What Science is NOT

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

​

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

We can even use the scientific method to evaluate the hypothesis that the Bible is the Word of God.

---

​

Ah, for that you will need a testable hypothesis. Do you have one? No? Then the scientific method, & therefore science has nothing to say on the matter.

---

​

Well, I think that I have a testable hypothesis. [I think, therefore I am ] Anyway, Hypothesis: The Bible is the Word of God

​

Now we need some data ... let's look first at the Bible and see if we can find any evidence that either supports or contradicts the hypothesis.

​

Well, after reading the Bible, I find that the Bible makes a lot of predictions about the future (I'm not talking about the bible code). Since parts of the Bible where written a long, long time ago, some of those predictions should have come true. After all, if the Bible is the Word of God, then God must have inspired it. Thus, any predicitions that it makes about the future must be true. However, if the Bible was, in fact, not inspired by God, then it wouldn't have a very good track record.

​

To be continued

​

[Fixed quoting. --Admin]

​

[This message has been edited by Admin, 11-10-2002]

---

Your hypothesis is not scientific, because it is not falsifiable.If there are any predictions in the Bible which are not true, one can always say that X hasn't come to pass yet.Therefore, there is no way for the Bible to ever be wrong.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

On the other hand...The Bible HAS made predictions which have not come true:Mark 13:26,27
And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect form the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.Mark 13:29,30
So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.Of course you could argue that the use of the word "generation" is a metaphor or something, but then you are then frimly in the realm of unfalsafiable dogma, able to interpret at will to make things fit as you see fit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Mark 13:29,30
So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.

​

Of course you could argue that the use of the word "generation" is a metaphor or something, but then you are then frimly in the realm of unfalsafiable dogma, able to interpret at will to make things fit as you see fit.

---

​

You forgot about language translation. The word 'generation' could also be interpreted as race (ie the Jews). As you should know, words can have multiple meanings. Many words in English also have multiple meanings.

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 11-11-2002]

---

Well, there you go. Unfalsafiability. Not scientific.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:Your hypothesis is not scientific, because it is not falsifiable.If there are any predictions in the Bible which are not true, one can always say that X hasn't come to pass yet.Therefore, there is no way for the Bible to ever be wrong.[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Falsifiable, I assume, means that the hypothesis can be proven false.

---

Yes. There has to be some evidence, if found, which would falsify the hypothesis.

quote:

---

Is it not possible to examine and collect data over a period of time?

---

Yes, of course.

quote:

---

Granted that might mean that in my lifetime, I may not have been able to come to the point where I have a theory. The interpretation of my data collection would be tentative and still could be shown to be false over a period of time. On the other hand, as my data increases, I may find that the probablility of my hypothesis being true is correct.

---

The point is, unless you set specific criterion ahead of time to test your theory that the Bible is inspired by God, all you are ever doing is interpreting after the fact.

quote:

---

Edited thought: There is no time limit on the Scientific Method is there?

---

No. The limitation on the scientific method is in the reliability of results.I mean, you could use the scientific method to try to make a free energy machine, as many have done over the years, but at some point it is realized by most reasonable people that it just is not likely to happen.[This message has been edited by Chara, 11-11-2002][/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

The point is, unless you set specific criterion ahead of time to test your theory that the Bible is inspired by God, all you are ever doing is interpreting after the fact.

---

​

quote:

---

Specific criterion, in this case would be?

---

I dunno. This is your experiment, so go ahead and pick something.

quote:

---

Prophecies used must be exact,understandable, written before the event, and have come true just as they said they would?

---

Yup.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara: There is no time limit on the Scientific Method is there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
No. The limitation on the scientific method is in the reliability of results.

​

I mean, you could use the scientific method to try to make a free energy machine, as many have done over the years, but at some point it is realized by most reasonable people that it just is not likely to happen.

---

quote:

---

The point being though is that we need to recognize that Science is always evolving when new data presents itself or we realize that we have misinterpreted the data?

---

Absolutely.

quote:

---

And in reference to bible prophecy, we can't close the book on the possibility that it is the Word of God. Would that not be a reasonable conclusion?

---

Why would you scientifically consider the Bible to be the word of God unless you had positive evidence?

quote:

---

the present discussion, can the bible be proven to be the word of God, probably can never be proven by this methodology... why? because, as the bible says (paraphrasing here), those who don't want to see (use inductive and/or deductive logic) won't see... they "hide the truth" from themselves... this means that the logic steps might be left out or denied...

