Science, or in other words Atheistic Naturalism, just flat out assumes God does not exist, without any proof at all.
Hmm...
Do you even believe your own words?
Science, or in other words Atheistic Naturalism, just flat out assumes God does not exist, without any proof at all.
Do you even believe your own words?
No idea, but some history buffs probably got an idea that you are not interested in. Do you know that there are other gods in the bible? How do you define your God, what books?I can help! What about Mt. Olympus?
I would be interested in answers too.No idea, but some history buffs probably got an idea that you are not interested in. Do you know that there are other gods in the bible? How do you define your God, what books?
So you may have evidence of peoples beliefs of yesteryear... stone henge is also, as are the pyramids in Egypt etc.The following is only offered for your review.
Please decide what you think about it for yourself.
View attachment 2912
The Mountain of God Site in Saudi Arabia would have provided access to the Presence of God on the East side.
The Tabernacle allowed access to the Presence of God on the East side. And in the Genesis account, Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden on the East side. The East Garden Gate was then shut and guarded to prevent access to the Tree of Life (Eternal Life) and to the Presence of God.
On the East side of this Mountain, East of the Presence of God (the blackened peak area), the Altar of Moses sits at the base of the Mountain as a symbolic East Entrance, an East Gate reopened, allowing access to the Presence of God once again. The Sacrifice of the Lamb at the Altar of Moses symbolizes the future Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Gate back to the Garden, to Eternal Life, and to the Presence of God.
In my view...
Unlike any other site on Earth, this Mountain displays the Gospel in how it is physically laid out. To me it appears that God left a picture of His Plan of Salvation on the Earth for the Nation of Israel and for all of us living now, over three thousand years ago. Over one thousand years before Christ. And it becomes especially plain and clear when viewed from the air in Google Earth.
Here is what I see in symbolic form on the Mountain...
WE ARE FAR AWAY FROM GOD IN OUR SIN…
Far away from God’s Presence across from the Mountain to the East is the Golden Calf Altar, which represents Sin, open rebellion against God, idolatry, and demon worship.
THE WAGES OF SIN...
Without faith and repentance we will be judged for the evil and sin that we have chosen to do in this life. And the consequence of our evil will be the same state we have chosen to live in, a state of spiritual death. This is symbolized by the Mass Graveyard on the Mountain to the North.
FAITH AND REPENTANCE…
For intimacy with God to be restored, for us to be forgiven, and for us to be given access to the Presence of God again like we had in the Garden, we must turn completely around from having our back to God at the Golden Calf Altar, turn towards His Presence on the Mountain Repent and walk in Faith towards Him and approach Him on His terms. We have to basically both Fear His Justice and Trust in His Love at the same time.
BAPTISM…
We are to be cleansed by water, as a symbol of our desire to have a cleansed heart, before we can come into the presence of God. In the Exodus account, to approach God Himself on the Mountain they had to first wash themselves in the water which flowed down from the Mountain. There was a Lake at the foot of this Mountain and a brook that flowed down the valley. Still evidence for both.
COVERED BY THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB…
And we must also be cleansed by the Blood of the Lamb, by Christ’s Sacrifice. The Altar of Moses Animal Sacrifices were a type of, or a picture of, the future Sacrifice of Christ. And in the Exodus account, they had to be sprinkled with the Blood of the Sacrifice from the Altar before ascending to the Presence of God.
ENTER BY THE NARROW GATE…
The Animal Sacrifices at the Altar of Moses, and being sprinkled by the blood there, was the only narrow gate (symbolically), point of access, to God just as the Blood Sacrifice of Christ is the only “Narrow Gate” for us today.
THE NARROW PATH…
Now take a look at the valley that ascends the Mountain to God's Presence (to Heaven). Between the Altar of Moses and the top of the Mountain is a "V" shaped Narrow valley that leads straight to the Presence of God Himself. This Path is Narrow. According to the Exodus account, if the people tried to access God in any other way, by going up the mountain to the right or to the left they would die. And God even told Moses to place boundary markers at the base of the mountain to protect the people and to prevent people from dying. Boundary warning markers are still at this Site in two different forms.
