Board index God

How do we know there's a God? What is he like?

Lack of evidence for God

Postby Kopper » Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:31 pm

Wouldn't god understand the lack of evidence of his existence? It's not like atheists know God exists and just choose not to believe. I've never "felt" god before. I've only ever heard of god through other humans. How can I be sure he is real? Wouldn't he understand that and not damn me to hell?
Kopper
 

Re: Lack of evidence for God

Postby jimwalton » Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:31 pm

Except there is a bunch of evidence for the existence of God. Besides about 10 rational arguments that make more sense than anything an atheist can offer, there is the existence of nature—As Dr. Plantinga says, "There are areas of conflict between theism and science (evolutionary psychology for example), but that conflict is merely superficial. There is deep concord between science and theistic belief; science fits much better with theism than with naturalism. Turning to naturalism, there is superficial concord between science and naturalism, if only because it is claimed—but they are mistaken. One can’t rationally accept both naturalism and current evolutionary theory. Both naturalism and evolution are self-defeating. There is deep conflict between naturalism and on e of the most important claims of current science. There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic belief, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism. Given that naturalism is at least a quasi-religion, there is indeed a science/religion conflict, all right, but it is not between science and theistic religion; it is between science and naturalism. That’s where the conflict really lies." Naturalism and evolution are self-defeating and can't be accepted. "On balance, theism is more hospitable to science than naturalism."

So God has given us reasonable minds to infer his existence, nature to support his existence, writings to reveal himself to us, and Jesus to appear to us in the flesh—all of which atheists toss aside without stronger arguments to the contrary. It doesn't matter if you've "felt" God before. Belief in God has been proved to be a reasonable pursuit and a rational conclusion.

So either (A) you choose not to believe, contrary to the logic and evidence, (B) refuse to believe, without being able to pose a stronger argument, or (C) become adamant against Christianity, despite the evidence. At what point do you want to be let off the hook as if none of this matters?
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9110
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: Lack of evidence for God

Postby Kopper » Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:33 pm

Talking snakes, dragons, and a worldwide flood doesn't seem any more likely than the Big Bang.
Kopper
 

Re: Lack of evidence for God

Postby jimwalton » Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:42 pm

OK, so instead of considering evidence you have drifted into some of your pet peeves about the Bible (these three items aren't under the category of "lack of evidence for God's existence"). It's a different direction than your post, but we can go to these places.

> Talking snakes

The Hebrew word for serpent is nahash, which is indeed the common word for snake, but it also possibly means "able to stand upright." There are all kinds of verbal possibilities here. For instance, nahash is the same root as nehoset, which means "bronze." So the shiny, upright snake in Number 21.9 is the same root: it was a literal thing, but a spiritual symbol. "Snake" could also be a word play, because the Hebrew word for "deceive" is very close to it, and is the same root as for magic and divination. Snakes in the ancient world were very much associated with spiritual powers, magic, and cultic rituals. So what if this "thing" (the nhs) was a spiritual power, represented to the woman as a bright creature, speaking "spiritual wisdom", and yet was deceiving her—the word for snake? Just a little bit of research changes the whole picture.

> Dragons

You lost me here. Dragons? The only place the Bible mentions a dragon is in Revelation 12. It's a symbol of Satan (from antiquity serpents were regarded as demonic, and this would be the presentation of the mother of all serpents) as explained in Rev. 12.9. If there's something else to which you are referring, you'll have to make it clear.

> Worldwide flood

I don't believe the flood was global, but massively regional. There are all sorts of reasons for that, but I'll just mention a few.

The Bible says it covered all the earth, but what does "all" mean? Consider these facts:

In Gn. 41.57 (same book, same author), we read that "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe in all the world." Was Brazil experiencing famine? Did the Australians come to Joseph? No. "All" means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.

Also, Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the...fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Did that include the Mayans? The people of Madagascar? I don't think anyone would argue that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan, and perhaps a few others.

