Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Jeweler]

The problem is that you can’t hold scripture to the same standard as science. It isn’t something you can just improve and fix over time because it isn’t made by humans. The claim is that scripture is divinely inspired so was God purposefully having man write words that would lead to misunderstandings in the translations only a few thousand years later?

Also God couldn’t ever have another prophet that you would believe in unless there’s a way to prove that someone is speaking to God.
So as time goes on are less and less people going to be able to translate back to the original translation and will most of the meaning get lost or does God have some plan to change the current rate of misunderstandings and abandonment of religion?

[jimwalton]

> The problem is that you can’t hold scripture to the same standard as science.

First of all, it's not legitimate to make assumptions based on no information. We have not discussed this issue. You have no idea to what standards I hold.

Second, science is a unique discipline. Historiography is not held to the same standard as science, nor is psychology, archaeology, philosophy, economics, or educational philosophy. Science is its own discipline with its own rules that don't apply to other disciplines. Not everything is science. if it were, we wouldn't have juries, but science labs; we wouldn't have CEOs in business, we'd have scientists; we wouldn't have coaches running football teams, but scientists.

It's simply an illegitimate comparison.

> The claim is that scripture is divinely inspired so was God purposefully having man write words that would lead to misunderstandings in the translations only a few thousand years later?

Wherever humans are involved there are errors. So it is in Bible translation, so it is in science.

> So as time goes on are less and less people going to be able to translate back to the original translation and will most of the meaning get lost or does God have some plan to change the current rate of misunderstandings and abandonment of religion?

Your bias is showing. None of this is true. In actuality, archaeology has opened up translations so that we have access to information that has been lost for thousands of years, information Luther, Calvin, Augustine, and event the writers of the Septuagint didn't have. We are able to get closer to the original than possibly we've ever been. As time goes on, more and more people are able to translate back to the original translation, resulting in more accuracy and reliability than we have ever had, giving us meanings that have been debated through the millennia.

> does God have some plan to change the current rate of misunderstandings

I don't know to what other misunderstandings you are referring. God is continually changing our current rate of understanding. There are new discoveries all the time, and we are updating our understandings almost daily. Bible study and translation is a very live discipline; we are learning so much at a fast pace.

It's just wrong for you to hold us to mistakes that are centuries old. It sounds like you want it to be that if we don't change with new information, we're just stupid, and if we do change with new information, well, we're just stupid.

> does God have some plan to change the current rate of ... abandonment of religion?

It is prophesied in both the OT and the NT that the religion of YHWH would almost always be invaded by fakers, hypocrites, and liars, but that God would always maintain a faithful remnant who were true to Him and His word. And that is what we see. The small growth of atheism today (atheists still number fewer than 5% of the population) are no threat. But the Bible says it will grow, so that's to be expected. In the End Times, the Bible prophesies a great apostasy of the Church, with more fakers than authentic devotees. We may be seeing that also. It's no reflection on the falseness of Christianity; in actuality, it was foreseen and lends to the credibility of the Bible.

[Jeweler]

So the book can’t be proven true or false, internally claims that it is true and divinely inspired, but it can be misunderstood and mistranslated by the humans it was written for by a perfect God?

It also says that people will doubt it and use it for their own gain so anyone that doesn’t agree with you or says they do and lies confirms your belief in the book?

That couldn’t be a more perfect example of an unsubstantiated claim that includes additional unsubstantiated claims to justify the reasons that they are unsubstantiated. It’s circular logic, or more accurately, spiral logic with no foundation.

[jimwalton]

> So the book can’t be proven true or false

"Proven" isn't the right approach. No history can be "proven." Nor can any theology or philosophy. Even in a court of law, the burden of proof doesn't require absolute certainty, but only the preponderance of evidence that leads one to a conclusion "beyond a reasonable doubt." A case doesn't have to be 100% to fulfill the burden of proof or to establish not only credibility and plausibility, but also probability. 100% certainty is never reachable in any case, but it is simply not an option in historical fact or philosophical/theological debate.

