You may (or may not) have a valid way of studying human interaction, but there is nothing there that would be a scientific test for sin.Sin is wrong, for human example sin is the betryal of a friend, we are that friend. so if my father has a falling away from his brother, that carries onto me whether I like it or not. I may still see my uncle if pleased, but it worsens the younger it occurs. At 20 I may drive there, look at the situation, and evaluate my own conclusion, however niether side would be completely friendly to me. my dad may find reason to claim me to be the same as my uncle, or vis versa(the reason of arguement is unknown, but most are like that in real life). at 10 I assume my dads position and carry little to no understanding behind any reason for the uncle’s side of the story. it would create evaluation to be harder. at new born, that wieght is completely on me. I have no understanding what so ever in the matter. I would be lucky to have heard if I did have an uncle or not. any information would be wrong about him as well, bias.
Origional sin is similar to that, and may be scientificly looked at or studied, similar to the way the above situation may be studied. human reactions, lineage history, history it self, relations between govt. and citizens, relations between countries, etc. probibly would fall into category of philosophy.
God is involved in everything we do.You may (or may not) have a valid way of studying human interaction, but there is nothing there that would be a scientific test for sin.
Unless one of the parties involved is God and you can show, using science, that He exists.
Peace
Tim
In fact, there are some books on exactly this subject. One (I don’t recall the title) found that the creation story matched up quite closely to the actual progression of Big Bang and evolution from the point of view of light expanding from the Big Bang. I don’t recall how he worked out the math (it was essentially a logarithm) but it was quite interesting.thinking here, what if there was a flaw in the thought ‘billion of years’ to create or establish the current universe, then that would create understandible situations. Also, a look into 7 days may just be stages with in a certain amount of years. on Earth we may find stages supported by fossil record that could allocate similarities within Genesis.
I did, but none are so blind as those who refuse to see.You still haven’t done what you said you could do. I am waiting to hear your proposed scientific test for sin. Any particular reason you haven’t given me one?
I agree. Now show that scientifically.God is involved in everything we do.
Without God, there is no sin. As you note, there is a supernatural side. In fact, without the supernatural side there is no such thing as sin. So your task is to design a scientific test of the supernatural.What is missunderstood a whole bunch of times is what sin is. the interruption of connection, between God and others. Lust for instance is sin, it destroys our relationship with God, however it destroys a person’s ability to connect and have a ‘regular’ relationship with other humans as well. the idea itself is confused. so there now appears two sides of sin, supernatural and natural. natural is the side we study, further understanding the supernatural and the connection between both.
Nope. You tried to obscure the question so that you wouldn’t have to answer.I did, but none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Nope, I pointed out the fact that certain sins (such as rape and murder) can be observed even by atheists. You acknowledged this fact and then returned to your claim that sin is only offensive to God.Nope. You tried to obscure the question so that you wouldn’t have to answer.
It’s not just what offends Him, it’s what seperates you from Him. Pride; one of seven mortal sins. Pride illistraits self guidence, an attitude of self importance, and allows people to assume a position of self power. If we live with pride, than what we do is seen as a higher power than others as well as self judgment. it’s like your saying your the judge and jury. all things you see fit is done by you and so only there to be fit is done by you. like saying your always right even though you know that word always is not justified. therefore it’s very easy to create other thoughts from the action of pride to create this thinking that your better than anyone else and that could very well continue to the thought of you know whats best and try to sit over God Himself. This sin also creates space between the people around you, as others soon detest such thoughts. it also equals a character flaw as you will miss most things simple and good that is infront of you. Most of this is proven and could be studied scientificly. Pride (cockiness, etc.) may develope characteristic flaws that may hurt another’s feelings or life style. why most wars are started on pride, its what gets people into wrath.Sin is defined as an offense against God. To show something is a sin you would have to 1) know/assume God exists and 2) know/assume that some certain thing offends him…
Theology is a science, what is studied is people, societies, cultures, living conditions, characteristics or person or group. with even a little here or there, some may be provided evidence towards living better for themselves and ultimately closer to God.What might offend God is a theological question that is not usually universally agreed on, if ever. It’s not like waiting for a liquid to turn green for example in a laboratory beaker.
Without God there is no sin. Prove God using science. Otherwise, your claim that original sin is supported by science is wrong.Nope, I pointed out the fact that certain sins (such as rape and murder) can be observed even by atheists. You acknowledged this fact and then returned to your claim that sin is only offensive to God.
As I said before, even an atheist can detect rape and murder. If original sin gives rise to rape and murder then it is demonstrated in a way that even athests can see and understand. (“Not even among pagans…”)Without God there is no sin. Prove God using science. Otherwise, your claim that original sin is supported by science is wrong.
You’re exaggerating and distorting the point.They don’t have to be separate concepts but they can be. Sin doesn’t exist without God. Show that God exists scientifically and you will have the possibility of showing the existence of sin scientifically. Otherwise, you are wrong.
Peace
Tim
You are committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.As I said before, even an atheist can detect rape and murder. If original sin gives rise to rape and murder then it is demonstrated in a way that even athests can see and understand. (“Not even among pagans…”)
If theory A predicts B and ~B is demonstrated then theory A may be rejected due to its consequences.You are committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
You argued If A the B; B therefore A.If theory A predicts B and ~B is demonstrated then theory A may be rejected due to its consequences.
No, I proposed an experiment involving observations of human nature and two competing theories of human nature, one from the Christians, one from atheists.You argued If A the B; B therefore A.
OK, here’s what I read (tell me if I’m wrong):No, I proposed an experiment involving observations of human nature and two competing theories of human nature, one from the Christians, one from atheists.
You have to go (much) back further to see the experiment I proposed. We went off on a tangent because another poster insisted that sin made sense only to people who believe in God already whereas I pointed out (in the post you quote) that even an atheist can detect rape and murder (which were the examples of sin that I cited in the orignal experiment proposal).OK, here’s what I read (tell me if I’m wrong):
"As I said before, even an atheist can detect rape and murder. If original sin gives rise to rape and murder then it is demonstrated in a way that even athests can see and understand. (“Not even among pagans…”)
As I understand your argument, it is
A. If original sin gives rise to rape and murder then
B. it is demonstrated in a way that even atheists can see and understand.
Atheists do see and understand; therefore original sin is responsible.
Have I understood your argument correctly?
Okay, thanks for the clarification!You have to go (much) back further to see the experiment I proposed. We went off on a tangent because another poster insisted that sin made sense only to people who believe in God already whereas I pointed out (in the post you quote) that even an atheist can detect rape and murder (which were the examples of sin that I cited in the orignal experiment proposal).
So, atheists can detect rape and murder and thus we can set aside differences about the existence of God to study human nature by comparing the Christian thesis to the atheist thesis.