Scientific Facts In The Bible

Leonidas

Jarring

UxoriousMagnus

boncho

I'm going to stop here because there's too much information to cover in one post, and i don't want to "bore you" with scientific facts; that were written about, thousands of years ago.

Weird. I didn't see any of those.

Trying to prove christianity with science one day, trying to say science is all garbage the next. I just don't get the deal with christians. Science shouldn't threaten their position, but they are either trying to usurp it for their own means or claim it has no merit, for their own means…

so not true....I think Christians are just as interested in science as non-CHristians....but you are right....we do look for God in the science. So what? We believe in Him....why wouldn't we look for Him in science?

science is a religion from my point of view. Everything we know is a religion for that matter. Days of the week, to language, labels, cause and effect, and a reason.

Science and religion are anathema.

Science looks for mistakes to learn from them and improve, no matter where it takes them. Religion looks for mistakes to refute them, argue them and further confirm their truths.

Faith and belief, by definition doesnt need proof. Why Christians and others try and use science to prove a belief I shake my head.

i can understand where you get that assumption. but that isn't the point of religion. especially considering my highest values in religion is in the knowledge of sin.

you won't find every single religious person trying to refute science... neither would you find every single scientist trying to refute the religious, although, there are a lot who do.

There are more Christians who rely on science than you think.

Leonidas

Jarring

UxoriousMagnus

boncho

I'm going to stop here because there's too much information to cover in one post, and i don't want to "bore you" with scientific facts; that were written about, thousands of years ago.

Weird. I didn't see any of those.

Trying to prove christianity with science one day, trying to say science is all garbage the next. I just don't get the deal with christians. Science shouldn't threaten their position, but they are either trying to usurp it for their own means or claim it has no merit, for their own means…

so not true....I think Christians are just as interested in science as non-CHristians....but you are right....we do look for God in the science. So what? We believe in Him....why wouldn't we look for Him in science?

science is a religion from my point of view. Everything we know is a religion for that matter. Days of the week, to language, labels, cause and effect, and a reason.

Science and religion are anathema.

Science looks for mistakes to learn from them and improve, no matter where it takes them. Religion looks for mistakes to refute them, argue them and further confirm their truths.

Faith and belief, by definition doesnt need proof. Why Christians and others try and use science to prove a belief I shake my head.

Agreed.

Science relies on evidence, proof, and testing.

Religion relies on faith, belief, and hope.

So you can't say that science would be a religion.

Lingweenie

Jarring

Lingweenie

Jarring
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

And I didn't literally mean that people were stupid back then compared to today. Ignorant would have been a better word to use. But I do not say that in a degrading kind of way. As far as brain structure goes, the human brain has been basically the same for a long time now. They lacked the knowledge and advanced technology we have in modern life. Such as computers, telescopes, satellites, the whole nine yards. They had an understanding of some things. But they were left in the dark by many things as well. More than people today at least.

I think naive would be a better suited word. Ignorance assumes that they ignore information that is available to them. Naivety is to ignore information that is not available to them, and it's understandable.

edit on 01/24/14 by Jarring because: (no reason given)

Yes you could also say naive in some instances I suppose. But the word ignorant isn't the rejection of information. It just the unknowing and unawareness of the information. Both words would actually be considered synonyms.

hmm, i suppose.
I just understand ignorance from it's root word ignore. I use terms like stupid, ignorance, and naivety separately. Like for me, none of them are necessarily bad. stupidity has to do with being overburdened by information to the point of inaction. naivety is to be without information due to lack of experience. ignorance is to ignore information out of naivety.

I can see how you would call them synonyms, but I find them both to have a specific meaning. It seems to me that people toss around words a lot without putting much thought into their meaning, and it's not just these words I'm speaking of.

how you define ignorance is how i define naivety.

edit on 01/24/14 by Jarring because: (no reason given)

I agree that people usually associate those two words with stupidity, but that isn't the case. People often try to use those words as insults though.

And naive and ignorant are pretty similar, but they do have a small difference in their definitions.

A naive person is someone who lacks judgment, experience, or wisdom.

Ignorance on the other hand is just someone who is unaware or oblivious to information/knowledge.

They both are worded a bit differently, but the common descriptive words between the two are roughly the same also. Some more than others.

The way I see it, is that a naive or ignorant person usually doesn't know that they are being naive, or ignorant. But both may have an awareness of their unawareness, and do it deliberately.

I'll give an example.

I could say to someone "That is an ignorant thing to say." Or "That is a naive thing to say." But, that doesn't say that they are doing it knowingly. So you'd have to assume otherwise, unless it is stated that they did indeed to it on purpose.

You would have to say something like "That is willfully ignorant thing to say" Or "That is a purposely naive think to say." In this instance you would have to add a more illuminating word such as an adverb or adjective to really say that they are doing it out of awareness or knowing.

That's just the way that I make of it at least. A tad bit confusing, but it would seem like it would be using the words a little more properly.

i get your point, but it's hard for me to inherently understand ignorance as something other than to deny the information at hand. like to deny information that is available to them.

What would you call that? That's how I define ignorance.

I understand your definition of naivety, and define it likewise, but i also understand your definition of ignorance as an extended version of naivety.

I get your point, and understand where you're coming from, but I can't just drop my own understanding, if you get what I mean.

like, from my own experiences of seeing ignorance in action, it seems like my definition is the case most suited for the word, despite it's actual definition.

perhaps, ignorance is just more specific to knowledge, and naivety to experience.

and what I've been experiencing to confirm my knowledge of the word is an extended meaning of the term, rather than the actual meaning which is more simple.

would make more sense that way. and naivety being an extension of ignorance was and is a normal truth.

it just seems ignorance as a word made more sense to me that way... to be without information doesn't seem like you would be necessarily ignoring it. Ignoring it sounds like it implies you knew it was there.

I suppose you don't HAVE to be aware of something to ignore it, but it always seems to be the case when the word is acknowledged.

edit
also, i had applied the actual definition to my own definition of stupidity: to be burdened with information to the point of inaction. like the information is there, we just cannot fathom it.

pleasethink
Also, I love science and I believe that God exists. I mean I really love science. I hate that people seem to have this stereotype that is you believe in God you are some boob who just hates the crap out of science. It is something I love dearly, as it reveals things that I long to understand. I have referred to it in the past as like touching the face of God. I just won't support science that is not based upon its own millenniums of recognized scientific protocols. This stuff goes way back people.

Would you mind explaining the scientific processes by which you investigated, identified and verified the existence of your supposed deity? I mean, seeing as how you love science so much, surely you utilized it's tools and techniques in your search for such a meaningful answer?

reply to post by Lingweenie


Actually, it can be found by entering the search "worlds oldest computer" on any of the major search engines. Also, from a primitive standpoint, what it possesses are called complications to a watch maker. The more complications it possesses, the more valuable. I believe one which was made by the swiss with the most complications sold for well over 100000 dollars just recently. So the mechanism, if still in use today, would still be considered highly advanced, and would take a master watchmaker to reproduce. Rolex would probably make it.

At Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, a team of astronomers was using cutting-edge computers to recreate the orbits of the planets, thousands of years in the past. Suddenly, an error message flashes up. There's a problem: way back in history, one whole day appears to be missing. Scientists are baffled as to why there seems to be a missing day.

Joshua 10:13 King James Bible
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a "WHOLE DAY".

English Standard Version
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a "WHOLE DAY".

New International Version
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a FULL DAY".

Douay-Rheims Bible
And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of "ONE DAY".

Could this be the missing day the scientist are looking for?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I didn't utilize any scientific process to prove my deity. Although I did utilize logic. The point of this thread was, I believe, to show that science and the Bible are not necessarily separate, but rather intertwined in a way that is beautiful and meaningful. I also believe that some of the people who have posted to this thread have shown this quite accurately. When a book written thousands of years ago talks about the world being round, describes the hydrological cycle, references that day and night can occur at the same time on the earth, speaks about the universe singing out to the Lord(this is actually somewhere else on this site, although an easy way to find it would be to search planets vibrational frequencies), I start to take notice. Maybe one part I could dismiss. But a multitude of evidence that some knowledge would have been impossible for these people to have had at the time it was written. And many of these things are just being put on display today! It shows intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the universe. My belief is that many prominent scientists throughout our history have utilized clues from the Bible to know where to start looking. People throughout history, including many prominent men and scholars more well regarded than I will ever be read this book and accepted it as the Word of God, probably for the same reasons I have just shown. I think the reasons they reject it now is because it is all winding down. I used to talk to people about this and my friend told me a relevant story which I have never forgot. He said in Florida they recently had a gun buy back program. Everyone knew that it would be beneficial if criminals would sell their guns, in every way. But in the end no one turned up. He asked me you know why? He said "People don't want to give up their guns. It's just like their sins. They know it would be a better place if they did. They just don't want to give them up." And so they attack anyone who would suggest it. This is where the Bible stands. Being untried and attacked for foolish reasons. As a side note, I am pro gun. I think everyone should be required to own one.

