What to do when contradiction happens?

[Vico]

Vico:

However your question assumes that I posted against a specific statement made and not in general.

You were (and apparently still are) arguing against a position that no one claimed. I was just trying to find out why, but that seems to have been a vain attempt as you are now pivoting to something completely different.

I do not need a person to make a claim to order to express my opinion. As in my first post:

The alleged truth of science is just what is thought to be true so far.

 

[whatistrue]

I do not need a person to make a claim to order to express my opinion.

If you feel the need to for no discernable reason, sure, you can make the statement once. But to keep repeating it in the absence of any contrary statements implies a different purpose or agenda. Not to mention that the opinion is unsupported by the facts, but that is a different discussion that I do not care to engage in at this time.

 

[Vico]

…
If you feel the need to for no discernable reason, sure, you can make the statement once. But to keep repeating it in the absence of any contrary statements implies a different purpose or agenda. Not to mention that the opinion is unsupported by the facts, but that is a different discussion that I do not care to engage in at this time.

You are the only poster that replied to that post of mine.

 

[whatistrue]

And that matters because?

 

[goout]

MasterHaster:

Vico:

Science is limited to the natural, but history is not.

False. Please provide evidence.

Oxford Languanges definition
Science (noun)

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
“the world of science and technology”

Material science is limited by nature. It does not deal with the metaphysical, philosophical, religious world. So science is true, but only in the scope of it’s context.
Science can’t be the whole of Truth, obviously.

 

[Vico]

And that matters because?

I posted to answer you.

 

[whatistrue]

So you insist on the last word? Fine. Go ahead, I don’t really care.

 

[Vico]

So you insist on the last word? Fine. Go ahead, I don’t really care.

No, I was answering your question “And that matters because?” which you asked because I posted “You are the only poster that replied to that post of mine.” It matters because you were due a response.

 

[Vico]

…

Material science is limited by nature. It does not deal with the metaphysical, philosophical, religious world. So science is true, but only in the scope of it’s context.
Science can’t be the whole of Truth, obviously.

Yes, limited. What is used in science is facts and theories. True is defined as “1a1. being in accordance with the actual state of affairs” (Merriam-Webster)

Physicist Michio Kaku said:

“Science, however, is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.”

 

[vsedriver]

Proven authorities are welcome to guide me

so if a proven authority sends you a teacher would you listen?

 

[Abrosz]

so if a proven authority sends you a teacher would you listen?

Of course. Who is a proven authority? Someone who can provide evidence for his claims - WITHOUT referring to another “authority”. Reference is not a problem, per se, some claims are very complicated. But at the end of the “chain or claimants” there has to be a final “authority”, who can demonstrate the veracity of the claim - without referring to ANOTHER authority. For example a physics teacher can demonstrate the laws of physics, WITHOUT referring to a textbook of physics. That is how PROVEN authorities must operate. Otherwise it is just “he said, and she said” - of which it is a dime a dozen.

 

[vsedriver]

Someone who can provide evidence for his claims - WITHOUT referring to another “authority”

so if you had lived at the time of Jesus, you would have accepted Jesus as a proven authority only if you had witnessed his miracles, right?

But you would not have accepted St. Paul as a proven authority. Do I have that right?

 

[anendlesswaltz]

Sorry to have helped revive an eleven day old thread. I think this is very interesting, because i’ve noticed inconsistencies myself. My mom raised all of us going to church from the time i was a preteen and I am a Christian, so I am coming from that context. Like my little sister I’m a lot more intellectual than the church seems to like or approve of much less encourage. I notice things and ask questions and consider alternate explanations i wasn’t taught in church growing up. Like, for example, i consider Genesis chapter 1 through all the way until Abraham to be…what’s the term…like its just a story but its got a moral to it for readers. That’s what i think it is. I do that for a lot of issues.

Here are my points.

1. First and foremost, to believers: God’s Holy Spirit is the same back then as it is now. I don’t think God communicated to people of the OT any different than He does today. Its a relationship that while God might always be close to you, you have to remain close to him to be able to better hear and listen to him and what he’s trying to tell you, teach you, etc. I think that concept applies back then, too. They were just as hard of hearing as we are today. God doesn’t physically possess people and move their hands to write today and i don’t think he would have back then either. Free will.
2. As a believer, you might feel like God wants you to do something and you try to do it. Like how people join seminary to become pastors. Idk its the first example that came to mind. Point is, like above you have to pray and listen and if you’re too wrapped up in this or that and not even bothering to pay attention, you won’t feel God’s answer and will do whatever it is you wanted to do in the first place. I think the scribes who wrote the bible are no different. They are just as wordly and prone to distraction as us today. So, of course the books and chapters they wrote will be prone to error.
3. Here’s the main point of all of this. Again, this is more directed at believers because of all the assumptions. I don’t think its a bad thing that the bible has errors and inconsistencies!! God uses imperfect humans to do stuff for him so clearly he’s fine with imperfection. He could just send angels instead but he chooses to work with us. I I guess like a parent telling their kid to do a chore for them that they know full well will be done much quicker and better if they just did it themselves. Why would we need the Holy Spirit to guide us if the bible was perfect? If we already had a book that was perfect and inerrant and infallible, why do we need a Holy Spirit to teach us and guide us, too? Because its not. That’s why the Holy Spirit is so important.