There are plenty of other references like this throughout the Bible (Acts 17.6; 19.35; 24.5; Rom. 1.8). We have to give serious consideration that quite possibly "all" doesn't mean "global".

Also, the flood didn't have to be global to accomplish God's purposes. God was dealing with Canaan and the surrounding neighbors. God was dealing with Noah's context. A flood in South America would be totally inexplicable to the people there, as well as patently unfair (which the Bible teaches that God is not). Noah was a preacher of righteousness, but not to the people of Africa, China, Australia, and the Americas. The language of the Noah story is normal for Scripture, describing everyday matters from the narrator's vantage point and within the customary frame of reference of his readers.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9110
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: Lack of evidence for God

Postby TrakeM » Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:25 pm

You have quoted someone saying that there is concordance between theism and science, but you haven't actually shown that to be the case. The bible doesn't seem to line up with evolution, the big bang and other discoveries which are well-supported by scientific evidence. However, the real rift is far more deep than that. Faith is the idea that you should believe in something without the need for evidence. Science is exactly and precisely not that. Theism claims that you should believe in the existence of a god no matter the evidence and you are evil if you don't and you should use a holy text to determine what is and isn't true. Science says that you shouldn't accept claims without evidence and you should let what you can see and measure be your guide, not a holy text. Science and religion are on a VERY deep level at odds. On top of that, they are at odds on a less deep (but still very important) level in that religion doesn't tend to align with actual reality. For an instance, in reality, humans and the modern day great ape share a common ancestor (keep in mind I said share a common ancestor not humans evolved from modern day apes, those aren't the same thing). Religion tends to have different ideas that are not supported by the scientific evidence as is evolution. Very few PHDs in biology believe in your god. Almost all believe in evolution. Most of those PHDs in biology have said they'll believe in god no matter the evidence. The rift between science and religion is deep and real.
TrakeM
 

Re: Lack of evidence for God

Postby jimwalton » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:42 am

Yeah, it's lengthy to go through the whole case, but I'll try to summarize it here for you. It comes from Alvin Plantinga in his book, Where the Conflict Really Lies. He spends 350 pages analyzing the logic of theism and atheism with respect to science. Let me try to bring out his major points without writing a veritable wall of text.

His thesis is, "There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism."

Evolution and Christian belief: There is no inherent incompatibility between evolution and Christian belief, no necessary contradictions between Christian theology and the progressive development of the earth and life on earth. God often works by progressive means. It is very possible to believe God caused the right mutations at the right time, preserved various populations, orchestrated specific events, etc. Elements of fine-tuning and design that we see in nature accord well with a purposeful and intelligent source. Scientific naturalism, by contrast, has to claim all is driven by chance occurrences, natural selection, and random mutation. While theism can explain the full sequence of the universe and life, there are many gaps in pure naturalistic evolutionary theory that have yet to be confirmed. Though there is plenty of evidence for progressive development, we have to make many leaps in the transitions because evidence is lacking. Evolutionary theory can only claim that it's abstractly possible.

What Darwin has to show is an unguided evolutionary path that is not prohibitively improbable. Have Darwinians actually accomplished this? Have they shown, for example, that it is not prohibitively improbable that the mammalian eye has developed in this way from a light sensitive spot? They have NOT. They have pointed to various sorts of eyes, lining them up in a series of apparently increasing adaptive complexity, with the mammalian eye at the top of the series. But that of course doesn’t actually show that it is biologically possible—that is, not prohibitively improbable—that later members of the series developed by Darwinian means from earlier members.

Is it possible that unguided natural selection generated all the stunning marvels of the living world? Arguments from science are speculative, inconclusive, and astronomically statistically improbable. And yet there is nothing in current biological science that is necessarily in conflict with Christian belief.