As far as history is concerned, since the past is forever gone, it can neither be viewed directly nor reconstructed precisely or exhaustively. It cannot be subject to scientific observation and experimentation. There is no reproducibility in history. Our knowledge of it comes exclusively through incomplete, selective, and even biased sources. The past comes to us fragmented. Our link to the past is always through the eyes of someone else.

The fact that history can't be proven didn't mean nothing happened or that our records are all false. It's just that it's not science and shouldn't be treated as such. The Bible is no different. A lot of what the Bible says has been corroborated and verified. But "proven" is a different thing altogether.

> but it can be misunderstood and mistranslated by the humans it was written for by a perfect God?

Every communication has to be interpreted. That's the nature of communication. There are three parts: the source, the message, and the receiver. Even if the delivery (source) was perfect, there is also the message itself (often couched in cultural and linguistic, as well as literary, contexts) and the receiver (with his or her own experiences, biases, filters, culture, language, etc.). Even perfect communication has to be interpreted and there is a chance for distortion or misunderstanding. There's no way around that no matter what the situation, person, or field.

Yes, even Scripture can be mangled by human beings. I see it every day on this forum.

> It also says that people will doubt it and use it for their own gain so anyone that doesn’t agree with you or says they do and lies confirms your belief in the book?

No, this isn't true to what I said. What I said is that there will always be distorters, hypocrites and liars, and that the Bible said that would be the case. What I didn't say was that anyone who disagrees with me confirms my belief in the Bible.

Of course that kind of reasoning would be circular logic. That's why I stay away from it. Again, you're making false assumptions about what I think and you're distorting what I said. Ah, it's the nature of communication. Your biases determine how you hear my words and in what direction your thoughts go as you read and respond. Your context affects my communication. Even though I may have said it well, you hear it in your own frame of reference.

[Jeweler]

Then if everything is up to interpretation and can’t be proven then you wouldn’t know if you’re wrong about your own beliefs. That alone is justification for disbelief until further information is gathered.

You can believe whatever you want, but if it impacts your decision making and you’re representing others that don’t share your beliefs then I think it’s no longer an accurate representation of belief and is being used for personal gain at the expense of others.

[jimwalton]

> Then if everything is up to interpretation and can’t be proven then you wouldn’t know if you’re wrong about your own beliefs.

This is not true, either. Though it can't be proven 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt, there is enough evidence that we can infer a reasonable conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. It's the way history works, courtrooms, economics, and even the military. Did you see "Zero Dark Thirty"? In the movie, the boss wanted them to PROVE Bin Laden was in that house in Pakistan. The woman replied, "We don't deal in certainty, we deal in probability." So it is with most things. We weigh the evidence and infer the most reasonable conclusion based on what is most probable. Therefore, we would know if we're wrong about beliefs. We can weigh the evidences and decide along the lines of probability.

All of us do this all day long, every day. We sit in chairs on the probability they will hold us—and that probability is both rational and reasonable. Sometimes chairs collapse and don't hold us, but the evidence justifies belief and action. We don't need to wait for more information. We do the same thing when we turn doorknobs, assuming the door will open, put the key in the car to start it, drive to the grocery store. We can't know for certain the store is still there, but there's every reason to believe it is. It's only proven when we arrive. Because you can't prove the store is there until you arrive, that is not justification for disbelief. Because you can't prove the car will start until you turn the key is not justification for disbelief. What you're saying is nonsense.

> is being used for personal gain at the expense of others.

Here comes left field again. My beliefs are for personal gain?? And at the expense of others???? What in the WORLD are you talking about?

[Jeweler]

I’ll listen. What’s the most succinct and clear way you can describe how a rational person can come to the reasonable conclusion that the supernatural claims in the Bible are true or that God exists? And how are other possibilities, known or unknown, rationally ruled out?

[jimwalton]

The arguments for God show that belief in God is both reasonable and rational. They are also far stronger than any argument posed by atheists. If we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, we lean strongly in a theistic direction.

