The Creation Museum

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Theoretically I believe that everything has a natural explanation, but there are currently huge gaps in our knowledge about the universe. But I don't substitute ignorance with a divine explanation. It's acceptable to not know something in science - we don't know how the universe came to be or exactly how life first started on this planet - but that doesn't make the scientific method less credible.

And I've stated this before and will do so again: I not 100% certain that God or a creator doesn't exist. I think it's very unlikely, however I do accept the slight possibility.

So it follows that since science doesn't know everything there's nothing incongruent with believeing something can be explained supernaturally.

 

[redbenn]

So it follows that since science doesn't know everything there's nothing incongruent with believeing something can be explained supernaturally.

I think that is a gigantic cop out. Filling the gaps of knowledge with, "well we don't know right now, so it has to be 'magical' explanation"

 

[Brewtus]

So it follows that since science doesn't know everything there's nothing incongruent with believeing something can be explained supernaturally.

Well technically it's people that have knowledge and science is the method used to gain that knowledge, but by definition "supernatural" lies outside the realm of science (which only deals with the natural universe). If one were to accept a supernatural explanation, what is the specific method used to test that the explanation is correct? For instance, if an observation has multiple supernatural explanations, how does one test each explanation to determine which is correct? That's one of the issue I have with supernatural explanations - there's no way to test if your explanation is more probable than a Hindu's or a Scientologist's or just some random person on the street.

 

[muffler dragon]

Theoretically I believe that everything has a natural explanation, but there are currently huge gaps in our knowledge about the universe. But I don't substitute ignorance with a divine explanation. It's acceptable to not know something in science - we don't know how the universe came to be or exactly how life first started on this planet - but that doesn't make the scientific method less credible.

I realize that this delves into philosophical considerations instead of "concrete" scientific endeavors, but just to throw it out there: have you ever considered in an "a priori" sense that there could be a supernatural basis to all that is natural? What I mean by this could be elaborated on in the following considerations:

1) The fact that molecules have an attraction at all.
2) The fact that things have a beginning in the first place.
3) Items such as punctuated equilibrium. What I mean is that there could be a supernatural "guidance" to natural events which direct them in a particular manner.

And I've stated this before and will do so again: I not 100% certain that God or a creator doesn't exist. I think it's very unlikely, however I do accept the slight possibility.

Completely acceptable, and it's a helluva proclamation. It's similar to my concept of G-d in the sense that I consider Deity to be ineffable. I take this even to the extent that I am technically agnostic since that would be the sum of taking ineffable to its exreme.

I may look into the book.

As it is the thing that is most important to me in my life, I don't have a problem answering in public. But also as the most important it requires great reverence and thought.

If I had to sum it up it one sentence as simply as possible: I have accepted the free gift of Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection as the only satisfaction for my sins against God.

I have a slight internal debate about the word only. It might be superflous, but I think leaving it out is more problematic than keeping it in.

I also debate about adding something along the lines of what James talks about in his epistle about how faith changes you because I'm no proponent of easy believism either, but that's dangerous too.

1) Thanks for sharing.
2) If I were to start on Soteriology, would you have an interest in continuing the discussion there?
3) I have no idea what you attempting to share in the emboldened sentence. I believe I'm being obtuse, but I just am not grasping it. Would you mind elaborating or clarifying for me?

Well technically it's people that have knowledge and science is the method used to gain that knowledge, but by definition "supernatural" lies outside the realm of science (which only deals with the natural universe). If one were to accept a supernatural explanation, what is the specific method used to test that the explanation is correct? For instance, if an observation has multiple supernatural explanations, how does one test each explanation to determine which is correct? That's one of the issue I have with supernatural explanations - there's no way to test if your explanation is more probable than a Hindu's or a Scientologist's or just some random person on the street.

Very true.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Brew - how do you respond to the issue of what happens in a black hole? We have some math offering us explanations, but we can't actually test it. Do we have to take the math on "faith" as it were - perhaps better said: take it on a reasonable guess? Or, because we can't ever verify what goes on inside a black hole, we have to assume that there is no such thing as the inside of a black hole (beyond the event horizon, anyway)?

 

[Brewtus]

I realize that this delves into philosophical considerations instead of "concrete" scientific endeavors, but just to throw it out there: have you ever considered in an "a priori" sense that there could be a supernatural basis to all that is natural? What I mean by this could be elaborated on in the following considerations:

1) The fact that molecules have an attraction at all.
2) The fact that things have a beginning in the first place.
3) Items such as punctuated equilibrium. What I mean is that there could be a supernatural "guidance" to natural events which direct them in a particular manner.

