Religion or Science - How do they compare?

Oh plug your brain in. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my statement as logic, and it's not only impeccable logic it is understood to be true by millions. T-R-U-E, TRUE, as in "true." As opposed to "false," F-A-L-S-E, FALSE. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yet reality shows that I believe the Bible actually says what it says. Theologians galore just make shit up to deny that the Bible actually says what it says.No one finds out whether they are saved until after they have died. Many do lie to themselves telling themselves that the know they are saved.

Poor old reality, it sure takes a beating from you. Well, the apostle John disagrees with you:1 John 5:12-14 Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes Faith, the author of John did make such claims but offered nothing in support for his revisionist presentation. It's a great marketing gimmick with no real product liability for those folk selling that fiction. Yet I actually believe the Bible says what is written in the stories and do not try to make shit up to explain away the errors and contradictions.

Your statement is true. As is mine. All it says isIF A is true
Then A is truePerfectly correct and utterly useless. Very Trumpian It is believed to be true by millions. Maybe a tad childish?

Religion:

quote:

---

There is no God but Allah and Mohamed is His prophet.

​

It is understood to be true by millions.

---

Science:

quote:

---

There is no evidence of a God or Gods and humans have created thousands of them.

---

Edited by jar, : add Science perspective.

I said that you only believe that your premise and conclusion are connected, that it's not something you can demonstrate due to the lack of evidence and replicability. Just so people aren't confused, here's your original premise from your Message 392: So why do you believe premise and conclusion are connected? How does the truth of your premise lead to the conclusion that revelation is reliable, let alone a source of knowledge?There's also the problem that your premise is ill-defined - what does it mean to rightly invest belief in divine revelation? If by "true knowledge of the world" you mean likely true understandings of the natural world, then only science has demonstrated this ability, and only tentative understandings. Because we know you - it isn't as if you just got here yesterday. Your qualification was just a variation of your questioning whether science can be trusted. We all find it completely believable that you would write something like, "Science can't be trusted about radiometric dating because the dates are inconsistent but they won't admit it." Science is a human endeavor that is heir to all our frailties, but it is also the best method we have for overcoming them to reach ever improving understandings of the natural world.--Percy

How do they even know there is such a thing as "saved"? Attempting answers to such questions is another way of making clear the difference between science and religion. Little of your participation here are answers to the WWJD question - examine your own adherence to faith.--Percy

"Millions believe" is a religious argument, another way in which religion compares poorly to science as a way of understanding the natural world.--Percy

As you demonstrate here, religion can only declare what it believes true of the natural world - it cannot back it up with rationale built around evidence the way science can.--Percy

It seems you can only declare your logic true, not show that it is true. Why do you think arguments along the lines of, "I am too right," have any merit?--Percy

They only would if it is preached in their particular church, and if it isn't people may never find out they aren't saved. But I've read about many who eventually do. Sometimes it is the result of a supernatural spiritual revival which shows them their spiritual condition while inspiring the whole church to a new level of commitment. The word "saved" just means "have eternal life" or "belong to Christ" or "received the new birth." People often have a definite experience of being changed when this happens. Certainly never meant to imply there isn't such a difference. I only say for purposes of the topic of this thread that there is some revealed information in God's word about the physical world that is to be trusted because it is God's word. I don't expect many here to accept that it's God's word but for those who do it is a revelation of knowledge about the physical world that should be put above any other means of knowledge and made the inviolable starting point for scientific investigations. I wouldn't recomment it if I hadn't done it myself. But WWJD was a fad followed in some churches, not something from the Bible. However, thinking about some of the things I've said here that you and others have denounced as unchristian, I would say I've definitely done what Jesus would have done and you don't know what you are talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What knowledge of the physical world is sourced to the Bible? But it isn't knowledge of the physical world. It's just things from the Bible you choose to believe without evidence. If evidence isn't the foundation for study, then it isn't science.--Percy

Back in Message 390 where I began the comparison of religion and science as I understood the topic, I made a distinction between the source of knowledge by science and by the Bible, science's being the ability to test and compare observations and scientific propositions to arrive at a reasonable consensus, but the Bible revealing facts because it is God's word. They are different sources of knowledge, but since the Bible just gives a few hints it can only be the foundation of an investigation, and physical evidence then becomes the working information.It tells us enough to see that the original Created world was very different from the world we live in now, and that there was a worldwide inundation that destroyed that original world, killing all the land creatures and human beings except for the few saved on the ark. There would have been physical consequences we can investigate. It tells us enough to know that the Theory of Evolution is completely wrong.Since there is no way to apply the testing methods of science to single events in the past, and if you deny the revelation given about them, you may come up with false ideas about the condition of the planet today.But as for the sciences that can test their propositions it is the best method there is for acquiring knowledge and the results in technological advance are really quite spectacular.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

*Trots out this cartoon yet again*.... This cartoon was meant to be humorous but based on talking with a few of the creationists I know, it actually fits their method. One side trusts evidence and the other side trusts that the bible is Gods Word and thus the origin of knowledge, the conclusion, and the source of facts (by definition, as revealed by God)

Is evidence by definition objective or subjective?

If the God of the Bible is, in fact, GOD, why did He choose the methodology that He did to introduce Himself and His plan to humanity?

Assuming all of this, how does it negate the evidence gathered by secular science so far?

​

Edited by Phat, : spelling

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith