Reconciliation between Christianity and science
-
I find it very strange,people believe in potiananak,ghost,vampire,etc, yet don't believe in God
If u believe in pontianak, ghost, vampire etc, u can't believe in god because christainity don't accept them as truth.
BTW I don't believe in these kiddy stuff as well. -
The Bible has many instances of demons,ghosts etc etc. Christianity dont accept them as truth but we accept they exist.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If u believe in pontianak, ghost, vampire etc, u can't believe in god because christainity don't accept them as truth.
BTW I don't believe in these kiddy stuff as well. -
Demon there is alot, but vampires and ghost, there r none. (take note tat u never mention about demon in your earlier reply) When I mean ghost, I don't mean holy ghost or spirits. Ghost meant the spirit of the deceased for common natural men which had appeared and animate in the human world. Do they mention tis in the bible ? If u talk about ghost, then u r talking about chinese or malay belief. So if u believe in ghost, u have a clash of faith.
-
Think have leh.Originally posted by stupidissmart:When I mean ghost, I don't mean holy ghost or spirits. Ghost meant the spirit of the deceased for common natural men which had appeared and animate in the human world. Do they mention tis in the bible ?
In the Jewish Tanakh, there is an episode of the ghost of Samuel
-
I search the bible and only 3 samuel is there.... none of them speaks of him as a ghost but him as a prophet.
-
Huh?Originally posted by fallin:The Bible has many instances of demons,ghosts etc etc. Christianity dont accept them as truth but we accept they exist.
Ghosts != True,
But Exists?! -
People die liao then become ghost right?Originally posted by stupidissmart:I search the bible and only 3 samuel is there.... none of them speaks of him as a ghost but him as a prophet.
You go search for the Witch of Endor. This is a hint. -
okie, I found the ghost of samuel... If u ask me, from the passage it appears tat the old medium (witch) had more powers than the priest or father we have now. At least they can conjure out spirits.
Some questions to ask. Wat happen when a person die ? Where do their spirit go to ? -
Yes, i believe in atoms, proton, neutrons, electrons, gravity, germs, we are made of cells and germs.
DO u believe tat atoms r made from proton, neutrons and electrons ? Do u believe in gravity ? Do u believe tat living things r made up of cells ? Do u believe in photons which is used to explain the discrete level of energy of element ? Do u believe tat germs exists ? Surely these r science knowledge tat even kids knows about[/b]
But, a big 'but' here, can't you see that all these that you mentioned are independent of theory of evolution? They exist whether or not evolution is true. I will agree whole heartedly with you if you classify these studies as Science, but evolution as science - very far fetched.
In fact, i think evolution is more of a popular belief. I was watching discovery yesterday night and researchers are beginning to suspect that the T-Rex may not be a predetor at all, or even a vegetarian with sharp teeth to chew of the bark and the hard fruits. talk about a 100 years of misguided popular belief. That would throw the Jurassic Park franchise out of the window as well.
Oh well. -
Yes, i believe in atoms, proton, neutrons, electrons, gravity, germs, we are made of cells and germs.
I don't know if u r distracting the people or fail to understand... In your previous post u ask why does the term "theory" remain for evolution. I tell u tat being labelled as theory is already very prestigious. The examples like atoms, protons, gravity etc is to show tat the term THEORIES ALREADY MEANT TAT IT IS WIDELY ACCEPTED AS A FACT, AND LAWS ARE SOMETIMES DERIVED FROM THESE THEORIES. It is not to show tat they r linked to evolution or anything, but to show tat evolution too is a theory and it meant it had achieve facthood and is said tat "logical and rational people would accept it as being true". If u think tat protons, electrons etc r true, then u should accept evolution as true since they r graded by almost all the scientists to be at the same level. Tat is they r all theories.
But, a big 'but' here, can't you see that all these that you mentioned are independent of theory of evolution? They exist whether or not evolution is true. I will agree whole heartedly with you if you classify these studies as Science, but evolution as science - very far fetched.In fact, i think evolution is more of a popular belief. I was watching discovery yesterday night and researchers are beginning to suspect that the T-Rex may not be a predetor at all, or even a vegetarian with sharp teeth to chew of the bark and the hard fruits. talk about a 100 years of misguided popular belief. That would throw the Jurassic Park franchise out of the window as well.
Evolution is a fact. Evolution is not a hypothesis. Evolution is a sceintific theory and by tat term, it meant it is tested, experimented, supported by tons of evidence, can explain a lot of everyday life well and can predict future scientific trends. There r scientist tat says a dust bowl is noah's ark as well, which is proven to be wrong. There r scientist tat say a dinosaur foot prints r human made, and he is also wrong as well. The point is, u don't believe wat anyone says, but should more inclined to believe in wat everyone says. There r always some freak people talking about ridiculous things. U should see through the evidence and see if u agree with the conclusion or not. Evolution is a fundamental theory in biology and medical tat it is as placed to be as important as the theory of atomic structure for electronics/electrical engineers. Frankly the more people argue tat evolution is wrong because of their religious belief, the more it make them look dumb and stubborn to reject a scientific fact tat is so well proven. It is almost the same in the past when christians used believe the earth is flat. Talk about 2000 years of misguided popular belief...
Oh well. -
Excuse me, SIS, there is no fact in science since finding absolute truth is not the purpose of science.
-
Excuse me, SIS, there is no fact in science since finding absolute truth is not the purpose of science
Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
from dictionary.com again. And from tat statement, it can be seen tat there r scientific facts establish from science. I don't know u r trying to twist words here or there but science seek out to know knowledge or information based on real occurrences, which is fact. Science is in short, seeking out the truth. Shall I find out the meaning of "truth" for u ? Here goes...
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
truth: a statement proven to be or accepted as true
SO now again, wat do u mean tat there r no facts in science ? -
Where does it say truth in the definition? Science is about dealing with phenomena and finding, using the scientific method, the best explanation for it.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.truth: a statement proven to be or accepted as true
Science can not be proven. Truth is something accepted as true? Wahaha .. a bit like begging the question leh -
Perhaps we will like to consider the case of ether which was taken as truth for nearly 2 centuries before it was defunk by Einstein. Before that, it was an unproven theory yet widely accepted as truth. This results from not having enough knowledge and equipment to test its hypothesis. For evolution, it may seem like truth now but it could be because we have not throughly understood everything. There is no certainities in any theories... any theory formulated from a predetermined set of axioms will always have questions that can never be proven truth or false.. so as scientist we should not be too eager to condemn the creationist but perhaps use their angle to get fresh ideas.
My two cents worth -
Where does it say truth in the definition? Science is about dealing with phenomena and finding, using the scientific method, the best explanation for it.
Isn't tat finding the facts of the world
Wat difference do u see with
observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
to finding facts of the world ? SO newton law of motion is not a fact and it is not true ? Water vapour in air is not a fact and not true ? The principle of thermodynamics r not facts nor true ? A properly maintained moving magnet can produce electricity is not a fact and not true ? Then how on earth do we get to have the scientific wonders around us ?Science can not be proven. Truth is something accepted as true? Wahaha .. a bit like begging the question leh
Science proves certain phenomenon. If it is not true, the things will not behave as predicted in science. Your common computer need so much concise scientific facts in order for it to be built and work. If any rungs of science which was used to built the computer is not true, it won't work. IMO, u r just trying to play around with words and there r nothing meaningful to it.Perhaps we will like to consider the case of ether which was taken as truth for nearly 2 centuries before it was defunk by Einstein. Before that, it was an unproven theory yet widely accepted as truth. This results from not having enough knowledge and equipment to test its hypothesis. For evolution, it may seem like truth now but it could be because we have not throughly understood everything. There is no certainities in any theories... any theory formulated from a predetermined set of axioms will always have questions that can never be proven truth or false.. so as scientist we should not be too eager to condemn the creationist but perhaps use their angle to get fresh ideas
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. -
Cool .. I see one educated person here. Godel's Theorem?Originally posted by greengoblin:There is no certainities in any theories... any theory formulated from a predetermined set of axioms will always have questions that can never be proven truth or false.. so as scientist we should not be too eager to condemn the creationist but perhaps use their angle to get fresh ideas.
My two cents worth
Actually scientists condemn creationists 'cos the latter use pseudo-science and pretend that it is science. Anyone can come out with wild ideas. It is whether the idea can stand up to rigorous scientific method that is the problem.