THE PRESENCE OF GOD...
The Blackened Top of the Mountain appears to match the physical description given in the Book of Exodus for the Presence of God on the Mountain…
Exodus 19:18 says, “the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.”
To me personally, all of this testifies loud and clear that God exists, that He loves us and wants to restore His relationship with us, and that He laid out His Plan of Salvation on this Earth over three thousand years ago, to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It is also evidence to me that the Exodus Account in the Bible is very accurate.
But, again, you must decide for yourself.
You are making a knowledge claim there. You claim to know that there is no multiverse and/or that such a thing is an impossibility. But you give no details about how you would know that. All you give is your belief that such a thing does not or could not exist.A “pretend” multiverse, has no properties whatsoever. It does not exist.
I don't have any evidence for the existence of a multiverse such as I have described, other than the existence of our own universe.A bit of evidence for it might be appropriate before it is cited as an imaginary solution for the ID fine tuning of the universe improbability problem.
Are you talking about split rocks in Arabia, or is there some other evidence for your God?To believe either in a multiverse or in God requires faith. But there is no evidence for a multiverse, while there is evidence for God.
Christianity was invented around 2000 years ago. We know the date of its invention, too. So what? What has the date of the invention of an idea got to do with the likelihood that it is true or false?The multiverse was invented only a few years ago to try and explain the real improbability of the existence of our fine tuned universe, without God. Someone out there even knows the date it was invented.
I see. The idea of a multiverse is a grand conspiracy by atheists, is it?In other words, science was getting too close to showing evidence for the existence of God, and the ID folks were spreading the news, so Atheistic Naturalistic scientists had to make up an imaginary alternative, multiverses, to replace God. Only it doesn’t really replace God at all, because it doesn’t exist, it is just made up.
What makes you think our universe is fine tuned? Can you give me a few examples?And the fine tuning of our universe is still just as impossible to explain without God as it ever was.
How does he know God did it? And, just as importantly, how do you know that he knows that God did it? And how do you know that God did it? (Or perhaps you don't know that?)My Dad, personally knows he was healed by God, but there is no way he can absolutely prove that now to you or anyone else.
This, I think, is part of your confusion with the word "faith". "Faith" is a word that can mean different things. If it only means "trust", then it would be fair to say that I have faith in lots of things. I have faith that my chair won't collapse under me as I write this. But that kind of faith is an evidence-based trust. My chair has worked well so far, still has a reasonable projected lifespan, is manufactured reliably etc. etc. I have evidence that it will probably continue to support me for some time yet.But also, even if God was standing visibly right in front of me I would still need to have faith or trust in Him, in a similar way that I would need to have faith or trust in my doctor or my coworkers or my wife or anyone else in my life.
I hope this is now clear. Beliefs can be held for all sorts of reasons. For instance, beliefs can be evidence-based (my chair will probably hold me up tonight) or faith-based (my chair was made on Planet Zarquon).What is the difference between belief and faith?
Now we come to knowledge. Faith and knowledge are not the same thing. I might have faith (i.e. an unevidenced belief) that my chair comes from the Planet Zarquon, but I don't know that it comes from any such place.Perhaps faith and knowledge can be regarded as the same thing in some cases, and be different in degrees from each other in some cases.
So we ask the question:I think that every normal, mentally healthy, human “knows” that God exists from the evidence of creation all around them.
Considering there is no compelling evidence of a multiverse, I wouldn't exactly call that obvious "physical existence". And since parallel universes don't undermine the notion of a beginning, the only feature that is relevant would be prior universes.What about the multiverse? Is that "obviously contingent" in your opinion?Because physical existence is obviously contingent, with all evidence pointing toward a beginning.
Doesn't seem obvious to me.
Theists tend to think that saying that God created the universe solves a problem. It doesn't. It just pushes the question back one step. If God created the universe, then the obvious next question is: who or what created God?
Non-falsifiable, you see.As you know God is not a Scientific Hypothesis.