Science can only speculate (without evidence) where our sense of purpose, morality, artistic strivings, reason, religious sensibilities, and personality came from. Such things are endemic to theism. Naturalism must claim that all this has happened by the grace of a mindless natural process. Human beings and all the rest are the outcome of a merely mechanical process, and that mind, intelligence, foresight, planning, and design are all latecomers in the universe, themselves created by the unthinking process of natural selection. Is it really inferring the most reasonable conclusion that language, say, or consciousness, or the ability to compose great music, or prove Godel's incompleteness theorems, or to think up natural selection, should have been produced by mindless processes of this sort? It's an ambitious claim. The neo-Darwinian scientific theory of evolution doesn’t prove that “mind has to arise from mind” (John Locke) is necessarily wrong, or that God necessarily doesn’t exist. It hasn’t even shown that it is possible, in the broadly logical sense, that mind arise from pure incogitative matter. That’s because evolution doesn’t pronounce on such questions.

Even if it's logically possible, is it biologically possible? That again is an ambitious claim. Even if biology could prove it's possible, that still doesn't prove it had to, because it's just as possible that it came to be by guided natural selection as by unguided. The biological process doesn't reveal the mechanism of causality.

With respect to the laws of nature, therefore, there are at least 3 ways in which theism is hospitable to science and its success, three ways in which there is deep concord between theistic religion and science.

1. Science requires regularity, predictability, and constancy; it requires that our world conform to laws of nature. From the point of view of naturalists, the fact that our world displays the sort of regularity and lawlike behavior necessary for science is a bit of enormous cosmic luck, a not-to-be-expected bit of serendipity. But regularity and lawlikeness obviously fit well with the thought that God is a rational person who has created our world and instituted the laws of nature.

2. Not only must our world in fact manifest regularity and law-like behavior: for science to flourish, scientists and others must believe that it does. Whitehead: “There can be no living science unless there is a wide-spread instinctive conviction in the existence of an order of things.” Such a conviction fits well with the theistic doctrine of the image of God.

3. Theism enables us to understand the necessity or inevitableness or inviolability of natural law: this necessity is to be explained and understood in terms of the difference between divine power and the power of finite creatures. Again, from the point of view of the naturalist, the character of these laws is something of an enigma. What is this alleged necessity they display, weaker than logical necessity, but necessity nonetheless? What if anything explains that fact that these laws govern what happens? What reason if any is there for expecting them to continue to govern these phenomena? Theism provides a natural answer to these questions; naturalism stands mute before them.

When it comes right down to it, how can we know our process of reasoning is reliable (a necessary conclusion for intellect to matter and science to make sense)? Consider, for example, rational intuition, memory, and perception. Can we show by the first or first two that the third is in fact reliable—that is, without relying in any way on the deliverances of the third? Clearly not; rational intuition enables us to know the truths of mathematics and logic, but it can’t tell us whether or not perception is reliable. Nor can we show by rational intuition and perception that memory is reliable, nor (of course) by perception and memory that rational intuition is reliable. Nor can we give a decent, noncircular rational argument that reason itself is indeed reliable; in trying to give such an argument, we would of course be presupposing that reason is reliable.

We have many cognitive faculties: memory, perception, reason, intuition, sympathy, introspection, logic and mathematics. These faculties or powers work together in complex and variegated ways to produce a vast battery of beliefs and knowledge, ranging from the simplest everyday beliefs (it’s hot in here, I have a pain in my knee) to more complex beliefs of philosophy, theology, history, and the far reaches of science. In science, clearly enough, many of these faculties work together.

How can we assess the reliability of these faculties? My memory, for example, is reliable only if it produces mostly true beliefs—if, that is, most of my memorial beliefs are true. What proportion of my memorial beliefs must be true for my memory to be reliable? Of course there is no precise answer, but presumably it would be greater than, say, two-thirds. We can speak of the reliability of a particular faculty (e.g. memory) but also of the reliability of the whole battery of our cognitive faculties. And indeed we ordinarily think our faculties are reliable, at any rate when they are functioning properly, when there is no cognitive malfunction or disorder or dysfunction. We also think they are more reliable under some circumstances than others. Visual perception of middle-sized object close at hand is more reliable than perception of very small object, or middle-sized objects err some distance. Beliefs about where I was yesterday are ordinarily more likely to be true that the latest high-powered scientific theories.