Two cents only? I think your post is worth *more* than that. -
When did it say what you found is fact?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Isn't tat finding the facts of the world Wat difference do u see with
observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
to finding facts of the world ?Science proves certain phenomenon. If it is not true, the things will not behave as predicted in science.
Science can not prove. Science works using deduction, induction and inference to the best explanation. The last two methods cannot prove. Just think of Hume's problem of induction.IMO, u r just trying to play around with words and there r nothing meaningful to it.
imHo, You are the one playing with the word 'prove' without even thinking about it. -
When did it say what you found is fact?
an earlier reply
And from tat statement, it can be seen tat there r scientific facts establish from science. I don't know u r trying to twist words here or there but science seek out to know knowledge or information based on real occurrences, which is fact.Science can not prove. Science works using deduction, induction and inference to the best explanation. The last two methods cannot prove. Just think of Hume's problem of induction
from dictionary.com again,
prove : To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence
tat is wat obviously science is doing, presenting evidence to establish the truth. Why can't science prove ? What is your definition of prove ?imHo, You are the one playing with the word 'prove' without even thinking about it
Who is playing with the word "prove" now ? -
And from tat statement, it can be seen tat there r scientific facts establish from science. I don't know u r trying to twist words here or there but science seek out to know knowledge or information based on real occurrences, which is fact.
What is the context? What earlier statement?
Your argument is flawed. Historically there are many theories which hold true for quite some time but proven to be wrong later, or insufficient. From hindsight, what they seek to establish and what they established cannot be a fact right? So you telling me those are not science?
Consider this statement "If it is science, it is fact". The modus tollens form will be "If it is not a fact, it is not science" You can see how ridiculous is the statement, unless you think scientists never make mistakes?prove : To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence
Yes, presentation of argument is about deduction. But science is not only about deduction, as I told you.
tat is wat obviously science is doing, presenting evidence to establish the truth. Why can't science prove ? What is your definition of prove ?
Your understanding of "prove" is like a court of law of something? You can give evidence that an event happened in the past. However science deals with reproducibility and verifiability as well, events that happen in the future. There is already assumption made that there exist a natural order. You can't prove that there is this natural order. You can't use deduction to prove it.Who is playing with the word "prove" now ?
SIS lor, who else? -
What is the context? What earlier statement?
There r some scientific theories tat do proved to be wrong. however nevertheless it is still the most accurate way of determining facts from the world. Just because science changes with time doesn't means the things it said r not true. It must have some truth in it, otherwise it will never behaves the way it was predicted. If science is not true, wat is true ? Nothing is true in tis world then. The word "fact" have no meaning and no use watsoever since nothing can be graded as a "fact". Therefore a line have to be cut to know wat is fact or not. In the normal case, where it is perceived to be based on real occurances, then it is a fact. Sciences nevertheless still established facts such as water vapour in the air and salt in the sea. Can u tell me u do not believe in the water cycle ? can u tell me u do not believe in electricity ? If u can't, u already accepted them as facts isn't it ? Then wat is your argument about ? U accept certain science as fact but u do not accept science giving facts ?!?!?
Your argument is flawed. Historically there are many theories which hold true for quite some time but proven to be wrong later, or insufficient. From hindsight, what they seek to establish and what they established cannot be a fact right? So you telling me those are not science?Consider this statement "If it is science, it is fact". The modus tollens form will be "If it is not a fact, it is not science" You can see how ridiculous is the statement, unless you think scientists never make mistakes?
Don't go around twisting the argument. If it is science it is a fact. But not all facts r based on science. It is like all thunder transmit sounds but not all sounds r from thunder.Your understanding of "prove" is like a court of law of something? You can give evidence that an event happened in the past. However science deals with reproducibility and verifiability as well, events that happen in the future.
It is not my understanding of prove, it is the dictionary understanding of "prove". U want to change the definition for "prove" from a dictionary ?
Deduction ? Please read carefully, "proving" can be done by evidence as well. If u provide evidence it can be established as proving out a point. In the specific case like science, the prove can be used to predict future trends. However tat is the specific case of science, and not general cases. Why do u pull in court martial etc ? Try to pull wools over other people eyes ?There is already assumption made that there exist a natural order. You can't prove that there is this natural order. You can't use deduction to prove it.