Not really. Science is neutral as to whether God exists. The working assumption is that God doesn't exist, but then again God is in no way special in that regard. The working assumption is that that pink unicorns called Fred from the Fluffy Dice Galaxy don't exist, either.Science, or in other words Atheistic Naturalism, just flat out assumes God does not exist, without any proof at all.
Like split rocks in Arabia? Got anything better than that kind of just so story?Even though a lot of evidence for God does exist.
Agreed.Science is neutral as to whether God exists.
Disagree. Most of the originators of the sciences were deeply religious, and many working scientists today are as well. It's only the pop-culture perception that, like you accuse, science has any affinity to atheism. God differs from pink unicorns in the fact that ~80 of the world believes the former exists.The working assumption is that God doesn't exist, but then again God is in no way special in that regard. The working assumption is that that pink unicorns called Fred from the Fluffy Dice Galaxy don't exist, either.
Heh.Most of the originators of the sciences were deeply religious, and many working scientists today are as well.
Science is committed to methodological naturalism, so to say that it has no affinity to atheism is quite a bizarre claim.It's only the pop-culture perception that, like you accuse, science has any affinity to atheism.
Opinions change over time, and the current trend in God belief is downwards, not upwards. I would put that down, at least in part, to a public better educated in science, with better access to information of all types. I would also give a nod to atheist arguments making significant incursions into your "pop-culture" over the past decade, in particular.God differs from pink unicorns in the fact that ~80 of the world believes the former exists.
It was their belief that a God created an orderly world that humans could comprehend that gave rise to science. So not just a coincidence with the prevalence of religious people. There were also many superstitious people who thought the world was as capricious as the Greek gods. Acting on their faith to discover facts about the world seems like a fairly deep religious conviction to me, but YMMV.How far back are we looking here? I mean, even today the religious far outnumber the non-believers, and in the past the imbalance was far greater than it is now. It follows that, on the basis of pure weight of numbers alone, we would expect the "originators of the sciences" to be religious. I'm not sure what is required in order to be "deeply" religious, as opposed to moderately religious or religious almost by default, but maybe you can tell me what you had in mind there.
Who said orthodoxy was a criteria for deeply held beliefs? Or again, that theism is equivalent to any particular religion?We could also perhaps have an interesting discussion about who these originators were, specifically, which might lead us to a more thorough investigation into the actual strength or weakness of their personal religious convictions. A number of quite important thinkers almost immediately spring to my mind as potential originators of the sciences, whose expressed views on the gods and religion were somewhat out of the mainstream, to put it mildly.
Again, you're trying to conflate theism with religion to undermine the former. Seems you may have bought into the Galileo myth as well.Another thing to note is that science as we know it today only started to make faltering steps during the Renaissance and only really began to hit its stride in the mid 1600s. Since then, I'd say a disproportionate number of prominent "originators" have been at least skeptical of traditional religious claims, if not functionally or openly atheists. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that atheists have traditionally been persecuted by the religious majority, so that espousing atheism has historically been a dangerous and often life-threatening thing for a scientific originator to do.
Or there's just a leftist and anti-religious bias against those people getting tenure, prompting them to find work in the private sector. And where scientists used to represent the population better, academia is now far more left and atheist than the general population.As for today, there is an observed inverse correlation between being a highly-awarded and respected scientist and being a traditional theist (or "deeply religious"). It is quite possible to work in science (some fields more than others, it must be said) and maintain a religious faith, but it seems that rigorous scientific training is one of the things most likely to knock religion out of a person sooner or later.
Ahem. You're the one who, rightly, said "Science is neutral as to whether God exists." To now claim atheism and science have an affinity belies your own statement. Just because atheists cuddle up to science like a security blanket doesn't mean that science feels the same way.Science is committed to methodological naturalism, so to say that it has no affinity to atheism is quite a bizarre claim.
Opinions change over time, and the current trend in God belief is downwards, not upwards.
Yup, secular leftism largely running media, entertainment, and education will do that. Beware that it may only be influence and not actual "better information".I would put that down, at least in part, to a public better educated in science, with better access to information of all types. I would also give a nod to atheist arguments making significant incursions into your "pop-culture" over the past decade, in particular.
