Origin of the universe

@ phil

True even though it did not actually happen?

Metaphors can be true because they can portray true principles, like parables.

1 Like

Sure. Just wanted clarification.


Without evidence for any “sort of time stamp on when it will become understood,” these are no more than poor excuses. If they don’t know the answer then they can just say that they don’t know.

1 Like

I don’t know why the simple admission of not knowing
is so hard.
I’ve noticed that fundamentalist Christians, at least, seem to find it impossible to admit to any error.
Any idea why that is so?

The Dunning-Kruger Effect, observed only among humans, may have a lot to do with the inability to admit to error. Fundamentalist Christians are hardly a majority of confidently inerrant individuals. The latter are common wherever there are human beings. My own hypothesis is that said confidently inerrant individuals are most often found in forums, but that hypothesis merits testing and verification.

True all of that. Just, it semmingly universal for
Why is there such a connection?

They cling to an imagined authority from a presumption that they speak for God. It is the same deal with creationism. They don’t want people asking for answers from other people like scientists even when they don’t really have any answers themselves.

What class, science or theology? and what level, grade school, high school, college ?

No. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the Word/Logos (the original Greek term) of God. See John 1:1-3,16. It is a mistake to limit the study of Creation to just Genesis 1-2.

There are not classes of truth. There’s only truth and falsehood. Theological truth is the same as scientific truth, it’s just about different subjects. Truth about astronomy is truth just the same as truth about the divinity of Christ.
The Word of God incarnate said that scripture was the Word of God (Mt. 15:6, John 10:35.) To deny that scripture is the Word of God is to contradict the Word of God incarnate and thus effectively deny that He is the Word of God. It is impossible to detach faith in Jesus from faith in the Bible.

The assurance, or at least the hope, of inerrancy is, IMO, the primary attraction of any sect or group’s claims.

I once was acquainted on-line with a man, now deceased, who reasoned his way, convincingly I think, from fundamental assumptions that he asserted were "axioms’, to astonishing conclusions, and sheer force of reason was his only authority. I confess that I’m easily impressed, but the response of others confirmed that I was not alone. What I thought was fascinating was that everything the fellow wrote was rational, coherent, and reasonable and he wrote with an clear confidence in what he said. But, because what he wrote was at odds with things claimed as “truths” by mainstream science, there were a good number of folks in the audience that raised up a hue and cry, accusing him of arrogance and unfounded anti-science which I was sure was far from the truth. He was, at all times, confident in what he said and claimed, and yet, he never once claimed a “scriptural authority” of any sect or school of thought, although he did cite early philosophers, such as Thales and Pythagoras–not as his authorities but as his predecessors.

The moral, so it seemed to me, was: Claiming reason alone as the authority for your inerrancy is risky business. Claiming Scripture, Church, Sect, or school of thought as your authority won you friends or enemies, as the case may be.

I suppose too, that to admit of the tiniest error maybe be feared as a slippery slope.
Ive seen that even an issue that in no way threatens their position
must also be rejected with full force n fury, if theyve adopted a
position on it.


Logic alone is not sufficient, for sure.

I’d think theological positions like scientific ones, or any sort need some sort of cross check with data where possible

Seems to be fairly common to have little worlds like that which are rational, logical, and consistent, but only internally. Once you compare them to what is outside the bubble, they break down. Unfortunately, many never look outside their bubble and even deny there exists anything outside it.

I would have to disagree. There are all manner of half-truths.
(As in court…the truth, the whole truth…)
And of course both sides present quite different versions of the truth,
under penalty of perjury.
True / false is only in some few cases a true binary.

Also- science does not do “truth”. It does probabilities.

So two very fundamental errors, so far.

As for the word of God, that assumption may be correct.
There’s no proof: all religions and gods seem to make similar claims
to Truth.
Regardless , and assuming that the bible really is the word
of God, its entirely another matter to assume onto ones self the
Power or inerrant interpretation.

Many many (40,000 sects) different and contradictory versi9ns
of just what the Word means.

And of course many parts of the bible clearly are not even oresented
as God’s word.

1 Like

1 Like

The part of half-truths that are true are truth, whether they are theological or scientific.
Science is the search for truth.
One of the main and dysfunctional characteristics of the modern worldview is atomizing subjects into disconnected departments, like natural vs theological. The Biblical worldview has a holistic worldview in which all truth is God’s truth, whether it be truth about the weather, the score to a football game, the interpretation of Genesis 1 or the facts of biology.

BTW I don’t think the @ phil or @mitch works. You know this is more than just a custom. When the full username follows the “@” symbol then those users are informed that you are talking to them. For me at least, the moment I type this symbol, a menu pops up for me to select a username. It is a way of getting their attention when you haven’t quoted anything from their post and your post isn’t a direct response to theirs (such as when you are talking to more than one person).

1 Like

Science is not the search for truth. Wrong again. Floodrd

Is “cats catch mice” true?

Is it Gods truth, the true truth or, science fact that
all the world was flooded?

In this post I am responding to JohnCarpenter just so I can show you how this works.

But adding @Astrid you are also notified.

You (Astrid) say Science is not the search for truth. But that is a strange thing to say. I suppose it is not a search for truth in the most general way or about everything, but it is the most effective means of getting past our subjective biases to find the truth about the things of nature that we can test with measurements.

The idea that all the planet was flooded is a misapplication of scripture that doesn’t take into account the changing meaning of words over time. Nowhere in the Bible is the earth described as a globe or a planet, therefore we have no reason to think that the Bible is talking of a globe or a planet in the story of the flood. Described as a table, the earth of the Bible would seem to be referring to something a great deal smaller than a planet.

P.S. Oops. That made my post a little confusing since by “you” I am referring to Astrid not JohnCarpenter. I also noticed in the other thread you using the @ function even when you (Astrid) were responding to that person which is redundant.

1 Like

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.