Cosmological evidence: The universe had a beginning. The idea of an infinite universe is absurd. Something outside of the universe had to have caused it to bang. Science can give partial explanations, but it has no complete explanation, nor even a full explanation. God qualifies for the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the terminate of explanation, whereas nature does not. It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but more likely that God would exist uncaused. The existence of the universe is strange and puzzling. It can be made comprehensible if we suppose that it is brought about by God. Theism has the stronger case.

Ontological evidence: If God doesn't exist, his existence is logically impossible. If he does exist, his existence is necessary. Since we know God is not impossible, he must be necessary.

Teleological evidence: We don't know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that was not indeed purposefully designed. Many parts of the universe exhibit purpose, patterns, regularities, and order. Therefore it's logical to assume the universe could be the product of purposeful design. Again, science can give a partial explanation; theism can give a full explanation. There is reason to consider it plausible or even probable that a rational agent was responsible for the laws of physics and the process of evolution.

We also know that there is great uniformity in material objects confirming to the laws of nature (gravity, nuclear force, etc.). This motivates us to wonder if a natural process or an intelligent source is the more likely explanation. That there is something rather than nothing is strange enough, but that they all have similar properties and powers passes strange—and also that they were uncaused! Theism (as an intelligent causal agent) is the more complete explanation. The existence of such order speaks of the probably of the existence of a powerful, intelligent, purposeful, and orderly source.

Analogical evidence: Everything we humans produce for a particular purpose is designed for that purpose by someone intelligent enough to have designed it. The universe has many characteristics that seem like it was produced for a particular purpose. Given its beginning (Big Bang) and the chaotic nature of such a process, we could logically conclude that the universe would be chaotic. But it's not. There is order rather than disorder. It's more reasonable to conclude that the universe was designed by an intelligent being.

The evidence of other minds: I can't prove that other minds exist, but it's logical to believe that. I can't prove what other minds are thinking, and yet it's reasonable to assume they are. The bulk of my commonsense beliefs about others minds is more probable than not, on my total evidence. Using that analogy, then, belief in God is rational, being more probable than not on the total evidence.

Evidence from consciousness: Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist (feelings, thoughts, emotions). The explanation for such mental states is either personal or scientific. The explanation for nonphysical mental states is not a natural scientific one, for no naturalistic explanation postulated thus far has been capable of accounting for how the mental can arise from the physical. Again, science can explain part, but not all. Therefore the best explanation for now of nonphysical mental states is a personal one. If the explanation is personal, then it is theistic.

Axiological evidence: Since there is evil in the world, there must also be good (or we wouldn't know evil was evil). If those words mean anything, there must be a standard by which to define and measure them. And if there is a standard, there must be a source for that standard. That source must be moral, objective, and personal. Therefore theism is the more reasonable conclusion than evolution for survival (which has nothing to do with "good" or "bad").

Linguistic evidence: Language is effective only if endowed with meaning. Meaning is definitively non-material; it is neither energy nor matter. The essence of meaning is entirely distinct from energy and matter. Language demands a non-material source, since meaning is non-material. Language therefore demonstrates that we as humans possess non-material attributes. The most plausible source for that is a non-material entity with mental faculties qualitatively similar to our own but vastly superior.

• God makes sense of the existence of abstract entities.
• God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
• God makes sense of the complex order in the universe.
• God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

If we are drawing the most reasonable inference:

• Is it more reasonable to assume the universe brought itself out of nothing (the dimensionless singularity of the Big Bang theory) or that it was brought about by a causal agent outside of itself?
• Is it more reasonable to assume our intelligence and ability to reason came from an intelligent source or a blind one?
• Is it more reasonable to assume the orderliness and teleology of the universe came from purposeful planning or random process (the Big Bang), natural selection, and genetic mutation?
• Is it more reasonable to assume our consciousness just happened to arise or that it was caused by a previous consciousness?
• Is it more reasonable to assume our personality came from a personal source or an impersonal one?
• Is it more reasonable to assume our sense of right and wrong came about by survival instincts or from a moral source?
• Is it more reasonable to assume informational data (such as DNA) happened to arise by natural process out of random data or from a previous source of information?

Theism wins every one of these. It doesn't prove God, but if we are honestly pursuing where the evidence leads and inferring the most reasonable conclusion, theism is the far stronger case.