A decade ago it was "global warming" and now it's "climate change". They changed the name for a reason...everyone basically agrees that the climate is changing. Try going back to global warming, especially during a very cold winter, and Al Gore saying the ice caps would be gone by now.Not so long ago - a matter of a decade at the most - the numbers of people who believed that climate change was happening were about 50-50 in the United States. Today, about 27% of Americans still think that the idea that the Earth is warming is a left-wing political conspiracy rather than an observed scientific reality.
Never have. Just a clear distinction from pink unicorns.I'd be wary, if I were you, about assuming that weight of public opinion determines what is true or false about the world.
Belief in an orderly world doesn't require belief in a God. It only requires recognising their are regularities in nature. The belief that those regularities are due to some deity's plan is an add-on, not a prerequisite for science.It was their belief that a God created an orderly world that humans could comprehend that gave rise to science. So not just a coincidence with the prevalence of religious people.
You think that theism and religion are independent?Again, you're trying to conflate theism with religion to undermine the former. Seems you may have bought into the Galileo myth as well.
I like talking with you, Vociferous. You introduce all kinds of interesting avenues that we could discuss. Once again, I suggest that you might like to start a thread where we can discuss the idea that there's a leftist and anti-religious bias against academics getting tenure. We're already getting quite far off the topic of this thread.Or there's just a leftist and anti-religious bias against those people getting tenure, prompting them to find work in the private sector.
Not all scientists are academics. You could be right that academia is becoming more leftist and atheist. On the other hand, maybe society in general is becoming more rightist and theistic (I note you've put an argument for the latter, at least).And where scientists used to represent the population better, academia is now far more left and atheist than the general population.
Methodological naturalism is not ontological naturalism.Ahem. You're the one who, rightly, said "Science is neutral as to whether God exists." To now claim atheism and science have an affinity belies your own statement.
Maybe not. Where do you get your information on how "science" feels?Just because atheists cuddle up to science like a security blanket doesn't mean that science feels the same way.
Ooh, a gotcha! I plead guilty to cultural bias, thinking about Western Europe, the United States and so-called first-world countries like my own. Specifically, I had in mind what I assume is your home country or place of residence, the USA.If you think religion belongs to the past and we live in a new age of reason, you need to check out the facts: 84% of the world’s population identifies with a religious group. Members of this demographic are generally younger and produce more children than those who have no religious affiliation, so the world is getting more religious, not less
You were saying?
Do you think that secular leftism is responsible for the declining birth rate of theists in America? I'm inclined to lay the blame on all that pesky contraception and feminism and stuff, myself. God only knows how those lefties managed to get the one-up on the good and righteous conservatives, to take over the media like that. It'll all come to tears in the end, mark my words young man!Yup, secular leftism largely running media, entertainment, and education will do that. Beware that it may only be influence and not actual "better information".
They changed the name because uneducated people didn't understand that an average warming doesn't mean that everywhere on the planet warms uniformly, or even that everywhere necessarily warms.A decade ago it was "global warming" and now it's "climate change". They changed the name for a reason...
Do you agree that humans are causing the climate to change, through burning fossil fuels etc., or are you are climate denier? Just so I know where you're coming from on this, you understand. After all, until today I was mistakenly assuming you were a Christian. I don't want to make a similar mistake again.... everyone basically agrees that the climate is changing.
The arctic ice cover is reducing every year. Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets are melting. Polar bears are an endangered species. 2019 was the hottest year on record.Try going back to global warming, especially during a very cold winter, and Al Gore saying the ice caps would be gone by now.
I didn't say it was required, only that it was. We cannot retroactively say what would have been otherwise.Belief in an orderly world doesn't require belief in a God. It only requires recognising their are regularities in nature. The belief that those regularities are due to some deity's plan is an add-on, not a prerequisite for science.
Yes, not all theists are religious.You think that theism and religion are independent?
As for the Galileo myth, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I confess I'm a bit of an expert on Galileo, so maybe we could discuss your myth in a different thread.