Now the natural thing to think, from the perspective of theism, is that our faculties are indeed for the most part reliable: God has made us this way. But suppose you are a naturalist: you think there is no such person as God, and that we and our cognitive faculties have been cobbled together by natural selection. Can you then sensibly think that our cognitive faculties are for the most part reliable? I say you can't.

First, the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable, given naturalism and evolution, is low. (To put it a bit inaccurately but suggestively, if naturalism and evolution were both true, our cognitive faculties would very likely not be reliable.) But if I believe in both naturalism and evolution, I have a defeater for my intuitive assumption that my cognitive faculties are reliable. And if I have a defeater for that belief, then I have a defeater for any belief I take to be produced by my cognitive faculties. That means I have a defeater for my belief that naturalism and evolution are true. I cannot rationally accept them. Therefore, if I can’t accept them—the pillars of contemporary science—then there is serious conflict between naturalism and science.

Despite the superficial concord between naturalism and science—despite all the claims to the effect that science implies, or requires, or supports, or confirms, or comports well with naturalism—the fact is that science and naturalism don’t fit together at all well.

Nietzsche: “Only if we assume a God who is morally our like can “truth” and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success. This God left aside, the question is permitted whether being deceived is not one of the conditions of life.”

Thomas Nagel: “If we came to believe that our capacity for objective theory (e.g., true beliefs) were the product of natural selection, that would warrant serious skepticism about its results.”

Barry Stroud: “There is an embarrassing absurdity in [naturalism] that is revealed as soon as the naturalist reflects and acknowledges that he believes his naturalistic theory of the world. … I mean he cannot it and consistently regard it as true.”

Patricia Churchland: “Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four Fs: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems it to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. … Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.”

What Churchland is saying is that from a naturalist perspective, what evolution guarantees is at most that we behave in certain ways—in such ways as to promote survival, or more exactly reproductive success. The principal function or purpose, then, of our cognitive faculties is not that of producing true or near true beliefs, but instead that of contributing to survival by getting the body parts in the right place. What evolution underwrites is only (at most) that our behavior is reasonably adaptive to the circumstances in which our ancestors found themselves; hence it doesn’t guarantee true or mostly true beliefs. Our beliefs might be mostly true, but there is no particular reason to think they would be: natural selection is not interested in truth, but in appropriate behavior. What Churchland therefore suggests is that naturalistic evolution—that is, the conjunction of metaphysical naturalism with the view that we and our cognitive faculties have arisen by way of the mechanisms and processes proposed by contemporary evolutionary theory—gives us reason to doubt two things: (a) that a purpose of our cognitive systems is that of serving us with true beliefs, and (b) that they do, in fact, furnish us with mostly true beliefs.

Darwin himself also expresses serious doubts along these lines: “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

Naturalists don’t ordinarily explain just why they think science guarantees or supports naturalism; they merely announce it. They don’t claim that God has been dethroned by quantum mechanics or general relativity or the periodic table of elements, but by Darwin. This is the result of confused logic (see chapters 1-2). It is a confusion between guided and unguided evolution, between sober science and philosophical or theological add-on. But the scientific theory of evolution just as such is entirely compatible with the thought that God has guided and orchestrated the course of evolution, planned and directed it, in such a way as to achieve the ends he intends. Perhaps he causes the right mutations to arise at the right time; perhaps he preserves certain populations from extinction; perhaps he is active in many other ways (such as on the quantum level. See ch. 4). On the one hand, therefore, we have the scientific theory, and on the other, there is the claim that the course of evolution is not directed or guided or orchestrated by anyone; it displays no teleology; it is blind and unforeseen; it has no aim or goal in its mind’s eye.

