D
da_nolo
Guest
what are some teachings that may be supported by science, or science that is supported by our teachings. there any connections between Bible and science
Other than a historical science I doubt it. unfortunately our Lords DAYS have not yet been calibrated into Human years. so even the Lords 6 days to make heaven and earth will not help.what are some teachings that may be supported by science, or science that is supported by our teachings. there any connections between Bible and science![]()
There isn’t much. If there was scientific proof of everything religious life would be a lot easier for many people.what are some teachings that may be supported by science, or science that is supported by our teachings. there any connections between Bible and science![]()
Yes. The best place to look for this is human nature, which the Bible records in abudnance. Most specifically, the doctrine of Original Sin finds strong support in science over against the professions of most secularists and atheists.what are some teachings that may be supported by science, or science that is supported by our teachings. there any connections between Bible and science![]()
How does one conduct a scientific test for sin?Yes. The best place to look for this is human nature, which the Bible records in abudnance. Most specifically, the doctrine of Original Sin finds strong support in science over against the professions of most secularists and atheists.
What you would test are the competing theories of human nature. On the one hand is the popular blank slate theory that people are naturally good but corrupted by society. On the other hand is the theory that humans are tainted by original sin, that is, they are naturally inclined to do sinful things (e.g. rape, murder, etc.). One can at least theorize constructing such an experiment and, with a little creativity, find some natural experiments to evaluate.How does one conduct a scientific test for sin?
Show me a test that even an avowed atheist like Richard Dawkins can perform and come to the same conclusion that the Pope would arrive at - a sin.What you would test are the competing theories of human nature. On the one hand is the popular blank slate theory that people are naturally good but corrupted by society. On the other hand is the theory that humans are tainted by original sin, that is, they are naturally inclined to do sinful things (e.g. rape, murder, etc.). One can at least theorize constructing such an experiment and, with a little creativity, find some natural experiments to evaluate.
As far as I know, Dawkins would consider rape and murder (the two examples I gave) to be wrong if not sinful. That’s close enough for this experiment.Show me a test that even an avowed atheist like Richard Dawkins can perform and come to the same conclusion that the Pope would arrive at - a sin.
No it’s not. The claim wasn’t about right or wrong, the claim you made was that original sin has strong scientific support. Therefore one must be able to test for sin.As far as I know, Dawkins would consider rape and murder (the two examples I gave) to be wrong if not sinful. That’s close enough for this experiment.
The fact that Catholics call murder “sin” and Dawkins would call it “wrong” does not obscure the point I made. You are too hung up on labels and missing the point.No it’s not. The claim wasn’t about right or wrong, the claim you made was that original sin has strong scientific support. Therefore one must be able to test for sin.
No, you are running from your claim. These are not just labels. Sin is a theological concept. You have to *scientifically *prove the existence of God in order to scientificially test for sin because without God there is no sin.The fact that Catholics call murder “sin” and Dawkins would call it “wrong” does not obscure the point I made. You are too hung up on labels and missing the point.
And that has nothing to do with your claim.Simlarly, the Bible describes the universe as having a beginning. This was a controversial claim until relatively recently. (Einstein had rejected it, for example, as being biblical mythology.) The fact that science calls the beginning the “big bang” and the bible calls it “creation” is beside the point.
They are not disjoint concepts. Rape and murder are not merely offensive to God. And the concept of original sin is not merely a claim about God’s disapproval. In fact, most sins can be observed by their earthly consequences but I picked two that are prettty easy to evaluate.No, you are running from your claim. These are not just labels. Sin is a theological concept. You have to *scientifically *prove the existence of God in order to scientificially test for sin because without God there is no sin. And that has nothing to do with your claim.
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.They are not disjoint concepts. Rape and murder are not merely offensive to God. And the concept of original sin is not merely a claim about God’s disapproval. In fact, most sins can be observed by their earthly consequences but I picked two that are prettty easy to evaluate.
Now if they might or might not be, why in the world would you presume that I meant to describe a scientific experiment based on their disjunctive meanings? That’s not a very charitable approch to discussion, is it?They don’t have to be separate concepts but they can be.
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.Other than a historical science I doubt it. unfortunately our Lords DAYS have not yet been calibrated into Human years. so even the Lords 6 days to make heaven and earth will not help.
As for miracles. they wouldn’t be miracles if science understood them.
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.No it’s not. The claim wasn’t about right or wrong, the claim you made was that original sin has strong scientific support. Therefore one must be able to test for sin.
Peace
Tim
You still haven’t done what you said you could do. I am waiting to hear your proposed scientific test for sin.Now if they might or might not be, why in the world would you presume that I meant to describe a scientific experiment based on their disjunctive meanings? That’s not a very charitable approch to discussion, is it?