Odd which off-topic points you wish to entertain.I like talking with you, Vociferous. You introduce all kinds of interesting avenues that we could discuss. Once again, I suggest that you might like to start a thread where we can discuss the idea that there's a leftist and anti-religious bias against academics getting tenure. We're already getting quite far off the topic of this thread.
Not all scientists are academics. You could be right that academia is becoming more leftist and atheist. On the other hand, maybe society in general is becoming more rightist and theistic (I note you've put an argument for the latter, at least).
No, that's just a typical leftist contention, for the sake of "diversity" (except excluding diversity of thought).I'm interested, though. Do you think that scientists ought to be representative of the religious and political mix of the wider society? If so, why?
Ontological naturalism is only one possible ontological basis for science. To my knowledge, science doesn't claim to explain everything, so its methodological naturalism does not imply ontological naturalism. Unless you pervert the science with scientism, which is how atheism usually snuggles up to science. Science doesn't refute the null hypothesis without evidence.Methodological naturalism is not ontological naturalism.
Maybe not. Where do you get your information on how "science" feels?
No, just refuting your claim that belief in God was trending downwards. No idea why you'd think that was an argument for theism, especially since I've already told you argument ad populum is not compelling.I take your point about the religious out-breeding the secularists, and thereby increasing their proportions not out of any merit in their ideas but through sheer biology. Is that supposed to be an argument for theism?
It is The Guardian, and there's a difference between facts and commentary.Also, did you read to the end of that article?
That's quite the non-sequitur. Considering the religious still have higher birthrates than the secular in the US, I don't see that it matters why. Maybe just more abortion among the secular.Do you think that secular leftism is responsible for the declining birth rate of theists in America? I'm inclined to lay the blame on all that pesky contraception and feminism and stuff, myself.Yup, secular leftism largely running media, entertainment, and education will do that. Beware that it may only be influence and not actual "better information".
People who are more emotional than rational just make better storytellers and perhaps gravitate towards expressing things rather than making things.God only knows how those lefties managed to get the one-up on the good and righteous conservatives, to take over the media like that. It'll all come to tears in the end, mark my words young man!
Really? Did changing it to "climate change" get more support from those same "uneducated people"? Did it get more of those "uneducated people" on board with catastrophic climate change?They changed the name because uneducated people didn't understand that an average warming doesn't mean that everywhere on the planet warms uniformly, or even that everywhere necessarily warms.
I agree that there's a human contribution, among contributions from things like solar forcing. Not catastrophic.Do you agree that humans are causing the climate to change, through burning fossil fuels etc., or are you are climate denier? Just so I know where you're coming from on this, you understand. After all, until today I was mistakenly assuming you were a Christian. I don't want to make a similar mistake again.
Polar bears are currently "vulnerable", an upgrade from "endangered".The arctic ice cover is reducing every year. Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets are melting. Polar bears are an endangered species. 2019 was the hottest year on record.
Do you think Al Gore was wrong to talk about the Inconvenient Truth?
That's an indication that the author of the story knew the area. It is not an indication that everything/anything else in the story is true.There were Almond trees in the area.
There were Acacia Trees in the area.
There were Quail in the area.
That's an indication that the author of the story knew the area. It is not an indication that everything/anything else in the story is true.
(Ian Fleming write some true things about London and Switzerland. That does not mean that all of On Her Majesty's Secret Service is true.)
Fiction can claim it is non-fiction. That's what fiction does - it makes false claims. You can not use anything the Bible says to prove that the Bible is true.Ian Fleming never claimed that his writings were historical. The Exodus Account of course does, and has been regarded as such for centuries.
Fiction can claim it is non-fiction. That's what fiction does - it makes false claims. You can not use anything the Bible says to prove that the Bible is true.
How do they provide this evidence, exactly?I agree!
You would have to use evidence outside the Bible to prove that the Bible accounts are true.
And that is what these Sites provide.
They provide Geographic and Archeological, verifiable and falsifiable, extra biblical evidence that the Exodus Account in the Bible is historically accurate and true.