05 // Does Science Disprove the Bible?

[@justsomebloke6784]

The phrase gish-gallop comes to mind, Where do you even start with that amount of wrong. The guy is so earnest, and so clearly absolutely believes every word he's saying. Further, he may well be a perfectly resonable person in other areas of his life, we all have our blind spots after all. But in this particular area he has descended into sophistry. He uses similar rhetoric strategies to those I used before developing the ability to say "I don't know", when I don't know something. The liberation from the desire to be right all the time has altered my whole thought process, I'm still a wordy sort, but I'm hungry for the world around me rather than seeing it as a threat with me the victim of oppression. So many times during this sermon, I've thought "WTF?", but there's no respite to explore thoughts before racing on to the next almost completely irrelevant soundbite. As I said before, after watching the How to Patronise Skeptics video, (which I've expanded on here), these sermons are pure brainwashing material, designed to entrench his followers in his brand of theism; to build his own flock from which to fill his belly, and feed his ego. I don't imagine he's aware, I Imagine that he thinks what he's doing is god's work, but I just reel from the arrogance of deciding that god has annointed you his mouthpeice, so you are 'a good person', and your thoughts are divine in nature. Again, tautological thinking rears it's head in top form, it would take a week to dismantle that barrage of nonsense. I'm a little ray of sunshine ain't I?

[@terryrathman1688]

Assertions abound from materialist, all that exists is matter. Also many explain non-physical or meta-phy questions (mind, will, free choice) by asserting they are illusions. Is that really an answer?

[@DeconvertedMan]

I really love this bit "No matter what people tell you, no matter what you read...." that's great. What a wonderful idea that is! Yeah, no matter what - this thing (X) is going to be what you say it is, haahhahaha ahhh good times. Yeah, sure. What a way to just negate ever learning you are wrong! Haahahaha. No.

[@BlasterMaster80]

They think we didn't listen to the whole thing or understand it; even though I quoted and time stamped what I was referencing.

[@I_am_Mister_Y]

"The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses". "The Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this" - Albert Einstein.

[@BlasterMaster80]

Let me quote you here. "I'm not a scientist, but God and science are not in conflict." I'm not so sure your underqualification's enable you to properly evaluate such things. You clearly have a laymen's view of science, at best. I suppose, it also depends on how you view the bible. Do you think the earth is six thousand years old and rest upon pillars with a firmament? Do you think that the earth and light, existed before the sun, as stated in genesis? I think a better way to phrase this would have been, a God doesn't necessarily conflict with science. That would of been accurate. But you then went onto say "No matter what people tell you, or what you read, they're actually not in conflict." As we determined above, that depends on how you interpret it, doesn't it? I also think that makes it sound like you're not even open to the idea that you could be mistaken. You're teaching that people shouldn't even bother examining these things openly or honestly. This comes across as you being and teaching people to be extremely closed off to new and or outside information. 4:20 Where did God get the dirt from? I get that it's a joke. But I think the point is moot; when you think God created everything ex nihilo, aka from nothing. "Science does not conflict with a God" Again, it depends on your view of God and interpretation of reality. You certainly can believe things from the bible that clearly and demonstrably conflict with science. I'll give an example of something that happened to me yesterday at a bible study. The person leading the bible study stated that corporal punishment for children in school and at home was a good thing. I asked if they denied decades of research that demonstrate otherwise. Their answer was, yes, because the bible says so. Now, if you don't think that that's a direct admission that these Christians didn't care that the bible directly conflicts with science, I don't know what is. I'm sure, I could come up with dozens of more examples, I'm pretty sure you even hold beliefs that are from the bible, that conflict directly with what we actually observe within science. "Science can't answer X,Y,Z." Sir, do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Are you saying, your God exist in the ever receding pockets of ignorance within science? The academic dismissed the questions as foolish because he understands they're fallacious in nature, something you clearly don't. I like how you think the academic is being arrogant, when you're literally waving your ignorance around like a flag, like it's something to be proud of. You don't understand how to identify fallacious reasoning, and you accuse the academic of being arrogant for dismissing it, hilarious. So, you want people to present a genetic fallacy to non believers? And you think that's supposed to satisfy the non believers question about science conflicting with the bible? It's like the poor reasoning just floods out of you, openly. As to the stupid tea pot analogy. Is it beneficial for us as a social species; if we go around poisoning our mothers? No, the answer is no. And I didn't require any God, to arrive at that conclusion. It's like all reason, rational thought, and empathy, go out the window with you guys if you're God stops existing tomorrow, it's wild.