reply to post by pleasethink


You sang praises about science, then admit to having omitted its practices entirely in the course of your investigations. How, then, are your conclusions logically sound in the eyes of your scientific interest?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Did you even read what I just said? I think not. Anyways, how in your educated opinion, would someone utilize the scientific process to read a book? Would one hypothesize that "This book is unfinished. I want to know what happens when I finish a book." Then experiment by reading said book until the end and then proclaim "Eureka!". The argument sounds ridiculous. How about this. I wanted to know if God was real(hypothesis). I then looked through many books to find one that was up to snuff and had touched my heart as being both unexplainable as to the knowledge it possesses about the seen world, and also the unseen world.(experiment). I started to implement these words into my everyday life and began to see His magnitude everywhere I looked.(application). So I guess you could say yes, I did use the scientific process to acknowledge that God does exist. Thank you for asking.

reply to post by pleasethink

Did you even read what I just said? I think not. Anyways, how in your educated opinion, would someone utilize the scientific process to read a book? Would one hypothesize that "This book is unfinished. I want to know what happens when I finish a book."

How does this at all equate to the point I was making? It doesn't take rocket science to test a god. The scientific method should do the trick. Since this thread is all about "scientific facts", let's try establishing some. Use the scientific method to determine some scientific facts about your god.

I wanted to know if God was real(hypothesis). I then looked through many books to find one that was up to snuff and had touched my heart as being both unexplainable as to the knowledge it possesses about the seen world, and also the unseen world.

Excellent. Now tell me, what exactly did you do to test these conclusions? You are by no means a master of any field of study, correct? Which means that your assessments are based on a limited range of experience and education. That is why science is so important.

So I guess you could say yes, I did use the scientific process to acknowledge that God does exist. Thank you for asking.

...Do you even know what the scientific method is? Because what you just described is a poor excuse for a scientific investigation.

mahatche

UxoriousMagnus

Gryphon66

UxoriousMagnus

Rodinus

UxoriousMagnus

boncho

I'm going to stop here because there's too much information to cover in one post, and i don't want to "bore you" with scientific facts; that were written about, thousands of years ago.

Weird. I didn't see any of those.

Trying to prove christianity with science one day, trying to say science is all garbage the next. I just don't get the deal with christians. Science shouldn't threaten their position, but they are either trying to usurp it for their own means or claim it has no merit, for their own means…

so not true....I think Christians are just as interested in science as non-CHristians....but you are right....we do look for God in the science. So what? We believe in Him....why wouldn't we look for Him in science?

Religion is just a "WORD" invented by a couple of bored people around a camp fire one evening after a little too much mead or whatever substance they were smoking or snorting up their nostrils at the time (IMO)...

That simple 8 letter word has done SOOOO much damage to this planet and to the human mentality...

Science is the evolution of our species... full stop.

Kindest respects

Rodinus

not how the human brain works....can't sit around and come up with something completely new....like the idea of an all powerful God that created everything.

What? WHAT? Humans don't come up with something completely new? According to who what where or when? I look around at our technology, medicine, and general lifestyle ... and can only think that has to be one of the most out-of-touch-with-reality statements I've ever read.

Head of brain research at MIT .. Dr. Natapoff..... humans can't have come up with the idea of a God because our brains are not wired to conceive of completely new ideas. Our brains are wired to make better mouse traps.

Example: see a rock roll down the hill.....come up with the wheel. See a bird fly....come up with an airplane. See lightning bolts....come up with electricity. Once someone makes the jump from nature to "man-made"....then it keeps snow balling.

prove him wrong....I tried for years and couldn't come up with something that wasn't derived from something else and eventually comes back to nature.

