Reconciliation between Christianity and science
-
The theories r classified as "facts". When u talk about theories, u talk about facts as well. I thought I have given enough evidence tat science treat theories as facts ? Or u do not want to take the definition set by scientists and dictionary ?
What is your definition of fact then? Fact should be unchanging, but theories are changing, subject to modification. How can they be the same?
Wat other system to determine truth r there other than dealing with nature ?
In history you have the historical method. In theology you have hermeneutics. And so on.
Using big words doesn't means anything. Why don't u elaborate instead of giving one word answer
For what? You won't understand anyway .. wahahaha
Oral tradition r man made, i.e nothing holy about it. the only thing tat matters r evidences
Have you heard of oral evidence? -
rubbish......Originally posted by fallin:I don't believe that science and Christianity are born enemies. After all, when you learn science, you discover how God created the nature in perfect order. Sir Issac Newton, I believe was a person who sought to reconcile Christianity and science.
god dun create nature...
its man dat create god instead...
one final advice, dun be too obsessed with religion...
they re all create by human, too obsessed with it n dats it
instead of benifit, u get urself more harm
dun everytime go around physcho pples..... pls respect their initial religion.....
no pt converting pples if they re not willing. -
and dun go around to psycho pple to drop their religions. You are no different from them.Originally posted by pangkee:rubbish......
god dun create nature...
its man dat create god instead...
one final advice, dun be too obsessed with religion...
they re all create by human, too obsessed with it n dats it
instead of benifit, u get urself more harm
dun everytime go around physcho pples..... pls respect their initial religion.....
no pt converting pples if they re not willing. -
Tank youOriginally posted by CenturionMBT:and dun go around to psycho pple to drop their religions. You are no different from them. -
i think you should be aware that your religion is called atheism.Originally posted by pangkee:rubbish......
god dun create nature...
its man dat create god instead...
one final advice, dun be too obsessed with religion...
they re all create by human, too obsessed with it n dats it
instead of benifit, u get urself more harm
dun everytime go around physcho pples..... pls respect their initial religion.....
no pt converting pples if they re not willing. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
Science does not deal with facts? Dealing with facts is the very essence of Science. How do you know what is a fact and what is not? Through Science. How can you disprove a scientific theory? Through science. Scientific methods may be flawed but thats only because they fail to address certain assumptions in their reasoning. The basis of Science is logical reasoning. How can logical reasoning be flawed? Unless you believe that human reason will always be flawed. If so, then how do you know that the interpretation of the Bible is not flawed?
Science determines facts, but science does not deal in facts. It deals with both facts (unchangeable) and theories (changeable).
Anyway, Science is agnostic. It neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. And I read somewhere most Scientists believe in God. However, although Science do not contradict the idea of a God, it does contradict the idea of a Christian God e.g evolution and the other stuff mentioned before.
Its obvious that Christianity has changed over the years. In fact, there are several different branches of Christianity now. People seem to change religion to fit their lifesytles rather than change their lifestyles to fit religion. Then how do you know that this version of Christianity is the right one? What if maybe 2000 years later, people realised that this generation had been misinterpreting the Bible?
Fire in Hell. Fire being a human concept. Angels with wings. Wings being a human concept. Apple, snake and tree...all human concepts.
Christianity is in no way closer to finding the truth than science is. In fact, as Science progresses, Christianity changes to accommodate it. -
Science does not deal with facts? Dealing with facts is the very essence of Science.
You have eyes but you cannot see. I said science does not deal in facts.
How do you know what is a fact and what is not? Through Science. How can you disprove a scientific theory? Through science.
Hahah .. so funny siah you. It is like saying how can you disprove a mathematical conjecture? Through maths. How can you know what Jesus is saying? Through hermeneutics.
You might as well not reply.
Scientific methods may be flawed but thats only because they fail to address certain assumptions in their reasoning.
I wasn't even talking about flawed theories. I was saying theories are subject to modification and discard.
The basis of Science is logical reasoning. How can logical reasoning be flawed?
The basis of science is deduction, induction and inference to best explanation, and to some extent, analogy. Technically speaking, induction can be wrong, I'm sure you know that.
Moreover, science is still a human institution, as such is subject to human flaws like subjectivity and the likes.
Unless you believe that human reason will always be flawed. If so, then how do you know that the interpretation of the Bible is not flawed?
How come discuss science suddenly bring in Bible huh?
However, although Science do not contradict the idea of a God, it does contradict the idea of a Christian God e.g evolution and the other stuff mentioned before.
