Can we trust what God says?

[whag]

Really whag? Are you positive that the earth is that old

Yes, there are thousands of pieces of strong evidence the earth is old. There are no pieces of evidence that the earth is 10,000 years old.

and that we are evolved primates?

Yes, fossils and genomic evidence are strong proof you are a primate. Fossils show a concentration of hominid skeletal remains in Africa, which is what Darwin predicted. Babies are sometimes born with tails, which would be really weird if God didn't want you to know you shared a lineage with monkeys.

Science is never wrong?

Yes, it can be wrong and allows for being mistaken on the details, but it's not wrong about the coarse-grained facts of biology and cosmology.

The truly pathetic part of your presentation is that you demonize scientific surety on everything that threatens your religious outlook....but you're perfectly fine with the science that delivers you comfort and entertainment.

[Mr. Black]

Science doesn't make that claim.

I didn't say science made that claim.

Only you and your fundamentalist brethren do

Actually, lots of professed skeptics say it as well, but you said, and I quote, "It is certainly possible that evolution is a huge hoax and that our eyes deceive us regarding the age of the universe."
With that in mind, you cannot know if any scientific "evidence" indicates truth, as you perceive that evidence with your senses.

How did you adopt your skepticism about scientific epistemology?

I've refuted this straw man several times now. What you call "scientific emistemology is the method of gaining knowledge via science. I'm not skeptical of that. My point is that, (1) to even do science in the first place, you must already know that the laws of logic are universal and absolute, that the laws of physics are universal and absolute (ie., that nature is uniform), that it will remain uniform in the future, that your senses, memory and cognitive faculties are reliable. Without those in place in advance science cannot get off the ground to begin with.
And (2) I'm challenging your worldview's ability to justify those principle assumptions upon which science rests.

I gather you were raised a Christian or got sucked into conservative Christianity somewhere along the line.

You gather wrong. I was not raised a Christian at all.

[seer]

Yes, there are thousands of pieces of strong evidence the earth is old. There are no pieces of evidence that the earth is 10,000 years old.


Yes, fossils and genomic evidence are strong proof you are a primate. Fossils show a concentration of hominid skeletal remains in Africa, which is what Darwin predicted. Babies are sometimes born with tails, which would be really weird if God didn't want you to know you shared a lineage with monkeys.


Yes, it can be wrong and allows for being mistaken on the details, but it's not wrong about the coarse-grained facts of biology and cosmology.

That is nonsense whag, of course it could be wrong about these "coarse-grained facts." The fact is on any number of these question there are probably more things that we don't know than what we do know. When I was growing up we were taught a Steady State universe, fixed and eternal. That was contrary to scripture which said that the universe began to exist. Now science says there was a beginning. Who knows what science will say 200 years from now - you certainly don't.

The truly pathetic part of your presentation is that you demonize scientific surety on everything that threatens your religious outlook....but you're perfectly fine with the science that delivers you comfort and entertainment.

Are you a complete idiot? Or just a partial idiot?

[NormATive]

I was not raised a Christ at all.

Freudian slip? We got YOUR number!

Ha ha!

NORM

[Mr. Black]

Yes, there are thousands of pieces of strong evidence the earth is old.

You just contradicted yourself, as you admitted before that it's possible that your senses, by which you perceive that "evidence" might be deceiving you, thus rendering them unreliable. Now you turn around and claim to know something for certain based on those unreliable senses.

Yes, fossils and genomic evidence are strong proof you are a primate.

You've interpreted them that way.

Fossils show a concentration of hominid skeletal remains in Africa, which is what Darwin predicted.

And how does this contradict the biblical worldview?

Babies are sometimes born with tails, which would be really weird

Actually, no, it wouldn't be weird at all. In fact it's what a YEC would expect given the entire created order suffers from "corruption" brought on by the curse. Deformations and anomalies abound.

if God didn't want you to know you shared a lineage with monkeys.

This is begging the question, as I've provided a perfectly legitimate explanation from my worldview above.

Yes, it can be wrong and allows for being mistaken on the details

"Being mistaken"? People can be mistaken. Science, when it's done correctly, cannot make mistakes, because it's not a person.

The truly pathetic part of your presentation is that you demonize scientific surety...

Supposing that were true, why would you harp on Seer for that? You've already precluded scientific surety in your previous comments regarding the reliability of your senses.

[Mr. Black]

Freudian slip?

Good catch! Thanks, I went and corrected the misspell. That's what I get for rushing through a reply.

[whag]

That is nonsense whag, of course it could be wrong about these "coarse-grained facts." The fact is on any number of these question there are probably more things that we don't know than what we do know. When I was growing up we were taught a Steady State universe, fixed and eternal. That was contrary to scripture which said that the universe began to exist. Now science says there was a beginning. Who knows what science will say 200 years from now - you certainly don't.

Make up your mind. If science is correct about a finite universe, how did it arrive at that certain conclusion? The answer to that is the same reason why we know you are a primate, or why earthquakes happen, or why vaccines work. You are the worst kind of Christian, seer. You're 61 and suggesting that science close up shop because it can never be certain about anything. How did you get to this point?

[shunyadragon]

Really whag? Are you positive that the earth is that old and that we are evolved primates? Science is never wrong?

Beyond any reasonable doubt, the earth is billions of years old and we evolved from and with primates. Yes, of course, science can be wrong about some things, but over time science is a self-correcting discipline.

Is there any objective physical evidence that you could bring to the table that would remotely indicate that science is wrong on this.

No, what I deny is that unaided nature is a good ground or source for an intelligible universe or rational beings. A rational Creator is.

It is not issue of an 'unaided nature,' this would be a metaphysical issue not a scientific one.

[whag]

Actually, no, it wouldn't be weird at all. In fact it's what a YEC would expect given the entire created order suffers from "corruption" brought on by the curse. Deformations and anomalies abound.

Do you mean that Adam and Eve caused all predation, disease, and calamity?

[whag]

That is nonsense whag, of course it could be wrong about these "coarse-grained facts." The fact is on any number of these question there are probably more things that we don't know than what we do know. When I was growing up we were taught a Steady State universe, fixed and eternal. That was contrary to scripture which said that the universe began to exist. Now science says there was a beginning. Who knows what science will say 200 years from now - you certainly don't.

Make up your mind. If science is correct about a finite universe, how did it arrive at that certain conclusion? The answer to that is the same reason why we know you are a primate, or why earthquakes happen, or why vaccines work. You are the worst kind of Christian, seer. You're 61 and suggesting that science close up shop because it can never be certain about anything. How did you get to this point?

[JimL]

Great question. Thank you. God has created all people such that we all have innate knowledge of Him, and that we are automatically "conditioned", as it were, to immediately recognize what we might call---for lack of a better word--- His "signature" in the created order. General revelation gives man knowledge of God, His nature, His role as Creator, His moral law, and our guilt before Him for breaking His moral law (Romans 1:18-22). This is sufficient knowledge for man to be held accountable to his creator God for breaking His rules.
Scripture adds more detail to our general knowledge of God and how He governs His universe, and also explains the way to be forgiven of our guilt for having broken His law.

Here Mr Black is a presupposition: "God has created all people such that we all have innate knowledge of him, and that we are automatically "conditioned", as it were, to immediately recognize what we might call---for lack of a better word--- his "signature" in the created order."
Now first off i can tell you that without doubt I have no knowledge of God nor do i immediately recognize his signature in the created order. At what point in your life i wonder was this general revelation, this general knowledge, revealed to you? Now if you could please explain in simple terms what you base this on. Never mind the philosophical mumbo jumbo, if you can not explain it simple terms then i will have to assume that you have no idea what you are talking about. Why can not the human mind be in harmony with and comprehend the world within which it is immersed and with which it evolved?
Oh, and by the way, why do you think God is a male? Yes i know, the Bible portrays God thusly, but what possible reason would God, you know, the father, need male genitalia for?

[whag]

Now first off i can tell you that without doubt I have no knowledge of God nor do i immediately recognize his signature in the created order.

Doesn't Mr. Black realize that God's signature would have to be seen in parasites and deadly microorganisms, as well as in butterflies? The "signature" apologetic fails.

[seer]

Make up your mind. If science is correct about a finite universe, how did it arrive at that certain conclusion? The answer to that is the same reason why we know you are a primate, or why earthquakes happen, or why vaccines work. You are the worst kind of Christian, seer. You're 61 and suggesting that science close up shop because it can never be certain about anything. How did you get to this point?

Well I'm interested in God's opinion of me and not yours. And the God of scripture is my God not "science." Which is continual flux and changeable. And I never said that science should close shop, I'm in the electronics field, and use principles like ohms laws every day. So science and inductive reasoning can be useful. But because of the changeable nature of science and our limited understanding of the facts never put "science" over scripture. Why should I? And I don't believe in a finite universe because "science says" but because God says...

[Mr. Black]

Do you mean that Adam and Eve caused all predation, disease, and calamity?

Yes.

[Mr. Black]

Here Mr Black is a presupposition: "God has created all people such that we all have innate knowledge of him, and that we are automatically "conditioned", as it were, to immediately recognize what we might call---for lack of a better word--- his "signature" in the created order."

Please note that this is not an answer to my question. I asked for a definition of what you meant by "presupposition", and you offered what you believe to be an example. Two different things. Please define what you mean by "presupposition".

Now first off i can tell you that without doubt I have no knowledge of God nor do i immediately recognize his signature in the created order.

And in the Christian worldview we would expect such behavior. When God tells me that (1) you already know Him in your heart of hearts, and that (2) you suppress that truth in unrighteousness, then why should I believe you when you tell me that you don't?

At what point in your life i wonder was this general revelation, this general knowledge, revealed to you?

It's always been known.

Now if you could please explain in simple terms what you base this on.

Seeing as how the subject that you're talking about is immediate knowledge, and not something that's arrived at through discursive reasoning, the answer to this question should be obvious.

Why can not the human mind be in harmony with and comprehend the world within which it is immersed and with which it evolved?

I've already explained this, in terms that are quite simple. If you neither (1) all knowledge, nor (2) revelation from God, who does have all knowledge, you have no way of knowing if any as of yet undiscovered fact "out there" will refute anything or everything you claim to know.
Now, if you've found a flaw in this reasoning I'd love for you to point it out. But outright ignoring it and asking the same question over and over will not do. It's neither rational nor intellectually honest.

Oh, and by the way, why do you think God is a male? Yes i know, the Bible portrays God thusly, but what possible reason would God, you know, the father, need male genitalia for?

God, as the Trinity from all eternity, is not biological in the sense of being male or female, because God is spirit (John 4:24) and spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). However, in the incarnation of Christ, the second person of the Trinity, Jesus, added onto His divine nature a human nature, becoming a biological male (Luke 2:23). So, in that sense God being made flesh (John 1:1,14) is male in the biological sense--in the person of Jesus and he is still a man right now.

The question here is, why does the Bible refer to God in the masculine?
There is a doctrine called federal headship where the male represents the descendants. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, Eve sinned first. But it was through Adam that sin entered the world (Romans 5:12). This demonstrates male representation. This is important because Jesus was the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). He was our representative (1 Corinthians 15:22) on the cross.

That, btw, is the last red herring I'll answer from you. Please get back on subject.