As far as the Bible is concerned, the Bible has been corroborated historically and archaeologically over and over. As a matter of fact, there has never been a discovery that has disproved something in the Bible. There has been zero evidence presented that something in the Bible is not true. Every evidence we have points to the reliability and truth of the Bible.

As far as the supernatural claims, (1) why would I doubt the supernatural claims if all the other information is accurate? (2) Most of the reason people doubt the supernatural claims is because they decide ahead of time that these things are impossible. But that's not open inquiry or fair evaluation, it's bias. Even some of the supernatural claims can be substantiated indirectly. The greatest case can be made for the resurrection.

> And how are other possibilities, known or unknown, rationally ruled out?

Just like anything else. We weigh the evidences (objectively and fairly) and infer the most reasonable conclusion. That's always how other possibilities are rationally ruled out.

[Jeweler]

If I can’t prove something with the current information available but a certain explanation makes the most sense, then is it more rational to claim that explanation is the truth or to withhold the claim of truth until the explanation can be proven?

If you merely claim it is a belief you can’t prove then I would agree you’re justified in your personal belief, but if it’s claimed to be true then it should be reasonably justifiable to any rational person just like any other truth.

[jimwalton]

> If I can’t prove something with the current information available but a certain explanation makes the most sense, then is it more rational to claim that explanation is the truth or to withhold the claim of truth until the explanation can be proven?

it depends on the situation, but generally when an explanation makes the most sense and fits the data and the evidence, we tend to assume it's true until facts lead us otherwise.

For instance, there is no proof of dark matter, but there is enough evidence for scientists to assume its existence. Its presence is implied by the data, but until evidence would indicate otherwise, scientists assume dark matter to be a reality and to be the truth.

A historical example would be Alexander the Great. We have 4 biographies of his life, all from centuries later, and all contradicting each other. But historians piece together what they know, can infer from the data at hand, and can hold with reasonable conscience, and consider that to be "the truth" until archaeologists may dig something else up.

It's the way things work.

> If you merely claim it is a belief you can’t prove then I would agree you’re justified in your personal belief, but if it’s claimed to be true then it should be reasonably justifiable to any rational person just like any other truth.

Science also deals not with certainty, but rather provisional or conditional truth. They are highly likely to be the case, having been established beyond reasonable doubt, but they are still subject to revision or being overturned by future discoveries. The kind of truth scientists are after is provision in the sense that it is conditioned by what we currently know. This is a form of beyond-a-reasonable-doubt knowledge. It is the only kind of knowledge empirical methods are well suited to produce. Such methods are not good at producing absolute certainty.

Can science prove that the natural world is the only reality? Of course it can't.

Thomas Kuhn, physicist and philosopher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn), says that in the end, science seems to be little more than opinion, expert opinion granted, but still just an opinion. There is "no standard higher than the consent of the relevant community," a situation that has been colorfully characterized as scientific mob rule. Later sociological studies have claimed that scientific knowledge is no more certain than any other type of knowledge, and that its knowledge is culturally determined.

Now, I happen to think those quotes and positions are extreme, but I hear what they're saying. I think you need to be careful about your claims of proof, belief, and justifiability.

I also found this article interesting (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/) that "we are in various ways hitting the ?
“We are in various ways hitting the limits of what will ever be testable," and "falsifiability is not a good criterion for telling science from non-science."

> If you merely claim it is a belief you can’t prove

We are dealing with probabilities, not certainty, in most matters in life, and even some in science. Not every truth is empirically testable (like the existence of Alexander the Great). Not every truth is verifiable. It neither renders them as falsehoods or as "mere beliefs." Verificationism (something is true only if it can be scientifically proven) is self-refuting.

Suppose I asked you to prove "All bachelors are unmarried males." We know it's true not because of any scientific experiment or empirical verification, but by definition. What if I said, "All ravens are black." Can I prove it? No; I can only prove that ever raven who has ever been observed has been black. Is it true then that ravens are black? Of course.

I think you need to be careful not to think in categories that are too blurry to prove your point, and also to assume that religious belief is somehow different from truth as we know it in any other field.