Sadly, its easier to talk about these things to my athiest sister than it is to talk about it in Christian forums or environments. I get automatically shot down and told the proper way to understand it.

 

[anendlesswaltz]

Also, going off of my above piece, I think it would have literally been a bit of a ‘mindblown’ moment if God forced knowledge into the heads of the scribes so they could write it accurately, perfectly, containing no scientific errors or contradictions or anything else. I think the scribes wrote the books and wrote history how they knew and had heard of it, so its limited to their educational background and hindered by their bias and personal opinions and beliefs in the matter. For example, one of the books of the Gospel places Jesus’ crucifixion as a day before everyone else’s does. John’s, if i remember right. Yes, i’m about to go open a bible and confirm i remember it right…

 

[goout]

1. Here’s the main point of all of this. Again, this is more directed at believers because of all the assumptions. I don’t think its a bad thing that the bible has errors and inconsistencies!! God uses imperfect humans to do stuff for him so clearly he’s fine with imperfection. He could just send angels instead but he chooses to work with us. I I guess like a parent telling their kid to do a chore for them that they know full well will be done much quicker and better if they just did it themselves. Why would we need the Holy Spirit to guide us if the bible was perfect? If we already had a book that was perfect and inerrant and infallible, why do we need a Holy Spirit to teach us and guide us, too? Because its not. That’s why the Holy Spirit is so important.

Sadly, its easier to talk about these things to my athiest sister than it is to talk about it in Christian forums or environments. I get automatically shot down and told the proper way to understand it.

It’s neither bad nor good that the bible presents contradictions to the human mind. It just is.
1 Human beings are creatures, and as such we don’t share “the mind” of the creator. We don’t perceive or express things in perfect clarity.
2 Scripture is a “joint venture” between God and humanity. As such it will be full of the human element, and that means contradiction. This doesn’t detract from the fact that God reveals God’s self through inspiration.
3 Scripture is incarnational, just like Christ. Christ is the God/man who’s lives a human life of suffering and ultimately a bloody death on the cross, and resurrection. That death is messy. Since scripture “breathes” Christ, scripture should not be held up as a perfect and spotless idol separate from Christ. Scripture is going to entail the bloodiness and messiness and confusion of human existence.

Scripture is not better that it’s master and fulfillment, Jesus Christ.

 

[Abrosz]

so if you had lived at the time of Jesus, you would have accepted Jesus as a proven authority only if you had witnessed his miracles, right?

Yes.

But you would not have accepted St. Paul as a proven authority. Do I have that right?

Nope. The mere word of someone is insufficient.

 

[vsedriver]

so philosophy has no authority to define truth

vsedriver:

so if you had lived at the time of Jesus, you would have accepted Jesus as a proven authority only if you had witnessed his miracles, right?

Yes.

but you couldn’t accept Jesus as a proven authority even after witnessing his miracles. That would require you to accept that the supernatural exists, which you can’t accept because there is no provable evidence, by your standard, that the supernatural exists. It’s impossible to prove that the supernatural exists using natural means, AKA science. If it could be proven with natural means it wouldn’t be supernatural by definition.

Jesus would have to provide you with evidence that his act was indeed supernatural. In fact, in order for you to believe in the supernatural you would have to personally experience the supernatural and not just witness what appears to be supernatural.

 

[mary77]

like what? like the bible says the sea turned to blood and it was really red algae? A pastor told us at the beginninng of a bible study class that the bible contains many storys where the truth is being told using images of the times it was written. The sea appearing like blood was used to represent changes that seem impossible except for God. And what is science? The study of what is and is alway expanding…

 

[Abrosz]

Jesus would have to provide you with evidence that his act was indeed supernatural. In fact, in order for you to believe in the supernatural you would have to personally experience the supernatural and not just witness what appears to be supernatural.

That is what I said. Of course the problem is complicated. To prove omniscience would require to reveal the future. But as soon as the future revealed, I would use my free will to deviate from that revealed future, and thereby disproving omniscience.

The objection, namely that Jesus (or God) will not play my “game” and would not reveal the future, also disproves another feature that God allegedly has: “sovereignty”. Because it would mean that God’s omniscience is not absolute, it is contingent upon NOT revealing it. And since God is “simple”, his essence is inseparable from his existence and his knowledge is contingent, therefore God is contingent - contrary to what the philosophers say. That is why I say that the God of the bible has NOTHING to do with the God of the philosophers.

So, no matter how you slice it, there is something wrong with the attributes what God allegedly has. It does not disprove the existence of a supernatural entity, but it DOES disprove the assumed characteristics of this entity. Omniscience is gone. And if there is no omniscience, there is no omnipotence either. So what remains of God?

 

[vsedriver]

To prove omniscience would require to reveal the future.

why would omniscience be required to reveal the future? Omniscience could also reveal your inner most self. Something that is only known to you or an omniscient being.