---

LOL! Logic steps "left out" is not the problem.The insistance on seeing "magic" where there is none in order to make Bible stories come true is often the problem. [QUOTE]i noticed someone's signature about occam's razor... it always struck me as kinda funny that a lot of people say they (rightly so) believe in the truth of that, yet when it comes to questions of faith they tend to go the other way... if the simplest explanation which accounts for all the facts is usually the right one, how can anyone deny the existence of a creator? oh well, think i'll read some more[/B][/QUOTE]"Simplistic" is not the same as "simple"."Godidit" is a simplistic, catch-all answer which doesn't account for the facts.

quote:

---

Does this shatter my belief that the Bible is the Word of God? No, because the conclusions of science are always tentative.

---

This seems a strange couple of sentences.I would have expected the first to be followed by something like, "No, because the Bible speaks to how to become closer to God and how to live a good life. It's power is not in perfect historical or scientific accuracy, but in the life lessons it teaches." [QUOTE]The Word of God, and the truth found in it affect everything in my life. I don't want to base my life on something as tentative as science. [/B][/QUOTE]You do base much of your life on science, though. The fact that science is tentative allows it to be non-dogmatic and to correct itself. This is one reason why science is so very, very powerful and useful. Another reason science works so well is because it compensates for all of the illogical and irrational thinking that we humans are so prone to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I presented a better method of proving God exists. Asking him to show you personally. God has the advantage of not having language barriers, of being able to clearly and efficiently communicate. Even better he created you knows the # of hairs on your head and every thought before you think it. I'm sure he could find a very personal and efficient way to show you he is there. A unique custom designed way of communication for you in particular.
Man through science cannot cover the broad spectrum that is God he encompasses more than we can fathom on our own understanding. So this test is doomed to fail every time. Not for the lack of evidence but the lack of real wisdom and understanding to use it.
So my only other method is to appeal to God himself for the wisdom and understanding needed to know he exists.

---

This is an interesting line of thought that a lot of Agnostics have taken to the next logical step.If humans cannot really perceive or comprehend God because of our little brains or somesuch, then how do we really know God exists?Or, If God exists, there is no way of comprehending God, so we must logically conclude that we do not know if God exists or not.If your sole reason for believing in God, the Bible, heaven, Hell, and all of it is "a feeling you have inside that only God can produce", then what does it mean when someone undergoing brain surgery while still awake (local anesthesia) describes euphoric religious feelings when a certain part of their brains are stimulated?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]then what does it mean when someone undergoing brain surgery while still awake (local anesthesia) describes euphoric religious feelings when a certain part of their brains are stimulated?[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Maybe it means you should deny the existance of surgeons as well.

---

Come on, Gene.You know what I'm saying here.These mystical experiences have a physical basis, so claiming that all mystical feelings are from a supernatural source, like God, is a bit premature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:

quote:

---

If your sole reason for believing in God, the Bible, heaven, Hell, and all of it is "a feeling you have inside that only God can produce", then what does it mean when someone undergoing brain surgery while still awake (local anesthesia) describes euphoric religious feelings when a certain part of their brains are stimulated?

---

​

I have made a comment on this in another thread, on the idea that alot of things that have been labeled mental "functions" may in fact only be mental "reactions" to the spiritual. Of course as i stated on that thread this is based on what i have seen, in friends that have been diagnosed as having a mental problem that i would diagnose as a spiritual ailment. And in the case of a few have come to know the Lord Jesus and no longer suffer from these "mental illnesses". (note i do not accredit ALL mental illness to spiritual but quite alot.) By the way what is a religious feeling i don't know what that is?

​

---

Gee, you haven't done a lot of reading about brain function, have you?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]Gee, you haven't done a lot of reading about brain function, have you?[/QUOTE][/B]

​

You glossed over his point with an attack on his background. Great tactic.

​

What if he's right?

---

It seems to me that if he was right, in that Jesus is the way to mental health, that there should be a lot more crazy people in non-christian nations. I am willing to bet a nickel that this is not the case.His argument is pure speculation and is not falsafiable to boot. So why do I need to entertain it?I do not dismiss his background. I point out that it is based upon wishes and wonderings rather than any kind of knowledge or findings.Read up on brain function and then tell me how likely it is that mental illness isn't physical.