This claim, despite its strident proclamation, is no part of the scientific theory as such; it is instead a metaphysical or theological add-on. On the one hand there is scientific theory; on the other, the metaphysical add-on, according to which the process is unguided. The first part is current science, and deserves the respect properly accorded a pillar of science; but the first is entirely compatible with theism. The second supports naturalism, all right, but is not part of science, and does not deserve the respect properly accorded science. And confusing the scientific theory with the result of annexing that add-on to it, confusing evolution as such with unguided evolution, deserve not respect, but disdain.

Materialists believe that rising in the evolutionary scale eventuates in content properties. The question is this: What is the likelihood, given evolution and naturalism, that the content thus arising is in fact true? What is the likelihood, given naturalism, that our cognitive faculties are reliable, thereby producing mostly true beliefs?

Science fits much better with theism than with naturalism. On balance, theism is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism, a much better home for it. Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called “the scientific worldview.”

There are areas of conflict between theism and science (evolutionary psychology for example), but that conflict is merely superficial. There is deep concord between science and theistic belief; science fits much better with theism than with naturalism. Turning to naturalism, there is superficial concord between science and naturalism, if only because it is claimed—but they are mistaken. One can’t rationally accept both naturalism and current evolutionary theory. Both naturalism and evolution are self-defeating. There is deep conflict between naturalism and on e of the most important claims of current science. There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic belief, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism. Given that naturalism is at least a quasi-religion, there is indeed a science/religion conflict, all right, but it is not between science and theistic religion; it is between science and naturalism. That’s where the conflict really lies.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9110
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: Lack of evidence for God

Postby TrakeM » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:00 pm

Evolution may seem absurdly improbable to Alvin Plantiga, but his book is from being peer reviewed scientific research and he is no biologist or even physicist. He is a philosopher. On top of it all he doesn't seem to have any peer reviewed scientific evidence for his assertions. I'm sorry, but according to the scientific community (you know, the people who follow evidence rather than faith and actually study this stuff and have made all of the objectively verifiable discoveries that have made the cell phones, internet and cures for diseases that we have possible), the scientific evidence for evolution is quite staggering. The evidence is found in things like DNA. Evolution made the prediction before we could test it that two of our chromosomes must be fused together since the modern ape has 24 chromosomes and we have 23. You can't just drop a chromosome because that would be lethal. Since then we have made the measurement and chromosome number two is two chromosomes fused together. Has your religion made any definitive scientific predictions that were later verified to be true by repeatable experiments?

I'm sorry, but your source is questionable at best and his claims even more so. He seems to have this idea that evolution is just a series of random events for no reason and with no cause. Evolution is the NON-random selection of randomly varying replicators. (Added emphasis on the non part mine)

1). As for the predictability of the laws of physics, you can assert that it's because of a deity, but you have no real evidence. I can just as easily assert that it's because we live in a computer simulation. It's just an assertion if you don't have scientific evidence.

2) Ordered universe fits well with a computer simulation hypothesis too. Doesn't mean you have scientific evidence. If the universe suddenly stopped acting predictably, would that disprove your hypothesis (that god exists)? If not then it's not really a prediction made by your religion. Anything that can align with any and all results no matter what makes no predictions and really doesn't explain anything.

3) Theism may give you an explanation, but what evidence do you have that it's the right explanation? People used to say the tides were caused by god. God gave them an explanation. Turns out it was mostly the moon.

Absolute certainty is an illusion. However, that doesn't mean we have no more reason to think one thing than another. If your discovery makes predictions that are repeatable and testable. If your discovery makes possible some inventions previously not possible. Then there is good reason to believe your discovery is true.
TrakeM
 

Re: Lack of evidence for God

Postby jimwalton » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:14 pm

It's not so easy to casually dismiss Plantinga. He's a formidable intellect from Notre Dame, a well-respected scholar, and his work was peer reviewed by the scientific community as well as the philosophical one.

Statisticians and mathematicians of all sorts have at times predicted probability contexts for evolutionary naturalism, and every one I've ever read has numbers in the stratosphere. Even Stephen Hawking, regarding just one particular aspect of fine-tuning, said, "reduction of the rate of expansion by one part in 10^12 at the time when the temperature of the Universe was 10^10 K would have resulted in the Universe starting to recollapse when its radius was only 1/3000 of the present value and the temperature was still 10,000 deg"—much too warm for comfort. Hawking concludes that life is possible only because the universe is expanding at just the rate required to avoid collapse. At an earlier time, the fine-tuning had to be even more remarkable. John Polkinghorne said, "We know that there has to have been a very close balance between the competing effect of explosive expansion and gravitational contraction which, at the very earliest epoch about which we can even pretend to speak (called the Planck time, 10^-43 sec. after the big bang) would have corresponded to the incredible degree of accuracy represented by a deviation in their ratio from unity by only one part in 10^60."

Dr. James Coppedge, an expert on the science of statistical probability: Give evolutionists every possible concession, including a primordial sea with every single component necessary, and speed up the rate of bonding a trillion times. "The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10^161 using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began ... For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10^119,879. It would take 10^119,841 years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10^119,831 times the assumed age of the earth."

The simplest conceivable form of life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that only one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper sequence of amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^450. And yet Harvard scholar and professor Ernst Mayr admits that "A chance of one in a billion is almost a miracle."

There are many many such statistic analyses.

> you know, the people who follow evidence rather than faith and actually study this stuff and have made all of the objectively verifiable discoveries that have made the cell phones, internet and cures for diseases that we have possible...

There's no reason to get insulting. I assumed we were having a respectful conversation here.

> the scientific evidence for evolution is quite staggering.

Of course it is. I never said otherwise. Evolution is virtually a proven model. What I can't buy into is unguided evolution. There are too many gaps, too many extremely narrow parameters for success, too many coincidences, too many unanswered questions for me to buy into that "Well, it just happened!"

> Has your religion made any definitive scientific predictions that were later verified to be true by repeatable experiments?

Of course not. The Bible isn't a scientific text. It reveals God to us. Though it has the science of the day in it (which we know now to be false), it doesn't make any definitive or even generalized scientific predictions.

> As for the predictability of the laws of physics, you can assert that it's because of a deity, but you have no real evidence

What we do know is that before the Big Bang, the laws of physics didn't exist and were not in operation. The logic of causality would force us to question what caused the Big Bang given that all that existed was a singularity.

In addition, notions of predictability, order and regularity are more logical coming from an intelligent, orderly source than from an impersonal, disordered source.

> Ordered universe fits well with a computer simulation hypothesis too. Doesn't mean you have scientific evidence.

Yes, but doesn't it seem a bit discongruent to you that computer simulations have to be designed by intelligence to be anything but nonsense? The order we see in the universe makes more sense coming from an intelligent, purposeful, orderly source than from an impersonal, disordered source.

> Theism may give you an explanation, but what evidence do you have that it's the right explanation?

That was in what I quoted you from Plantinga. If we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, given the evidence, theism is a stronger conclusion than scientific naturalism.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9110
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: Lack of evidence for God

Postby TrakeM » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:38 am

1) "Of course not. The Bible isn't a scientific text. It reveals God to us. Though it has the science of the day in it (which we know now to be false), it doesn't make any definitive or even generalized scientific predictions."