And why not believe in a natural order ? Experiments and results had shown tat there is a natural world order, tat is under the stated conditions, all the things behave similarly at all time till now. There r no ground to believe tat it doesn't exists. In short, there is more evidence tat proves it exists rather than not.SIS lor, who else
Who is the one who play with the word "prove" and try to deny the meaning given in the dictionary ? Seems to be a pretty dumb action... -
There r some scientific theories tat do proved to be wrong. however nevertheless it is still the most accurate way of determining facts from the world.
Now you agree with me? Science determines fact, but what is determined may not be fact, so ultimately science is not about facts.
Just because science changes with time doesn't means the things it said r not true. It must have some truth in it, otherwise it will never behaves the way it was predicted.
I never said what the things it said are not true. I only know, with proper scientific method, they are the closest thing we have to the truth. During the era of Newton, his ideas are the closest thing they have to the truth. When Einstein came out with relativity, we are brought one step closer.
A lot of things have some truth also, but you're demanding absolute truth so this has no place in your argument. I can also say the gospel has some truth in it, but people like you refuse to even accept this some-truth and demand total evidence.
The word "fact" have no meaning and no use watsoever since nothing can be graded as a "fact".
Why not? Things that happened five minutes ago are facts. 9-11 is a fact. GST in Singapore is a fact.
Don't go around twisting the argument. If it is science it is a fact. But not all facts r based on science. It is like all thunder transmit sounds but not all sounds r from thunder.
What did I say that made you think the way?
It is not my understanding of prove, it is the dictionary understanding of "prove". U want to change the definition for "prove" from a dictionary ?
What is so great about a dictionary, what's more a layman dictionary defining a rather technical term. A dictionary is ultimately carbon on paper. The meaning of words is situated in the discourse.
Deduction ? Please read carefully, "proving" can be done by evidence as well. If u provide evidence it can be established as proving out a point.
I wonder whether you understood my reply. Now I'm beginning to suspect whether you know what is deduction. Evidence itself does not constitute a proof. It has to be expressed as a deduction. You know the famous 'butler did it' argument? This is deduction.
And why not believe in a natural order ? Experiments and results had shown tat there is a natural world order, tat is under the stated conditions, all the things behave similarly at all time till now. There r no ground to believe tat it doesn't exists. In short, there is more evidence tat proves it exists rather than not.
Read Hume's problem of induction. It is not as clear cut as you think it is - just believe in a natural order?
Who is the one who play with the word "prove" and try to deny the meaning given in the dictionary ? Seems to be a pretty dumb action
Dictionary meanings are often devoid of the context. Anyway the definition you gave wasn't specific, which I feel is the problem. For example, it said "argument", but of what kind? I need to remind you inductive argument is not valid in Math (dun confuse with mathematical induction pls). -
Now you agree with me? Science determines fact, but what is determined may not be fact, so ultimately science is not about facts.
U know wat u r talking about ? Science determines facts. I have asked for 2 times already and I will ask again. DO u believe in water cycle ? Do u believe in electricity ? If u do, u already acknowledge them as facts. Science is about facts.I never said what the things it said are not true. I only know, with proper scientific method, they are the closest thing we have to the truth. During the era of Newton, his ideas are the closest thing they have to the truth. When Einstein came out with relativity, we are brought one step closer.
If u talk about absolute truth, science comes closer compared with other system. It still boils down to the same fact tat Gospel hold some truth ? Like ? If u talk about hume induction, it doesn't give more grounds in believing in a 2000 year old book either.
A lot of things have some truth also, but you're demanding absolute truth so this has no place in your argument. I can also say the gospel has some truth in it, but people like you refuse to even accept this some-truth and demand total evidence.Why not? Things that happened five minutes ago are facts. 9-11 is a fact. GST in Singapore is a fact.
Maybe the things u perceived is not the one in actual scenario. Maybe u r living in a matrix like environment where robots actually rule the world. Maybe u r just a looney and imagine this whole world out while u r locked in IMH. Tis argument is the same as your hume problem to induction. It will be thinking too much to the point of stopping all progresses in our knowledgeWhat is so great about a dictionary, what's more a layman dictionary defining a rather technical term. A dictionary is ultimately carbon on paper. The meaning of words is situated in the discourse
Your definition may be "unique" and only u have tis interpretation. To be fair, the wordings used must be understood by all parties as they r intended. To achieve this the dictionary comes into the picture. Who knows, maybe u define a pig as a cow or pink as the normal colour of the sky. Then wat is the point of continuing if u can come out with meaning to any words u like ? To be fair, the dictionary will be used to define the meaning of the words.