Certainly it's a possibility which is why I consider myself 99% atheist and not 100%. And I think if there is a higher power it would be a Creator and not a personal God. I think it's human nature to feel that everything fits together too perfectly for it to all have happened by chance, but feelings aren't evidence. While our universe and existence might be extremely unlikely, it's not impossible given enough time and possibilities. But if I'm going to believe in supernatural causes I need evidence to be certain, not just an unlikely scenario and relying on my desire to feel a sense of personal importance.

Brew - how do you respond to the issue of what happens in a black hole? We have some math offering us explanations, but we can't actually test it. Do we have to take the math on "faith" as it were - perhaps better said: take it on a reasonable guess? Or, because we can't ever verify what goes on inside a black hole, we have to assume that there is no such thing as the inside of a black hole (beyond the event horizon, anyway)?

I think this falls under scientific ignorance. While there are several plausible theories, there's no evidence to support one with certainty. I accept that there are things in the universe that mankind may never be capable of understanding, either because we'll never develop the technology to study the phenomenon or we just lack the mental capacity. With Black Holes maybe we'll just get to a point where scientists conclude we think A, B or C happens beyond the event horizon due to our understanding of cosmology, but we can't be more certain than that. I'm okay saying that I don't know and may never know. I think that position is more honest and logical than making up a divine explanation.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I think that is a gigantic cop out. Filling the gaps of knowledge with, "well we don't know right now, so it has to be 'magical' explanation"

Logic.
Science doesn't know everything.
Sceince then doesn't know if it can explain everything.
It is possible that natural laws do not explain everything.
It is possible then that supernatural explains things.

All that says is it's not inconrguent to beleive in both the natural and supernatural. I think the god of the gaps statement is a strawman from something not understood by atheists. I believe the natural physicial laws were created and sustained by God. I believe many things have this kind of natural explanation, but don't have a problem with some having a supernatural one.

What exactly would you call raising from the dead? Natural? Supernatural? I realize I can't convince you it happened, but likewise you can't convince me that the account in the Bible didn't happen as it said it happened.

I'll reply to Brewtus and Muffler in a minute.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Well technically it's people that have knowledge and science is the method used to gain that knowledge, but by definition "supernatural" lies outside the realm of science (which only deals with the natural universe). If one were to accept a supernatural explanation, what is the specific method used to test that the explanation is correct? For instance, if an observation has multiple supernatural explanations, how does one test each explanation to determine which is correct? That's one of the issue I have with supernatural explanations - there's no way to test if your explanation is more probable than a Hindu's or a Scientologist's or just some random person on the street.

Until we figure things out don't natural things have mutiple possible natural explanations? It's the same logic with supernatural things.

Along these lines: Do you believe that Socrates lived? Can you scientifcally prove he did?

Unless I'm mistaken we don't know where Socrates was buried. So we only have evidence that he lived. I woud say most of us think he did.

It's like this with religon we can't prove it scientifcally by measuring. We have evidences or lack thereof. What we can do is take what we know from history. We can compare what these religions say about histority and reality as we are able to percieve it.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I
1) Thanks for sharing.
2) If I were to start on Soteriology, would you have an interest in continuing the discussion there?
3) I have no idea what you attempting to share in the emboldened sentence. I believe I'm being obtuse, but I just am not grasping it. Would you mind elaborating or clarifying for me?

I'll take a stab at door 3 first. I do certainly believe that what I said is the only way to God. I'm just not %100 certain the word "only" is necessary. What if I didn't believe it was the only way, but I accepted it anyway? But honestly I don't believe there can be another way because that's the way we all could choose. I'm pretty sure that was as clear as mud. Anyway I feel better about leaving it in than out.

I guess I would want to know the nature of the discussion. We can argue all day about what the Jews believe and believed about Isaiah 53. It really doesn't matter to me. It still doesn't change what actually happened. Because I believe what happened happened then my soteriology is explicity linked. The reality of Jesus's death and resurrection is the standard by which I view everything else.

 

[Brewtus]

Until we figure things out don't natural things have mutiple possible natural explanations. It's the same logic with supernatural things.

Along these lines: Do you believe that Socrates lived? Can you scientifcally prove he did?

Unless I'm mistaken we don't know where Socrates was buried. So we only have evidence that he lived. I woud say most of us think he did.

It's like this with religon we can't prove it scientifcally by measuring. We have evidences or lack thereof. What we can do is take what we know from history. We can compare what these religions say about histority and reality as we are able to percieve it.