Early superstitious people believe tornado where demons/angry spirits. Did a god come and tell them tornado where demons? Or did they just build a story for something they had no understanding of? Before we had these personal gods like the one found in the bible, people where worshiping the sun. They saw a big glowing thing in the sky, that they didn't understand, but it seemed pretty important to them, and they built stories around it. The sun never spoke to them, and your idea of god didn't exist at the time. People where building stories before ideas of your god existed.

worshiping something they see and coming up with stories about those things is not the same as coming up with an all powerful God in another dimension.....another dimension....another dimension....that created all things from nothing.

But I get your point

Just telling you what the head of brain research at MIT said....nothing more.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


www.sciencebuddies.org...
I made it simple for you cause you seem to be having trouble.

pleasethink
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

www.sciencebuddies.org...
I made it simple for you cause you seem to be having trouble.

And did you do any of that? How many questions did you ask?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Also, I believe I spoke about the untestable nature of God before. Test time. Test light. Test fire. You could probably tell me a lot about photons and things like this but have you ever scientifically tested any of these things? But yet you regard them as gospel. Any test done would not produce any results as all are untestable. You can take the remnants of fire and theorize the products of combustion, which has been done. But any actual test done on fire itself would burn you. You could theorize light and its methods, but could you test it scientifically in any meaningful way? It is clearly there. You live in an infinitely complexed, perfectly balanced world. You respond from an infinitely balanced and complex machine which makes it possible for you to type the words you type. If you want signs, they are literally all around you.

reply to post by pleasethink


lol, i said it was immoral to test God, you can guess where that went.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I believe an infant would deduct that if I wanted to know if there was a God, my first question would be "Is there a God?". Maybe by your score I am giving you too much intelligence credit. I believe I outlined the scientific method quite masterfully.

boncho

I'm going to stop here because there's too much information to cover in one post, and i don't want to "bore you" with scientific facts; that were written about, thousands of years ago.

Weird. I didn't see any of those.

Trying to prove christianity with science one day, trying to say science is all garbage the next. I just don't get the deal with christians. Science shouldn't threaten their position, but they are either trying to usurp it for their own means or claim it has no merit, for their own means…

You described the entire human race there, not just Christians.. The thing is, there are lots and lots of people from every type religion, and non religion, and whatever else, and they all claim all sorts of things that don't have anything to do with Christianity, but they are feeling proud and special, and so make all kinds of claims.. Same for atheists... Too much pride, over zealous attitudes, etc, etc.
There are also a few different types of each religion, plus we have those fundamentalists who have some quite silly notions all by themselves (not judging, just laughing with them), .. That is an example of extreme self pride and to the point of people rewriting law, quotes, scripture, and stuff like that.. I'm sure I missed something there...

In actuality, you got it right, Science is harmonious with any belief, and if it isn't, then the science is either wrong, or the belief is faulty.. I'll go with people being more faulty much of the time..
It isn't religion causing any wars, it's people redefining what they believe, to include all sorts of other things they are going to need in order to justify that next war.. then the world just blames religion again, and the cycle starts over again..

pleasethink
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Also, Richard Dawkins himself has come forward to say that there is probable evidence of intelligent design. Of course he still denies God. But just wanted to point that out.

Can you please provide quote where Richard Dawkins has said that? He said, as every other scientist - there is no proof or disproof for existence of God, spaghetti monster, unicorns...

Jarring
I think for the sake of the thread, it would help if people would not try to discredit the religion.

If you have an argument, it would be best if it applied to the scientific or historical facts within the Bible.

I usually leave to Bible and religious folks to discredit the religion.

Speaking of 'facts' in bible, do you know what happened when Bill the science guy pointed out that moon is not great light in sky, but just reflection of sun. People booed him, some women took kids and run away... science is really heresy to some...

topekasnews.com...

Jarring
lol, i said it was immoral to test God, you can guess where that went.

Why? How do you imagine any form debate if it is immoral to test 'god'.

Here is Sam Harris' take on god:

reply to post by SuperFrog


The last time I looked at the moon it was pretty durn bright. A lightbulb isn't a light, either. It's a lightbulb. Also a flashlight is a flashlight. Just because it gives off massive amounts of light, it is not a light. It is paradoxical, and is ridiculous that I have to point this out to you.