[@ugprayer3031]

First of all, I’m glad you can quote the host. That at least shows you were paying attention to some of the podcast but, due to the rest of your comment I’m not so sure you paid attention to the whole thing. In regards to this podcast, it doesn’t matter one bit how you, me, the host, or anyone else views the Bible. It doesn’t matter if any of us believe in a 6000 year old earth, or if the earth and light existed before the sun or any of that. That’s not his point. His point is simply that science is incomplete. Science doesn’t answer the metaphysical questions of life. If you don’t believe in God or the Bible, that’s fine, but you still have to (or should) come up with answers (and how you got there) for those type of questions. And of course he doesn’t believe the Bible is mistaken, he’s a Christian pastor. He’s doing the podcast for believers to help them engage with folks who claim science has disproven Christianity. So, the starting point for his audience is belief in God and His inerrant Word. Now, let me quote you, “You’re teaching that people shouldn’t even bother examining these things openly or honestly.” I’m pretty sure the host doesn’t say that AT ALL or anything like that. You have to actually watch the podcast in order to comment intelligently. And yeah, way to defer the point from the joke. The joke first of all, is a joke, but secondly, how is the point moot? God created ex nihilo, from nothing, but science has to use things already in existence to observe them. Point being, they are not in conflict. God creates. Science observes. Make your points better man. Regarding your example of what happened at your Bible study (One a side-note, the source of such information is crucial. I have read research that shows corporal punishment can actually be beneficial when done in certain ways, not to mention countless evidentiary evidence for its positive effects.) But, I think your friend at the Bible study could have worded himself or herself a bit better. But you are using the term “science” there rather loosely. I’m not sure I’d call research into subjective effects of corporal punishment, undoubtedly with numerous variables, “science”. But, even if you do, even the interpretation that the Bible supports corporal punishment is disputed. Besides, none of that is the host’s point. He’s saying that science can’t answer everything. It’s incomplete. Now, onto your commentary of the conversation between Lennox and the atheistic scientist, which by the way, I take offense at you calling him the “academic” as if John Lennox is not an academic. Or rather you hinting that Christians have not been some of the most intelligent and academic persons in world history. John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Abraham Kuper, John Flavel, Charles Spurgeon, Adoniram Judson, William Tyndale, C.S. Lewis, I could go on an on. Christians are some of the smartest people that have ever lived. So, I will refer to the atheist scientist as just that, the atheist. The host is right, he was completely being arrogant for dismissing the questions. The reason its arrogant is because its a total cop-out. To simply say, “I’m not going to answer that question because it’s a stupid question” is lazy and denies reality. Just because you think their questions are stupid doesn’t mean everyone does. And besides, who gets to say they’re stupid. Maybe I think your questions are stupid. But again, I go back to the point of his podcast is to help Christians engage with people. Calling someone’s question stupid and not worthy of an answer is not engaging with them. That may be an ok answer for you, but it’s intellectually dishonest and lazy for most. Questions such as, “Why am I here?” “What is the purpose of existence?” What happens after I die?” are human questions that deserve an answer. We don’t get to simply dismiss them because we can’t answer them. Again, to use your words, “It’s like all reason, rational thought, and empathy, go out the window with you guys.” Unbelievable. Lastly, the teapot analogy is brilliant. I think you missed the point. Lennox uses it because it proves that science is incomplete. I’m glad you have chosen not to poison your mother. And I’m glad you don’t need a God to to arrive at that conclusion….but again, that’s not Lennox’s point. His point is not that you needed God to arrive at that conclusion, but that you didn’t need science. In fact, you couldn’t have used science. So, you have decided NOT to poison your mom, good for you. Perhaps you came to that conclusion because you think murder is wrong, or because you don’t want to go to jail for murder, or because your dad would beat you up, etc. Whatever you used to come up with your conclusion is fine, it doesn’t have to be God, but it could’t have been science. That’s the point. Thanks for helping him make it!!

[@BlasterMaster80]

@@ugprayer3031 Do you know what gaslighting is?

[@ugprayer3031]

@@BlasterMaster80 Ha! Good one. Do you know what evasion is?