Yes, there are usually multiple natural explanations for phenomenon but through the scientific method we determine which is most plausible. Supernatural claims don't have any kind of method to test one claim vs. another to determine which is more plausible. These are two completely different types of explanations and do not share the same credibility.

Do you believe that the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot exist? If not (or if so), why? What about unicorns and leprechauns? It's been said that over the written history of mankind, over 10,000 individual gods have been recognized. Why are you atheist toward 9,999 of them and what is your criteria to determine which are real and which are not?

We know Socrates lived because we can read his writings and what other people who knew him personally wrote about him. There are first hand accounts of his existence, but even if there weren't it doesn't matter if he really was a specific person or not. What was written that is attributed to him is what's important.

 

[muffler dragon]

Certainly it's a possibility which is why I consider myself 99% atheist and not 100%. And I think if there is a higher power it would be a Creator and not a personal God. I think it's human nature to feel that everything fits together too perfectly for it to all have happened by chance, but feelings aren't evidence. While our universe and existence might be extremely unlikely, it's not impossible given enough time and possibilities. But if I'm going to believe in supernatural causes I need evidence to be certain, not just an unlikely scenario and relying on my desire to feel a sense of personal importance.

Completely understand.

One question (that is not loaded whatsoever): how much evidence do you personally need in order to feel certain about something in science? Can you quantify a percentage or other considerations?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Yes, there are usually multiple natural explanations for phenomenon but through the scientific method we determine which is most plausible. Supernatural claims don't have any kind of method to test one claim vs. another to determine which is more plausible. These are two completely different types of explanations and do not share the same credibility.

Do you believe that the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot exist? If not (or if so), why? What about unicorns and leprechauns? It's been said that over the written history of mankind, over 10,000 individual gods have been recognized. Why are you atheist toward 9,999 of them and what is your criteria to determine which are real and which are not?

We know Socrates lived because we can read his writings and what other people who knew him personally wrote about him. There are first hand accounts of his existence, but even if there weren't it doesn't matter if he really was a specific person or not. What was written that is attributed to him is what's important.

The amount of written accounts about Jesus Christ vastly outpace documents we have about every other person of antiquity (before the printing press) combined. Yet you call Jesus and fairy tale. Interesting.

 

[muffler dragon]

I'll take a stab at door 3 first. I do certainly believe that what I said is the only way to God. I'm just not %100 certain the word "only" is necessary. What if I didn't believe it was the only way, but I accepted it anyway? But honestly I don't believe there can be another way because that's the way we all could choose. I'm pretty sure that was as clear as mud. Anyway I feel better about leaving it in than out.

I understand now. I wasn't sure what you meant by "word only" in your initial post. Had you put quotations around "only" I would have understood. It just read odd to me.

I have no problem with what you believe in the slightest. I've been exactly in your shoes and I know exactly how you feel.

I guess I would want to know the nature of the discussion. We can argue all day about what the Jews believe and believed about Isaiah 53. It really doesn't matter to me. It still doesn't change what actually happened. Because I believe what happened happened then my soteriology is explicity linked. The reality of Jesus's death and resurrection is the standard by which I view everything else.

Of course, the thread would have an element of that; however, soteriology is an umbrella term that covers all sorts of salvation (temporal and eternal). In ways, I have found it to be an interesting topic even in light of my religious affiliation change. In short, if I were to start the thread, I would keep it in this forum so that it doesn't become a matter of debate so much as discourse and sharing. Let me know if you're interested. Or hell, I may just open it up anyway and those who want to fish can fish.

 

[muffler dragon]

The amount of written accounts about Jesus Christ vastly outpace documents we have about every other person of antiquity (before the printing press) combined. Yet you call Jesus and fairy tale. Interesting.

Not that it's a huge issue or even related, but whether Jesus existed is not the issue for many non-Christians. Instead, it's whether the doctrines associated with him have any value or not.

Just a clarification.

 

[Brewtus]

One question (that is not loaded whatsoever): how much evidence do you personally need in order to feel certain about something in science? Can you quantify a percentage or other considerations?

It really depends on what we're talking about. Regarding what's inside the event horizon of Black Holes that BKB brought up earlier, I have a very low level certainty of what happens to matter after it enters a Black Hole. But getting back to the original subject of this thread, I have near 100% certainty that evolution is correct - and by that I mean the idea that current species share common ancestors and that all life on this planet (including humans) evolved from one or more initial states of life. I think the exact mechanics of evolution are still being worked out and we don't know exactly what influences are most important, but I'm near 100% certain that I share a common ancestor with modern apes (as does every other human).