That's a statement that there is something in the bible that is not perfect and isn't completely factually accurate. Therefore, it isn't the word of god. Sorry, but how can an all knowing god write something that is wrong? How could god's one true inspired word contain errors? If one part contains errors, then how do you know that all that stuff that talks about jesus isn't just another error caused by the lack of knowledge of the actual writers? There believed other stuff that was wrong that made it into gods one true word. If the bible is not completely perfect in every way containing no scientific inaccuracies of any kind whatsoever, then it's not the word of god. God would be all knowing. If god inspired a book, it would be inerrant. The bible, by your own admission is flowed. If it is flowed, then it isn't the word of god.

2) If evolution is true, then the bible is false because it's story of creation is wrong (not that there's not other cases where the creation story was wrong). If there was one thing that god would surely know that would be far beyond the knowledge of man at the very least at the time, it would be the creation of the universe. After all, wasn't it supposed to be god that created the universe? Yet, this "god" doesn't understand any of this. God inspired a part of the bible but not this? God inspired complete innacuracy that can't stand up to the questioning of a few mortals in lab coats with a lab? This doesn't sound like any kind of god.

3) How many books on evolution have you read that weren't taking a christian perspective? To be honest, you seem to think that evolution is just a purely random thing.
TrakeM
 

Re: Lack of evidence for God

Postby jimwalton » Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:08 pm

> That's a statement that there is something in the bible that is not perfect and isn't completely factually accurate.

Not at all. John Walton and D. Brent Sandy write, "The Bible is not a science textbook. To begin with, virtually no one objects to the observation that the Bible is not a science textbook. This means that the Bible’s objective is not to give us a scientific understanding of the world. Before we proceed, it is important to clarify what we mean by science. We are using the term to refer to an understanding of the material world derived from an empirical process and operating under naturalistic premises (so focusing on the natural sciences). Given this understanding, the Bible is not offering to explain how the material world works from a naturalistic perspective. This is entirely defensible for a number of reasons, but perhaps the most significant being that in the ancient world people did not have the category of 'natural cause and effect.' They understood a lot about cause and effect, but there was nothing natural about it. The only relevant causes were divine causes and human causes. This meant that the workings of the material world in naturalistic terms were of very little interest to them. Their understanding was not naturalistic, but one that integrated the transcendent into the world around them. They did not have a concept of natural laws (which are the foundation of all modern scientific work). Consequently, their observations about the world were inherently theological, not naturalistic. They were acutely interested in the relationship of God or the gods to the operations of the world. Much of what we think of in material terms they did not consider material.

"The Bible gives us theological perspective about the material world (God has created it, he sustains it, it is contingent on him, he is sovereign over it, etc.), but it does not give us any naturalistic insight (which is precisely what science does do). Any information about the material world in the Bible is either a result of the most basic observation or represents a typical way of thinking in the ancient world (Old World Science). This means that the information does not seek to penetrate the mechanistic workings of the material world or the shape of it. People in the ancient world are aware of the material world, but they don’t care as much about it, and don’t prioritize exploration of it.

"At the observation level, we might find that there is some convergence between how ancients think about the world and how we do. But aside from these areas of convergence, we will often find Old World Science to be contradictory to modern scientific conclusions. So, for example, there is convergence in the understanding that a person’s existence as a living being has a lot to do with their blood. When a person’s blood pours out to a certain extent, their life is gone. At the same time, the ancients were far from understanding the nature of the circulatory system by which the blood provides oxygen to various organs of the body, and the Bible offers no authoritative teaching about how we should understand the circulatory system.

"In Old World Science, the physiology of nearly all the bodily systems was largely misunderstood. Furthermore, although the sciences that we label meteorology and astronomy were of great interest to the ancients, their cosmic geography offered little help in understanding how things really worked. Geology, hydrology, and chemistry were unknown. Biology, particularly in the categories of zoology and botany, was of great interest and there was much observation taking place; lists were made (an exercise associated with wisdom and order) and rudimentary classifications established. As farmers and herdsmen, they understood much about the practical aspects of breeding and planting, but their ignorance of genetics created misconceptions. The statement that the Bible is not a science textbook recognizes then that the Bible’s illocutions do not offer scientific description or explanation.

