-
Prompt: “Does Adam seem to believe that a Scientist cannot believe in God, the Resurrection of Jesus, or any of the miracles mentioned in the Bible?”
-
ChatGPT response: "Short answer: that’s the thrust of his posts, but he hasn’t said it plainly.
- He insists the Resurrection/Ascension are “100% scientifically impossible,” and challenges anyone “prone to accept” them as unscientific. That framing treats believing biblical miracles as incompatible with being “scientific.”
- He also says the “dominant view” among scientists leaves “no room for God in science,” which slides from methodological naturalism (what science can test) into a metaphysical “no room for God” claim.
- He never writes “a scientist can’t personally believe,” but his rhetoric implies that a scientist who affirms miracles is being unscientific or inconsistent.
-
@adamjedgar, to be precise: are you saying (A) scientists, as scientists, shouldn’t invoke miracles in explanations (methodological point), or (B) scientists cannot rationally believe in God or the Resurrection at all (philosophical point)? If it’s A, most Christian scientists agree. If it’s B, that’s not a scientific finding—that’s a philosophical claim that needs its own argument."
2 Likes
Adam, perhaps you don’t realise, but by saying things like that you are truly doing the work of enemies of Christianity.
There are plenty of examples where children raised by democrats turned republican and vice versa. Same for Christians ending up raising an atheist (and again vice versa). There are people on this very forum like that. Unless you mean actual children. Yeah, I’m not sure I’m comfortable referring to a 5 yo as a republican or democrat….
Christ’s body never decomposed, so that’s irrelevant.
So if you accept it as proven scientific Impossibility, why do you believe it?
Adam, the things you have screenshot here are entirely irrelevant to resurrection, as they pertain to mere reanimation, or resuscitation. If that was the case, that would have made Jesus into some kind of a zombie or Frankenstein monster. Exactly the sort of thing that second-rate “comedians” who can’t come up with anything original use in their sketches, as well as anti-christian islamic scholars and mediocre “scientists” who write books on how afterlife is impossible physically to make a name for themselves and a lot of money. All real life examples I personally came across. But hey, perhaps you have read one of these books and this is where your ideas about resurrection come from? Because they certainly don’t come from the Bible. As I said above, you are truly doing the work of enemies of Christianity.
4 Likes
It uses the same exact standard that the field of medicine uses. If you are being consistent, you should reject the entire field of medicine for the same reasons you reject evolution.
5 Likes
Aye. You can never trust one.
1 Like
as usual…not a single bible text quoted or discussed in support of ones atheistic claims there. that is so typical on these forums from people with an almost complete absence of credible theology and doctrine.
one cannot claim ones religious belief is derived from the Bible unless one is prepared to defend faith WITH the Bible in support!
citing some random statement from a professor…given im not sure you actually ever attended university at all as your academic ability that is on display here is so suspect…
blindly mocking others without any academic support/referencing is not indicative of someone with any university training! Im starting to wonder if you even know how to actually,. It would be a good idea for you to enlighten us here with some credible evidence in your future posts
Not my counter mate. And you don’t need university training (which I have of course) to know not to trust a fart. I do trust you however.
Im quoting St Roymond…it just dragged you into it (because i highlighted his statement that you quoted)
In reply to me.
so you do not agree with St Rymonds bullshit there? You dont think that you are implicated when you quote that part of what he said?
Im not trustworthy…even i accept that. What we are supposed to do is consider the references provided to see if they are consistent with the argument being presented. Given the references are biblical, and Christians view the bible as Gods Inspired Word…if one chooses to claim men wrote it so its corruptible and corrupted…how can it be inspired by God if its halftruths, historical and scientific stuff-ups, indeed even flat out lies…such as Paul being bitten by a poisonous snake on the Isle of Malta when there have never been poisonous snakes on malta according to modern science research?
One who insists on scientific proofs for the the ancient part of the Bible (because its too old to trace), that person also must insist on consistency in demanding the scientific proofs for the New Testament. The trouble is, science proves 100% Christ could not have been raised from the dead (because of irreversible cellular death) and the text evens tells us, the grave was empty…the soldiers claimed, his body was stolen…the text even tells us that. So scientifically, its a flat out lie!