A dictionary is ultimately carbon on paper ? The whole bible is also just carbon on paperI wonder whether you understood my reply. Now I'm beginning to suspect whether you know what is deduction. Evidence itself does not constitute a proof. It has to be expressed as a deduction. You know the famous 'butler did it' argument? This is deduction
Then wat is your point ? So science is not about deduction, it is about wat then ?Read Hume's problem of induction. It is not as clear cut as you think it is - just believe in a natural order?
Mentioning about Hume is totally irrelevant. I just have to ask u if u believe in the water cycle ? Do u believe tat the computer in front of u will explode before u ? If u don't then u have already use your experience and determine the answer. U already believed in a nature world order. U don't believe snow is cold ? The answer is simple, since it is always true in the past, we accept them to be true in future in order for us to progress.Dictionary meanings are often devoid of the context. Anyway the definition you gave wasn't specific, which I feel is the problem. For example, it said "argument", but of what kind? I need to remind you inductive argument is not valid in Math (dun confuse with mathematical induction pls
The point u r going through is u just wanna confuse people. All i want to ask u is do u believe in simple scientific facts such as the water cycle. I have ask tis many many times and I want an answer for it. If u do, then u already have not practise wat u preach and believe in science holding the truth. If u don't, then i am wondering why r u typing words in front of a computer which will probably eat u up or something since it may change. -
I prefer to look at Creationism as the ultimate cause of why all things are created , including the "God" that supposedly created this world. If I was this "God", I will wonder why I was created and what is my purpose of existence.
I believe that everything sprung from the absolute nothingness. Evolution is only the changes to the things over time. -
U know wat u r talking about ? Science determines facts. I have asked for 2 times already and I will ask again. DO u believe in water cycle ? Do u believe in electricity ? If u do, u already acknowledge them as facts. Science is about facts.
Science determines facts, but science does not deal in facts. It deals with both facts (unchangeable) and theories (changeable). You have persistently ignored the second part.
If u talk about absolute truth, science comes closer compared with other system. It still boils down to the same fact tat Gospel hold some truth ? Like ?
Not really. You are making a sweeping statement. Science comes closer compared with other systems only when it deals with nature.
Tis argument is the same as your hume problem to induction. It will be thinking too much to the point of stopping all progresses in our knowledge
You want to discuss epistemology now?
Then wat is the point of continuing if u can come out with meaning to any words u like ? To be fair, the dictionary will be used to define the meaning of the words.
What now? Wittgenstein and language theories?
A dictionary is ultimately carbon on paper ? The whole bible is also just carbon on paper
Well said. That is why you need oral tradition right? Duh.
Then wat is your point ? So science is not about deduction, it is about wat then ?
Science is about deduction, induction and inference to the best explanation.
The point u r going through is u just wanna confuse people. All i want to ask u is do u believe in simple scientific facts such as the water cycle. I have ask tis many many times and I want an answer for it.
So what is your point? So what if I believe? You can believe in the ether theory when it was prevalent too. -
Science determines facts, but science does not deal in facts. It deals with both facts (unchangeable) and theories (changeable). You have persistently ignored the second part.
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 ?Not really. You are making a sweeping statement. Science comes closer compared with other systems only when it deals with nature.
Wat other system to determine truth r there other than dealing with nature ?You want to discuss epistemology now?
Using big words doesn't means anything. Why don't u elaborate instead of giving one word answer
What now? Wittgenstein and language theories?Well said. That is why you need oral tradition right? Duh
Oral tradition r man made, i.e nothing holy about it. the only thing tat matters r evidencesSo what is your point? So what if I believe? You can believe in the ether theory when it was prevalent too.
U yourself believe it to be a fact. Remember tis statement ?
Excuse me, SIS, there is no fact in science since finding absolute truth is not the purpose of science
So u believe science to offer facts now. So wat is your problem with science then ?