"There is no new scientific revelation in the Bible. No statements in the Bible offered to original audience new insight into how the material world regularly works or how the naturalistic cause-and-effect system works. … The perspectives on the material world that we find in the text accommodate the Old World Science of the time and are part of the locution (words, phrases, genres, etc.) adopted in order to communicate clearly to the target audience. After all, some understanding of the world and its operations had to be used in some discussions in the text. Why would we think that the human communicator would use the science of our day? In fact, that would be foolishness because a century from now we will undoubtedly have adopted some new scientific conclusions that differ from what we believe today. Science is always changing, and is expected to continue changing. God chose human communicators associated with a particular time, language, and culture and communicated through them into that world, and indirectly to us. It has information for us as we are able to penetrate the message being conveyed by the human communicators to their audience.

"For instance, ... in Gn. 1, when people read about the “waters above the sky”, we conclude there must be waters above. These same people then devise a science to explain the waters above in modern terms rather than recognizing that this understanding (common in the ancient world) was accommodated by God as he sought to communicate through human instruments his own work in the world and his control of it.

"The problem with this approach is that it assumes the text is offering modern scientific information to the ancient audience, even though this principle cannot be applied consistently. Overall it assumes something about the nature of Scripture’s revelation that cannot be hermeneutically defended or consistently executed. It misunderstands the nature of the Bible in that it assumes the Bible is vesting its authority in scientific statements. …

"We dare not assume that later interpreters can take on the mantle of authority to draw out sophisticated scientific conclusions from this ancient text; it misappropriates authority to the reader, as it fails to limit itself to how the communication between the authority figure and his target audience would have been understood. Authority can only reside in that matrix of communication.

"It follows that we should not expect to be able to draw many, if any, necessary, mandated conclusions about the regular material operations and nature of the cosmos to which we could attach biblical authority. Scripture is not making those sorts of claims. This would include current ongoing material processes as well as material origins—conclusions drawn about the material world that can be investigated and either confirmed or denied by scientific study. Scientific investigation, for its part, cannot either affirm or deny theological beliefs such as God’s role in creation, the origin of sin, the spiritual nature of humans, or the image of God in us. These are theological beliefs not in the purview of science. In the same way the naturalistic operations of the material world and the investigation of its mechanics are matters for science and are not determined by the biblical text.

"The Bible’s explicit statements about the material world are part of the locution (words, phrases, genres, etc.) and would naturally accommodate the beliefs of the ancient world. As such they are not vested with authority. We cannot encumber with scriptural authority any scientific conclusions we might deduce from the biblical text about the material world, its history, or its regular processes. This would mean that we cannot draw scientific conclusions about areas such as physiology, meteorology, astronomy, cosmic geography, genetics, or geology from the Bible."

I know it was a long answer, but I hope that helps.

> If evolution is true, then the bible is false because it's story of creation is wrong.

Oh, not at all. Genesis 1 is the account of functional creation, not of material creation. It is not how the world came to be, but how the components of the world are intended to function. For instance, light and darkness function to give us day and night, evening and morning. The firmament functions to give us climate and weather systems. The earth functions to bring forth vegetation. The sun, moon, and stars function to regulate seasons and times. This is take the text at its most literal. Human beings function to rule the earth and subdue it.

There's nothing in the text to tell us how the material world came about, or how long it took. The only stand the Bible takes is that God is the creator of it. Other than that, science has to tell us how the world came about and how long it took. The Bible is telling us things that science can't tell us: WHY the world is here, and WHY we are here. Those things, contrary to what you are claiming (but I understand you're looking at the text scientifically, not teleologically).

> How many books on evolution have you read that weren't taking a christian perspective?

I had science in school just like everybody else. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed science quite a bit. Fascinating stuff. Loved it.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9110
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Next

Return to God

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests