Board index ‹ God

[TrakeM]

> Alright, we are coming to another impasse. I gave you many evidences for the existence of God, and you rejected them. But you offer no rebuttal, no competing arguments to substantiate what you believe.
I gave you a rebuttal for each one of them. I pointed out one by one how they were flowed. For an example, I said that that your number five under the ontological argument assumes that there is a god. As for substantiating what I believe... I don't even know what that means. What is it that I believe that you want me to substantiate? I can't substantiate everything I believe in. The list is too long. Give me some example of something you want me to substantiate.

> Same with morality. You keep challenging me to prove things by science, as if things that are not provable by science are not true.
The difference here when it comes to the issue of morality is that I don't claim objective morality. You do. You base that claim on the idea that your god exists. Therefore, in order to back up your claim of objective morality you have to objectively show that your god exists. It's the fact that you have laid claim to objective morality that makes showing these things objectively necessary. If you didn't make that claim, what basis would I have for asking you to show that your morality is objective?

>If morality is just how you define "care for human beings," what happens when we get to a guy like Adolf Hitler who, using social evolution as a foundation, deemed "care for human beings" to mean the establishment of a superior Arian race and the destruction of millions of "inferior" humans? If each person is allowed to create their own definition of "care for human beings," viz. "morality," then "good" and "bad" really have no definitions and are meaningless terms. But since you don't recognize the logic of my arguments for the existence of God, all of this is sort of moot. I'm not sure that continuing the conversation is a worthwhile endeavor at this point.

I don't claim that morality is objective. That's just the thing. I really don't claim objective morality. One can define morality in so many different ways. *I* define it as care for human beings. That doesn't mean ALL define it as care for human beings. I define it as care for human beings. The definition of morality is always going to be wonky to one extent or another. Defining morality in truly exacting terms of being well defined in the sense that mathematicians would use such a word is, I would think, a pipe dream. Maybe it's possible, but I certainly don't see any way to do it. I'm willing to look at the idea of someone who thinks it can be done, but I don't see how it can be done. As for what happens with a guy like hitler, probably what happened to hitler. Not that they'd necessarily commit suicide exactly, but no one lives forever and usually people that awful have met a rather tragic end. Of course, in some cases they haven't. It's impossible to predict especially with no real information to go on. You may want to have assurances that there will always been justice, but that doesn't mean that you universe is going to give it to you.

[jimwalton]

> Give me some example of something you want me to substantiate.

You believe science is all there is.
You believe the universe is a closed system, and interference by a deity is illogical if not impossible.
You believe evolution makes more sense as an unguided sequence of random occurrences buttressed by natural selection and favorable mutations.
You believe there is no such thing as objective morality.
You believe...well, what DO you believe? Don't make me put words into your mouth or positions into your argument. Tell me yourself.

[TrakeM]

> You believe science is all there is.
There may be something other than just science. However, so far all the suggestions that I've seen tend to be very inconsistent in their logic or without decent evidence. Metaphysics, for an example, as NOTHING to do with physics so it seems to be trying to barrow from the earned reputation of physics to make it sound meaningful. More importantly, however, it doesn't seem to be grounded in any real evidence. On top of that, there is no consensus of any kind as to what it is or what laws govern it or where these laws come from or how we should discern what these laws are. When it is defined, it tends to be inconsistent in it's logic. I'm open to the possibility of something more, but before I would believe in any suggestion of something beyond physics I would demand real results. Real results such as objectively working inventions that are only possible given our increased knowledge from whatever is being suggested. If someone developed a new means of communication like a mind reading device or something that was fundamentally based on and only possible because of the discoveries of metaphysics for an example, then I'd start to take metaphysics seriously.

> You believe the universe is a closed system, and interference by a deity is illogical if not impossible.
I am not resolutely against the idea of there being a deity. If you can provide real evidence, I'm willing to consider the possibility. What I am resolutely against is the idea that believing in something without evidence is a good thing.

> You believe evolution makes more sense as an unguided sequence of random occurrences buttressed by natural selection and favorable mutations.
Evolution is the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators. The amount of evidence for this is staggering. I love to talk about predictions and testing those predictions because that's how science works, so why not give an example of a prediction that was tested here and show how evolution is falsifiable in the process? A look at our genes and even just a visual look at the species around us would indicated that we are the most similar to apes. Thus, evolution would predict that we are descended from the same species as the modern day great apes. When you take a look at the orangutans, bonobos or chimpanzees you'll notice a striking difference between their genetic makeup and ours: they have 24 chromosomes and we have 23. You cannot simply lose a chromosome as if your child had one less chromosome than you, your child would not survive and therefore would not have children of their own. There is one other way though for your offspring to have less chromosomes than you: they could fuse together two chromosomes. Thus, evolution would be false if we do not have any chromosomes that are fused together, or if we had more than one chromosome that was fused together (since bonobos et all don't have chromosomes fused together) or if we found two chromosomes fused together that didn't have a VERY close match to chromosomes found in the modern day great apes. This prediction was made before we could sequence the human genome. When we did manage to finally sequence the human genome, we found that our chromosome #2 was two chromosomes fused together. Of course, you could claim that god simply decided for it to be this way, but then again what couldn't you say was the way god decided for it to be? The god hypothesis can be used to explain any result that you could ever imagine getting from any experiment so it's not actual evidence for god as it would have not dis-proven god had it worked out some other way. In the case of evolution, however, you can't explain any result with evolutionary theory. In fact, had the results not lined up with the prediction, evolution would be false and we'd have to chunk it out with the statement "Eh, well, that was a bad idea. What's next?".

> You believe there is no such thing as objective morality.
We made it up. You can't hold a moral and show it to me. You can claim that your morals come from god but you can't objectively show that your god exists and therefore your morals aren't objective either as you can't show that the basis for your morality objectively exists. I'm willing to consider the idea of objective morality if you can show me that morals are objective, but so far it seems that your basis for your "objective morality" doesn't objectively exist (meaning you don't have objective morality since your basis for your morality doesn't objectively exist).

> You believe...well, what DO you believe? Don't make me put words into your mouth or positions into your argument. Tell me yourself.
Well, one of the things you listed is indeed something I believe and I have now defended that belief (evolution) using a prediction made by the theory and shown how that theory is falsifiable. I have also juxtaposed this theory with the hypothesis that god did it and shown that the god did it hypothesis is not falsifiable and how that hypothesis could be used to explain any result that you could have gotten from that experiment. Hopefully I've done a good job of presenting the scientific method here and showing how evolution is science and how it does make predictions which are falsifiable. By all means though, do feel free to ask questions or bring up any problems you may have with my explanation for why I believe in evolution.

As for listing some other things I believe:
1) I believe it has always been wrong to publicly murder someone for not believing in your religion so that others will see the murder and turn away from the "wickedness" of believing in a different religion. Not just today. Not just yesterday. ALWAYS. Not wrong if you're not living in a theocracy. Not wrong if we're talking about modern times. Not if that's not the common sense of morality in the lands around you. There is no "if" in this statement. There is, however, a period. The punctuation and lack of "if" is intentional.

2) I believe that if you don't believe in (1) that doesn't just make my sense of morality different from yours, it makes it better even if my morality isn't objective.

Hopefully that's a bit of a start.

[jimwalton]

Great response. Thank you for the dialogue.

As far as metaphysics is concerned, I guess I see lots of things existing that don't have material substance. Is there such a thing as power? Love? Justice? Peace? Are they real? I say they are, but they're abstractions and concepts. But they're just as real as havoc, rebellion, and defiance.

What about memories? Are memories real? I say they are. They don't have any material substance, but just this morning I called something to mind that happened 20 years ago. Where did THAT come from? It's amazing what's in my brain (and what isn't, frankly). But it's just as metaphysical as power or love. What about intuitions. People have intuitions that they bank on, act on, and make value judgments on. Are these kinds of things just as real as the table my computer is on? I believe they are, but in a very different way. Not every kind of existence is material, measurable, reproducible, or subject to examination in a lab.

What about time? I know we've talked about this, but I think time is a metaphysical reality and not a material one. There's also language. Does language exist? Sure it does, but not like a chair or a tree. There are so many different kinds of existence, so many realities.

Dr. Evandro Agazzi, President of the International Academy of Philosophy and Science in Brussels, published a paper about our modern conception of existence. He said that in the realm of science we will make flat statements that the world exists, yet the same person would say they "believe" God exists. Why should we use different wording? He says it goes back to a principle of authority. Our view of science as an authority causes us to talk about material things as existence, but non-material things as simply our opinions or beliefs. The moral law within us exists just as surely as the stars in the heavens, he says (reflecting with Kant). He says that space is filled with places that have a particular purpose and therefore they exist—they are impregnated with meaning that differentiates each place from the other. There is material homogeneity (made up of atoms, molecules), but not homogeneity of purpose or role. He then moved to the issue of time in his lecture. Time also has places and in time we have distinct events that each has its own purpose. Special events have no homogeneity—each is unique as it exists in a moment in time. In space and time the distinctive places that exist are identified in relative terms. They all exist relative to the person. In time, you cannot speak about the present unless there is a subject who says "now." So, in the same way, time is relative to us. Present, past and future do not exist in physics; they exist in our experience only in relation to us. Heaven, earth and time all have a religious sense and a personal sense—and that is why they really exist. Principles of physics are delimited for the sake of objectivity. It cannot and does not cover the whole of reality. Metaphysics have always existed alongside of physics and are needed to fill in the totality of reality. Never in history were these things seen as in opposition. Humans always seek to give sense and value to their life. Belief and knowledge together make up the totality of reality; science cannot have ultimate authority because it is only one slice of reality. He propounds an "operational ontology."

> Evolution is the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators.

Oh, I agree that there is abundant evidence for selection of randomly varying replicators, but there are several problems with natural selection and mutation. Let's use the analogy of a bicycle. The first primeval genome encoded the assembly instructions for the first bike. Genetic replication means that the instruction manual was copied by an invisible "scribe" to make more instruction manuals. Each manual was used to make a new bike. The scribe, however, made changes in each manual, so each bike came out differently. Each bike had its own unique instruction manual taped to it. When you junk a bike, you also junk its instruction manual. New copies of instruction manuals can only be copied from the immediately preceding generation of bikes, just before they were discarded, or kept. Each new manual has changes (errors) in it. Since the manuals are sequential, errors are accumulated over time, and the resulting bikes change accordingly.

No doubt you realize we are looking at a deteriorating picture. Information is being lost, and the bikes will doubtless deteriorate in quality. Eventually the system will break down, the manuals will be gibberish, and workable bikes will be extinct.

But now we introduce a hero: natural selection. Natural selection is like a quality control agent, deciding which bikes are suitable for further copying. Natural selection instructs the scribes not to copy manuals from inferior bikes because it discards those bikes and their manuals. But it is important to understand there is never any critique of the instructions or selection of instructions—only of bikes. Mutations happen at the level of the instruction manuals, but selection is only carried out on the level of the whole organism (the bikes themselves). The scribe and the judge work entirely independently of each other and never communicate. The scribe is essentially blind; he can only see individual letters (DNA) while he is copying code. The judge is also essentially blind, but he is extremely far-sighted. He never sees the code in the manuals, or even the bike's components. He can only say "yes" to one bike and "no" to another. The scribe knows nothing of bikes, but only of code. He duplicates code, whether good or bad, and he makes more mistakes with every turn. The judge knows nothing of code but only of bikes. He gives the "good" bikes back to the scribe to copy the next code. Ah, the process of evolution as the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators! Got it, and agree. You don't have to convince me that the amount of evidence is staggering. We are similar to apes? Of course. We are in the same genetic line.

But back to where I was. How accurately can we rely on this process for improving genomic information? The scribe can leave information code out, and he can also expand the code by inserting new code, like duplicating code already there. It's not really new information, but it does yield a different manual (invariably confusing and disrupting it). But the judge only lets through functional (good) bikes. In theory, bad duplications are tossed and eliminated while harmless or beneficial duplications can be preserved. But then the "harmless" duplications begin to have errors in them, and some of these errors might create new and useful information, like a new component for the bikes. Eventually these errors and misspellings might produce an internal combustion engine, transmissions, etc., and our bike becomes a motorcycle, or even a plane, or a Space Shuttle!

Can misspellings and selective copying really do this? Remember, no intelligence is involved in this scenario. The "scribe" is really a complex array of brainless molecular machines that blindly duplicate DNA. The "judge" is the brainless tendency for some pieces to reproduce more than others, or to survive for the next round. Natural selection is not intelligent, but blind and mechanistic. The scribe and judge have neither foresight nor intelligence; their combined IQ = 0.

Add to this that random mutations consistently destroy information. Science can show us not one single, crystal-clear example of a known random mutation that unambiguously created information. Though certain mutations could be described as beneficial, none have created information. Geneticists have learned that beneficial mutations occur at a rate less than 1 in a million, so low as to be immeasurable. Everything about the true distribution of mutations argues against their possible role in forward evolution. Dr. Alexey Kondrashov believes the actual rate of point mutations (misspellings) per person may be as high as 300 per person per generation. If we assume that 97% of the genome is perfectly neutral junk, this would still mean that at least 3 additional deleterious mutations are occurring per person per generation. Every one us is a mutant many times over. What type of selection scheme could possibly stop this type of loss of information? There is none.

Natural selection cannot overcome this obstacle, since natural selection can only evaluate the bikes that come to it. It can't change the code. Natural selection works, of course, on a limited level (in a lab with intelligent agents manipulating the genome).

I've written too much. There needs to be give and take here, so I'll stop even though there's much more to say. But my point is that evolutionary theory as pure scientific naturalism is falsifiable as an axiom of life's origins and progressions. Certain pieces of it are solid and proved, of course, but the number of missing pieces is a defeater.

> I believe it has always been wrong to publicly murder someone for not believing in your religion so that others will see the murder and turn away from the "wickedness" of believing in a different religion. Not just today. Not just yesterday. ALWAYS.

This is very interesting. So you subscribe to objective morality! Hmm. Since you argued against my concept of objective morality ("I'm willing to consider the idea of objective morality if you can show me that morals are objective, but so far it seems that your basis for your 'objective morality' doesn't objectively exist (meaning you don't have objective morality since your basis for your morality doesn't objectively exist"), I'm intrigued that you believe in objective morality. What is the source of this objective statement that it is ALWAYS wrong (and always objectively has been and will be) to murder someone for not believing in your religion?

[TrakeM]

>As far as metaphysics is concerned, I guess I see lots of things existing that don't have material substance. Is there such a thing as power? Love? Justice? Peace? Are they real? I say they are, but they're abstractions and concepts. But they're just as real as havoc, rebellion, and defiance.
I also see love and justice as abstract concepts. Additionally, I see them as something that we made up, not something that objectively exists. Of course, I can offer you good reasons to believe that the POTUS has power or that my mother loves me. Here's the thing though, none of this would be evidence for the existence of metaphysics or the particulars of metaphysics that you believe in. You talk about metaphysics isn't a very vague way. Exactly what is the metaphysics that you believe in? What laws govern metaphysics and how were these laws discovered? If I say that according to metaphysics, you have eat chocolate your soul will be stuck in an infinite loop repeating the words to Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up", how do we determine if my claim is true or false? What experiments or other methods will we employ to get to the bottom of whether or not my claim is true?

>What about time? I know we've talked about this, but I think time is a metaphysical reality and not a material one. There's also language. Does language exist? Sure it does, but not like a chair or a tree. There are so many different kinds of existence, so many realities.
Language is something that we made up. Why is it that the letters "tree" in that order means the tall plant made of wood? Because someone a long time ago said so, that's why. As for time, listening to scientists talk about time gets REALLY bizarre. I don't know if time is even real. Time is one of those things that's just wierd. The more you look into the physics of it and exactly what it means, the more problematic it gets. Time is actually not even a thing. Neither is space. Space-time is a thing, but not two things. Seriously, if we get into this it's just gonna turn into a truly bizarre conversation in which I suspect neither of us is going to really know what we're talking about. I'd wind up just posting links to scientists talking about space-time because seriously, I don't understand space-time and I'd get it wrong time and time again. Once again though, the question I'm really asking is what you see above. What is metaphysics exactly? I can tell you what science is. It's a process by which we discern what is and isn't true and I can even list the steps. How do we determine if a suggested law of metaphysics is really true and not just something I made up. Hey, I like chocolate but I don't want to be stuck in an infinite loop repeating the words to Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up"? How do I know that eating chocolate won't doom me to such a fate?

>Dr. Evandro Agazzi, President of the International Academy of Philosophy and Science in Brussels, published a paper about our modern conception of existence. He said that in the realm of science we will make flat statements that the world exists, yet the same person would say they "believe" God exists. Why should we use different wording?
We can see planet earth. We can objectively show that earth exists. Your god on the other hand, we can't show objectively exists. That's a big difference. That's a large part of why we have this difference. On top of this, why should I believe that the bible is an authority on anything? Many of the claims it makes about objectively falsifiable claims turn out false. Sure, you can say it's not a science book but then you just wind up back at the question, why should I consider it an authority? Keep in mind, whatever your answer is we'll be applying that same logic and reasoning to all other holy books or else we'll be inconsistent in our logic and reasoning.

On a brief side note: Do you think that the Bible should be a legal authority? I recognize that you can believe something to be an authority without wanting it to have legal authority, but I'm still interesting in knowing your thoughts.

> Can misspellings and selective copying really do this?
The evidence would suggest that yes, it can. Keep in mind, evolution makes falsifiable predictions. I gave you the example of how many chromosomes we have.

The fact that we don't know everything about exactly how evolution has worked doesn't take away from the tremendous amount of evidence that we have for evolution. Do you hold your god did it hypothesis to the same standard that you demand of evolution? Do you demand evidence and falsifiable claims of your god did it hypothesis? It seems to me that the evidence for evolution is incredible and goes directly against the idea of Adam and Eve as well as the idea that god made us from clay. I have a hard time taking that hypothesis seriously given the evidence. It makes no predictions and what we actually see lines up so perfectly with the falsifiable predictions made by evolutionary biology.

> This is very interesting. So you subscribe to objective morality!
No. This idea that I have is something that I believe in likely as a result of social conditioning and maybe even evolution (though I'm not sure about the evolution part). I believe that the letters "tree" arranged in that order refer to a plant made of wood that's very tall, but I don't think there is some law of physics that declares this to be the case. We made it up. We also made up morality, including the idea that "it has always been wrong to publicly murder someone for not believing in your religion so that others will see the murder and turn away from the "wickedness" of believing in a different religion. Not just today. Not just yesterday. ALWAYS." My basis for my morality is that I care about my fellow human beings. Using this basis for my morality that I made up, it is clear that my idea of morality under my standard isn't just different from yours, it's better. If you disagree, I would only ask that you look at what your religion has done to your sense of morality. Sometimes, when you go off the reservation far enough all it takes is to ask whether your conclusion is sane to show that your logic is wrong, even without going into the exact details of the logic that lead you there.

[jimwalton]

What laws govern metaphysics and how were these laws discovered? If I say that according to metaphysics, you have eat chocolate your soul will be stuck in an infinite loop repeating the words to Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up", how do we determine if my claim is true or false? What experiments or other methods will we employ to get to the bottom of whether or not my claim is true?

This is what makes Christianity distinct from all other religions. The Hindus might say something like you have proposed because Hinduism is philosophical. So also Buddhism. Islam is mostly philosophical, though it tries to dance with history in an abstract way. Without its historical references, Islam still stands. Christianity, however, is based in history. It is thoroughly integrated with history: Adam has to have been historical, and so also Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Israel as a nation, the land, Jesus—it all has to be historical, or Christianity folds up. It's about such and such a person in such and such a place, and how God revealed himself in history. Christianity is the only religion that is like this, and so it matters. And so we determine the truth or falsity of claims by historical reference, not by metaphysical assumptions. Those metaphysical assumptions are conclusions we make based on the evidence of history, and not vice versa. God appeared to Moses in a burning bush on a certain day at a certain time, and was visible to his eyes. We don't know those days and times, and there was obviously no video camera on the scene to capture the revelation—which doesn't mean it didn't happen. I saw a rainbow two weeks ago, but I have no material proof of that, either. And I ran into the corner of a table 3 days ago and it hurt like crazy, but I have no material evidence of the crash or of the pain. Material evidence, falsifiability, or scientific experiment aren't the only sources of truth. Those things happened, but I can't prove them and there are no material remains.

> Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up"?

We can't define time, but are you using this illustration to define hell?

> Do you think that the Bible should be a legal authority?

No. Its legal teachings were for the theocracy of ancient Israel and they are not a legal authority for any other civilization. Once the nation and theocracy of Israel collapsed in 586 BC, any legal authority of the Bible fell with it.

> It seems to me that the evidence for evolution is incredible and goes directly against the idea of Adam and Eve as well as the idea that god made us from clay.

Not at all, as I've explained in response to other posts (we're crossing topics again over various forums). I believe in evolution. I believe in this historical Adam and Eve, but not as the first and only hominids, and the Bible doesn't demand that they have to be the first and only hominids. Genesis 1 and 2 are an account of functional creation (how God ordered the world and people to function), not of material creation (how the world and people came to exist). And God didn't make us from clay. The "dust" of which Gn. 2.7 speaks (not clay) is a symbol of death, of mortality (Gn. 3.19; 1 Cor. 15.47; Ps. 103.14). What the text is telling us is that human were inherently mortal, not immortal. Humankind was created with mortal bodies, and in Adam we are all created mortal. Dust carries an archetypal (please don't change this to metaphorical) rather than material significance. Again, no claim is being made about the mechanics or process of material human origins. Also, no discordance with science. It's a theological/philosophical point that is being made.

[TrakeM]

>Christianity, however, is based in history.
Ok, so we determine what is and isn't a true law of metaphysics based on historical observations? As in another words, if we can't clearly show through the contemporary writings of historians that it's true, then we should not accept it as true? Is that what you are saying? Keep in mind, what I'm trying to find out here is the means by which you determine if a claim about metaphysics is true or false. If a claim is not backed up by the writings of contemporary historians, but cannot be clearly shown to be false according to the writings of contemporary historians, do we accept the claim as true or reject the claim?

>I believe in evolution. I believe in this historical Adam and Eve, but not as the first and only hominids, and the Bible doesn't demand that they have to be the first and only hominids.
You seem to be distancing yourself from the direct testable claims that the bible makes about the physical world. You can declare that the bible is not a science text book and that these things aren't the focus so it's not evidence against the bible, but if you do then the claim that the bible is concordant with science is completely meaningless. After all, under this standard, EVERY book that isn't a science book and claims that there is a god is automatically concordant with science. If JK Rowling writes a new Harry Potter book that includes the line "and there is a god named Rukaha that created the universe and give these characters their powers" then the Harry Potter books will be perfectly concordant with science! I'm sorry, but your idea of what it means for something to be concordant with science makes being concordant with science COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS.

>God appeared to Moses in a burning bush on a certain day at a certain time, and was visible to his eyes. We don't know those days and times, and there was obviously no video camera on the scene to capture the revelation—which doesn't mean it didn't happen.
If we require historical evidence before we accept a claim as being accurate to metaphysics, then we therefore must reject this claim. Naturally, rejecting a claim isn't saying that we know for certain that the claim is false. It is a statement of no confidence in the validity of the claim. Should we not place no confidence in this claim? After all, there are no accounts of contemporary historians to back up this claim. If we are using accounts from the time period in which the event supposedly occurred, then surely we must assign no real confidence in this claim being true. If you accept this claim because we cannot show writings of contemporary historians from that time period that back up this claim, then shouldn't we stop eating chocolate? Keep in mind, the future of your soul getting caught in an infinite loop of "Never Gonna Give You Up" hangs in the balance, and you cannot show any writings of contemporary historians to show that this claim isn't true, just like you can't show any writings of contemporary historians showing that Moses talked to a burning bush. Why accept the one but not the other? Remember, our measuring stick is whether or not we have historical evidence!

[jimwalton]

> so we determine what is and isn't a true law of metaphysics based on historical observations?

No, that's not what I said at all, not what I was implying, and not what I believe. I was saying that Christianity is a historical religion and that sets it apart from other religions. I said historicity is one of the ways we evaluate the truth of Christianity, not that we determine what is and isn't a true law of metaphysics based on historical evidences.

> if we can't clearly show through the contemporary writings of historians that it's true, then we should not accept it as true?

No, that's not what I said at all, not what I was implying, and not what I believe. Most of history is lost to us. The records we have comprise only a small percentage of the entire picture. We have kings lists, military forays, religious artifacts, and cultural clues, but in many cases the contemporaneous writings of historians is lacking. So we can't say that if we can't clearly show it through those writings we can't accept it as true. Instead, in those cases, we have to withhold judgment because evidence is unavailable.

> You seem to be distancing yourself from the direct testable claims that the bible makes about the physical world.

No, not at all. You seem to be jumping to one false conclusion after another.

> If we require historical evidence before we accept a claim as being accurate to metaphysics, then we therefore must reject this claim.

We don't, as previously explained. Your false conclusions are leading you to other false conclusions.

> Remember, our measuring stick is whether or not we have historical evidence!

No it's not. It's an unreliable measuring stick because evidence is too scanty. The further back in history, the less evidence. The absence of evidence doesn't prove the event didn't happen. When did the last pterodactyl die? We don't know when or where, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[TrakeM]

Please tell me what you think it means for the bible to be concordant with science. It seems to me, that by your standards, EVERY religious book is automatically and forever concordant with science no matter what.

OK, I keep on and keep on trying to find out why you believe the bible to be true. You aren't using history. Fine. WHAT ARE YOU USING? Based on what logic/evidence do you claim that the bible is anything more than just the writings of primitive man? Yes, the lack of evidence doesn't mean it's false, but that doesn't mean we should take the claim seriously. Just because we have no evidence doesn't mean we should accept a claim. Why should we accept the claims of the bible as true? Why on earth do you believe in the bible? I keep on and keep on trying to get you to tell me why you believe in any of it and all that you're telling me is that well, the lack of evidence doesn't mean it's false. You're not giving me good solid evidence for why you think the bible is true. Why you think that Moses talked to a burning bush. Why you think Jesus died on a cross. Yes, lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, but lack of evidence sure isn't a reason to believe in it.

Ok, time to sum up my post to attempt to be VERY clear what I'm asking.
1) What does it mean that your book is concordant with science if it makes no claims about science and we can throw out anything verifyably false that it claims about science because it's not a science book?
2) Using your same logic, are there any holy books that aren't concordant with science? If so, which ones?
3) Based on what evidence do you believe that Moses talked to a burning bush? Based on what evidence do you believe that Jesus died on the cross?

[jimwalton]

What does it mean that the Bible is concordant with science?

First of all, it most certainly does NOT mean that modern science is embedded in the text or that it dictates what modern science looks like. One generally will not find modern scientific explanation for the details in the text. It means that God uses accurate scientific understanding of the time to reveal himself. We read it in terms of their cosmology, not ours. The point of the text is not scientific revelation but God-revelation. All the science in the text is peripheral to the point, and we shouldn't make the text say anything it never intended to say or that it never said. The Bible's objective is not to give us a scientific understanding of the world; it is not offering an explanation of how the world works from a naturalistic perspective. The Bible is giving us a theological perspective of who God is, both in the context of science and history as well as above it. The Bible is concordant with science only in the sense that it shows us the typical scientific way of thinking of those in the ancient world in relation to the objective reality of God. God was able to reveal himself to them concordant with their cultural, linguistic, and scientific context just as He is able to reveal Himself to us in ours. That's all.

> Based on what evidence do you believe that Moses talked to a burning bush?

There is no evidence except that of an uncorroboratable historical record (Ex. 3). The primary evidence we have is circumstantial and by inference:

1. Moses had little motivation to return to Egypt.
2. Moses had negligible reason to set himself up as leader of the people of Israel.
3. Moses had an inadequate means of pulling off this whole storyline without what seemed to him a legitimate theophany and palpable help in doing it, which he certainly wouldn't get from the people).
4. There is little way to explain the Exodus of Israel from Egypt without something abnormal happening. But since the Exodus itself has little historical corroboration, this point doesn't get us far.

> Based on what evidence do you believe that Jesus died on the cross?

This one is more substantial. I might refer you to the "Resurrection of Christ" forum on the website for lengthy discussions of the resurrection.