesn't understand the meaning if that word?????
                                "The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it."

                                Navin R. Johnson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X