What, that predictions are as implicitly untrustworthy as farts?
as a matter of interest, who says scientifically (given this is a science type forum) that “farts arent trustworthy”?
Is it the fart that isnt trustworthy or the person who farted and is embarrassed by it…or just taking the piss in blaming someone else?
I often use the statement that my dog, who likes to get in my face when i kneel down, is like a fart in an elevator. (ya cant escape her and she completely overwhelms the notion of personal space) 
EDIT…shes asleep right next to me at the moment (she snores a bit and im sure shes dreaming…her feet are twitching from time to time)
we should start a thread about farts and trustworthiness:wink:
1 Like
Ah. You edited after my reply. The only scientific proof I hopelessly forlornly require from the Bible is a scientifically verified scientific impossibility. I.e. a scientific impossibility that is scientifically verified, as true. And I do not doubt the good will of anyone who had anything to do with creating the Bible, or of its most significant character. Lying never applies. I don’t doubt your good will for a moment, despite knowing you to be lost in a warren of incoherent, unwarranted, unjustified, untrue belief that is your truth.
1 Like
There were no “atheistic claims”.
BTW, do you rely on the Bible to get laundry done?
2 Likes
Here is your worldview error: you use a MSWV definition of “truth”.
How can it be inspired? I don’t fully remember the argument, but one of the church Fathers, writing to counter a heretic, pointed out that the things in the Bible that look like errors are part of the testimony, that here is a deity Who works in and through men and is not ashamed to call them brothers. The inclusion of human beliefs and practices is evidence that it is inspired – as opposed to being some divine oracle such as the pagan gods had.
2 Likes
Perfect description of what YEC is all about!
1 Like
- Impressive irony: Accusing others of inconsistency, a person insists believers must demand “scientific proof” of ancient history, then simultaneously insists that if a miracle lacks scientific proof, it’s false. That makes all miracles impossible by presupposition, not by evidence.
4 Likes
If someone claims that ‘science proves 100% something’, it makes me distrust what is said.
Some statements may be proven fairly well with mathematics, others are somewhere between very likely true or very likely false. That means that the certainty of an event is expressed with a probability that is somewhere between 100 and 0 but not either one of the ends (not 100% or 0%). In addition (what is important), the probability is usually calculated for conditions where no sudden new factors or actors interfere with what happens.
So, scientific research can conclude that usually, people that have been dead for days do not return to life, assuming that God or some other unexpected actor or force does not interfere and cause the result to be something else than what is usual. As scientific reports strive towards concise text, the basic assumptions are not usually written - there is a general expectation that the reader knows the basic limits of making scientific conclusions.
2 Likes
YES!!! Tho’ your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. So use new, improved, BIBLE Brilliant Infusion for Bright Laundry Excellence!
4 Likes
- Adam,
You asked for Bible verses. Here it is—on exactly the three points at issue.
1) God is not bound by “uniformity.”
- “Is anything too hard for me?” Jer 32:27
- “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Mt 19:26
- Scoffers say, “all things are continuing as they were from the beginning,” but they “deliberately overlook” God’s acts. 2 Pt 3:4–5
2) Resurrection isn’t medical resuscitation; it’s God’s new act.
- “God raised him… because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.” Acts 2:24
- “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” 1 Cor 15:44
- God “gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.” Rom 4:17
- “I am the resurrection and the life.” Jn 11:25–26
3) On demands for proof as if faith were a lab experiment.
- “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Jn 20:29
- “Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified… the power of God.” 1 Cor 1:22–24
- “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made from what is visible.” Heb 11:3
(And for tone:) “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up.” Eph 4:29; “Answer a matter before hearing it—folly and shame.” Prov 18:13
The Bible’s own testimony is clear: natural regularities describe ordinary providence; they do not disprove extraordinary divine action.
5 Likes
Usually? So not always? Two days minimum with no heart beat, no life support, no brain activity, no circulation, but chilled maybe? Stone cold dead. But unusually not terminally? How many of the hundred of billion of dead would you say? 1:100,000,000,000 or more? That seems a bit understated:overstated for unusual? I mean 1:10 would still be unusual?