Not really. As I've always emphasized, the literal understanding of Genesis by certain Christian groups may not be correct. This point is a can of worms. But please be more open minded and do not think the young earth creationists have the perfect and correct understanding of Scripture. -
If you read my post, you will realise what I was saying is that there are hypothesis in this world that we can never prove its validity or falsehood. IF we are to talk about the sciences, mathematics has to be among the most logical since we accept the validity of a theorem only if it is true for infinite cases or even transfinite. A large number of data supporting a conjecture does not imply that the conjecture is true. Rather, it just takes one counter-example to disprove the conjecture. Perhaps you may like to read up on the Mertens Conjecture or Euler's Conjecture.Originally posted by stupidissmart:The fact is, it is sort of proven in the case of new viruses and bacteria tat digest newly found manmade compounds. In the past there r even christians tat believed the earth is flat just because the bible implied such. It is only after the picture of the world is taken then they accept it to be the truth. Why do u believe in the protons and neutrons while not believing evolution ? The reason u do not believe is just because a 2000 year scripture describe something totally different. I find tat believing in god breathing into dust tat form man is a bit... like fairytale or legends... something similar to how nuwa creates man or pang gu formed the world. Do u think tat the bible is more believable than science ?
Scientist in the past use the view of creationism to get fresh idea, and tat is why science get stagnant for so long.
However, even though mathematicis a subject built upon axioms, we still find areas that we cannot prove or disprove. To Icemoon, that is the Godel's Undecidability Theorem.
And SIS, in my post I did not state that I disagree with either the creationist or evolutionist. Rather, my stand is to have an open mind and learn from the two theories. Time will tell which one will stand. -
I am back
What is your definition of fact then? Fact should be unchanging, but theories are changing, subject to modification. How can they be the same?
Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
Tis is the dictionary meaning I have given many replies before. I do not see tis definition to have any problems. U keep saying tat theories r changing. May i ask in the last 50 years, wat theories had been changed ?In history you have the historical method. In theology you have hermeneutics. And so on
I am talking about facts about nature occurances. Why lump in a apple to an orange ?Have you heard of oral evidence?
It depends on who is the one giving the oral evidences. If it is a person who has close relationship or benefits from the debate, then obviously watever he say can only be used as a referencei think you should be aware that your religion is called atheism
Your definition of religion is wrong. Religion involves the belief of supernatural phenomenon. Atheism is not a religion.And I read somewhere most Scientists believe in God
u r wrong in tis area, most scientist now do not believe in a christian godYou have eyes but you cannot see. I said science does not deal in facts
U clearly stated tat u view some facts from science as a "fact". Now u say it do not involves in facts. So science deals with wat ?I wasn't even talking about flawed theories. I was saying theories are subject to modification and discard.
Established theories r never discarded. Tis is true when science itself had become established in recent century.The basis of science is deduction, induction and inference to best explanation, and to some extent, analogy. Technically speaking, induction can be wrong, I'm sure you know that.
I ma pretty sure it beats blind faith as a source for finding facts of nature. Science is the perhaps the best possible method for human to establish the truth. If u don't choose science, u have nothing left to choose from
Moreover, science is still a human institution, as such is subject to human flaws like subjectivity and the likes.Not really. As I've always emphasized, the literal understanding of Genesis by certain Christian groups may not be correct. This point is a can of worms. But please be more open minded and do not think the young earth creationists have the perfect and correct understanding of Scripture.
No one knows who is correct or wrong. They could be the ne who is correct and not u. Talking about cans of worms, there r too many cans of worms for christainity.you read my post, you will realise what I was saying is that there are hypothesis in this world that we can never prove its validity or falsehood. IF we are to talk about the sciences, mathematics has to be among the most logical since we accept the validity of a theorem only if it is true for infinite cases or even transfinite. A large number of data supporting a conjecture does not imply that the conjecture is true. Rather, it just takes one counter-example to disprove the conjecture. Perhaps you may like to read up on the Mertens Conjecture or Euler's Conjecture.
Theories r upgrade from hypothesis. There r no evidence tat proves evolution or other theories to be false.However, even though mathematicis a subject built upon axioms, we still find areas that we cannot prove or disprove. To Icemoon, that is the Godel's Undecidability Theorem.
Despite all tis, it is still a fact tat science gives the best theories and facts than other system. Thinking too much doesn't make science any lesser than it is now. The Godel's undecidability theorem can also run on religious belief as well. It is not specially on science anyway so tat still make science more reliable than religious. In fact it is so much more reliable tat some religion compared their scripture with science development, claiming tat their scripture already follow some scientific theories.And SIS, in my post I did not state that I disagree with either the creationist or evolutionist. Rather, my stand is to have an open mind and learn from the two theories. Time will tell which one will stand.
My stand is, there is a need to justify why does creationism have to be part of the picture. I do not see why should it be there at tis moment in time. Time will tell, but according to evidence time already told us evolution is true. It is just tat u cannot accept it and intend to wait till.. I don't know... the cows to come home ?
I can predict the world will end one day, or pigs can fly, or unicorn will be discovered, or a creature with a pink dophin head with lion mane, duck webbers, monkey body and wings tat look like chicken be found in orchard rd. (u can put in any absurb thing in here really) It is just tat u haven't seen it yet. Time will tell if i am right.