Does the Bible ever contradict scientific observation?

[McCulloch]

The Bible will never contradict scientific observation, maybe confuse it with a miracle or two, … .

Is this a true statement? If you disagree, please be specific as to where the writers of the Bible contradict scientific observation. Show that the passage was not intended metaphorically and that the event was not explainable by miraculous divine intervention.

[Volbrigade]

Science is about spending taxpayer's money and fraud, lots of fraud, especially in medical research.

Except when you use your computer, or need penicillin, or a heart transplant, or when you want to watch satellite TV, or use your smartphone.

Then, suddenly, science is just A-OK. Then it works just fine.

Science is just fine but better still to retain your original attributes at birth
of hearing, seeing, feeling, walking, healthy brain, heart etc. in which
science was no involved.

Well played, sir.

Which is greater -- the techniques (technology) which we apply to analyzing the supernatural miracle (properly understood -- "The Grand Miracle") that is our natural world; and the manipulation of it through the manufacture technological products:

or the Miracle itself, of which we are organic, thinking, breathing components, and agents of free will? A Miracle the source and cause of which we cannot comprehend? But which is nowhere better expressed than "Let light be"?

I think our secular culture is precisely where Paul prophesied it would be in Romans 1: denying God as our creator, worshipping the objects made by our own "hands", and being "given over" to our own perverse desires as a consequence.

And judging by the tone of many who participate in discussions such as these, it seems evident that "because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold."

[KenRU]

Science is about spending taxpayer's money and fraud, lots of fraud, especially in medical research.

Except when you use your computer, or need penicillin, or a heart transplant, or when you want to watch satellite TV, or use your smartphone.

Then, suddenly, science is just A-OK. Then it works just fine.

Science is just fine but better still to retain your original attributes at birth
of hearing, seeing, feeling, walking, healthy brain, heart etc. in which
science was no involved.

I have poor eyesight. Should I "retain my original attributes" and discard my glasses?

It seems you are forgetting how science has improved our lives when biology (or god if you are a theist) fails us: Pacemakers, blood pressure medicine, eyeglasses, hip/knee/heart/kidney replacements etc.

Science makes those possible. And they improve the quality and length of our lives.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 51 by Volbrigade]

A Miracle the source and cause of which we cannot comprehend?

If as you say the natural world is a/The Miracle...why is it that here you say 'the source and cause of which we cannot comprehend', while elsewhere on the forum you say, in so many words, that God (the Christian God, the God mentioned in the Bible) is the creator of the world?

This isn't the first time I've come across this mutually exclusive dichotomy. You (and others) say you cannot comprehend or understand God, yet will write pages upon pages about what exactly God is like, his attributes etc.
It's like saying "I cannot read French", then proceeding to read Les Miserables in the original French. You just said you can't do it!

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 51 by Volbrigade]

A Miracle the source and cause of which we cannot comprehend?

If as you say the natural world is a/The Miracle...why is it that here you say 'the source and cause of which we cannot comprehend', while elsewhere on the forum you say, in so many words, that God (the Christian God, the God mentioned in the Bible) is the creator of the world?

Thanks for the question.

Yes, I believe that God is the "creator of the world." I also believe that He is vastly -- infinitely? -- beyond our comprehension. After all, a God that we could comprehend and understand wouldn't be much of a God, would He? But that's not to say we can't know Him "in part", as Paul wrote (1 Cor. 13).

Also, here I am holding the door open. Whatever it is that caused our space-time dimension is beyond it, outside it -- a thing cannot create itself -- and thus beyond our comprehension (or measurement).

As I frequently point out -- a point that is frequently dismissed -- the real question is whether that "uncaused cause" has a Mind, Intelligence, Will. I think the evidence and data point to that being so -- so much so, that I would term it "self-evident".

That being the case, the question then becomes "what sort of a Being -- "God" -- is it?"

And in my experience, the conclusions reached along that line of inquiry lead inexorably to the Biblical God, YHWH, who entered into His creation in the Person of Jesus Christ.

This isn't the first time I've come across this mutually exclusive dichotomy. You (and others) say you cannot comprehend or understand God, yet will write pages upon pages about what exactly God is like, his attributes etc.
It's like saying "I cannot read French", then proceeding to read Les Miserables in the original French. You just said you can't do it!

Well, first -- allow me to thank you for the civil tone. We don't agree on much, but we're able to do so without becoming truculent. Here, you use a valid -- but, I think, for the reasons I'll express -- inaccurate analogy, without resorting to the seemingly obligatory personal attacks ("because you're a 'wishful thinker', 'delusional', 'oblivious'," etc.) displayed so prominently in a recently-locked thread related to the solar eclipse.

The reason I can write for pages about the attributes of God is because they are manifest. But two of those attributes -- He is eternal, and He is infinite -- preclude anything but the most infinitesimal comprehension of Him. I could write until the day I die, and not even scratch the surface.

And here is the wonderful part:

the things we most cannot comprehend about Him are not His power and glory, and the way He was able to "speak" (from His imagination) the universe into reality, as incomprehensible as that is --

but what those of us who choose to will spend an eternity comprehending, and experiencing directly -- in addition to that Power and Glory -- are His Goodness, and Love.

And, if you agree with G. K. Chesterton -- and I do -- His boundless "Mirth".

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 54 by Volbrigade]

Then I ask a request of you. In the future, please do not say "we cannot comprehend", when instead, you mean "we can understand, in part".

I am not fluent in French. I can read some sentences, understand some of what I hear when in conversation, but I would never say "I cannot comprehend French". To say so would be inaccurate. To say that phrase would be to have the person I am talking to think I cannot comprehend or understand even the most minute part.

But two of those attributes -- He is eternal, and He is infinite -- preclude anything but the most infinitesimal comprehension of Him. I could write until the day I die, and not even scratch the surface.

To give a mathematical analogy, it is possible to work with infinite series and come out with answers.

the things we most cannot comprehend about Him are not His power and glory, and the way He was able to "speak" (from His imagination) the universe into reality, as incomprehensible as that is --

If I change the above sentence, remove the negatives, to make it easier to parse, I come out with

the things we most comprehend about Him are His power and glory, and the way He was able to "speak" (from His imagination) the universe into reality, as incomprehensible as that is --

It seems to me here that you are claiming to understand this thing about God, above all other things about him, how he created the world.
Please explain this. What is the process behind the creation of the world? I'd like a detailed explanation please, something like if I asked a physicist to explain the Big Bang. (Note that the physicist will be able to cite evidences from the real world). (Also note that deferring to the Bible is disbarred, as you will remember from our discussion in the Ask a User thread, as this would be an example of circular logic).

[Volbrigade]

We seem to be having a little bit of a semantical impasse here.

[Replying to post 54 by Volbrigade]

Then I ask a request of you. In the future, please do not say "we cannot comprehend", when instead, you mean "we can understand, in part".

I am not fluent in French. I can read some sentences, understand some of what I hear when in conversation, but I would never say "I cannot comprehend French". To say so would be inaccurate. To say that phrase would be to have the person I am talking to think I cannot comprehend or understand even the most minute part.

Semantics.

I can understand, to some extent, some basics of quantum mechanics. But I cannot comprehend how a photon can exist as a particle and a wave. Or how every photon in the universe can be connected to every other one, in real time. I can understand, by analog, the concept of the Trinity. But I cannot comprehend it.

I'll stick to "comprehend". If that troubles you, it is indeed unfortunate.

But two of those attributes -- He is eternal, and He is infinite -- preclude anything but the most infinitesimal comprehension of Him. I could write until the day I die, and not even scratch the surface.

To give a mathematical analogy, it is possible to work with infinite series and come out with answers.

I think you mean "impossible". Care to explain?

the things we most cannot comprehend about Him are not His power and glory, and the way He was able to "speak" (from His imagination) the universe into reality, as incomprehensible as that is --

If I change the above sentence, remove the negatives, to make it easier to parse, I come out with

the things we most comprehend about Him are His power and glory, and the way He was able to "speak" (from His imagination) the universe into reality, as incomprehensible as that is --

It seems to me here that you are claiming to understand this thing about God, above all other things about him, how he created the world.

Really?

"I cannot understand how you cannot see that 2 + 2 = 4."

Take out the negatives, to make it "easier to parse":

"I can understand how you can see that 2 + 2 =4."

Do those sentences have the same meaning?

Please explain this. What is the process behind the creation of the world? I'd like a detailed explanation please, something like if I asked a physicist to explain the Big Bang. (Note that the physicist will be able to cite evidences from the real world). (Also note that deferring to the Bible is disbarred, as you will remember from our discussion in the Ask a User thread, as this would be an example of circular logic).

I'd be glad to give you a detailed explanation. If I could comprehend it. But it is beyond my comprehension. And yours. And everyone else's.

I can tell you my understanding:

That God did it.

Because everything else is irrational.

I forgot about our "Ask a User"convo! I got so busy with the bevy of Whateverist bandits I attracted on the "Eclipse" thread...

I might go back to that one... but not now. Gotta go...

[H.sapiens]

When God created plant life, there was no man or animal to see it or make use of it. But God saw that it was good. So, God creating the plants doesn't imply that they were visible or touchable; they could exist as seeds in the ground, or even as spores or seeds in meteors.

Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them�; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Does this really sound like a description of invisible untouchable seeds?

They were not visible by Man, because there was neither Man nor animal, as I wrote. But they certainly were not invisible to God. God saw that it was good.

Really? Last time I checked plants required light in the visible spectrum to grown, now ... did your god alter the plants' needs or did it blind humans to some portion of the spectrum that is now visible?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 56 by Volbrigade]

Semantics.

I can understand, to some extent, some basics of quantum mechanics.

No. Let me show you why I took you to task. Here is the sentence you originally said

A Miracle the source and cause of which we cannot comprehend?
(A Miracle = the world, or the natural world)

Basically, when I read that sentence, in my mind, appeared this
Source/Cause of 'The World = ______
As in, you seemed to me to be saying, in Post 51, that you have this thing (the natural world, which you called a miracle) and then saying that the cause and/or source for this is something you do not know, understand or comprehend. Basically, what goes to the right of the equals sign is an unknown for you, according to the sentence you wrote.

When someone says that something is an unknown to them, they are then being hypocritical when they talk at great length about it.

I think you mean "impossible". Care to explain?

http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/ ... asics.aspx

While I am no great mathematician myself, I am aware that it is possible to do work with infinite series, as in a sequence of numbers that tends off towards infinity and yet work out answers in a finite series of steps.
Basically, I was refuting your claim that because God is infinite, you could spend the rest of your life writing about him and not even scratch the surface. This doesn't necessarily have to be true.

Really?

"I cannot understand how you cannot see that 2 + 2 = 4."

Take out the negatives, to make it "easier to parse":

"I can understand how you can see that 2 + 2 =4."

Do those sentences have the same meaning?

It's a simple case of double negatives in writing. If I cannot comprehend Not-X, this means I can comprehend Not-Not-X (so like in mathematics, a double negative turns into a positive), or I can comprehend X.

The difference between what you said and the 2+2 example here is that what you said up above is you talking about yourself (We most cannot comprehend not his power and glory), whereas this example is you talking about another person.

I'd be glad to give you a detailed explanation. If I could comprehend it. But it is beyond my comprehension. And yours. And everyone else's.

And yet, you'll tell me that some specific thing X is behind it?

I can tell you my understanding:

That God did it.

So does this phrase have any specific meaning then? Does the word 'God' denote any particular thing, that is not some other thing? What does 'did' mean? 'It'?
If as you say you cannot comprehend it, and thus cannot give me a detailed explanation, in what way is that four word phrase different from

'That xmyrgzoylk frittzled the irrs'?

I cannot comprehend the phrase in blue. Can you? If I said that that is the explanation for the cause of the universe, would you believe me? Especially if I said it in conjunction with "I cannot give a detailed explanation, I cannot comprehend it"?

To sum it up - saying "I cannot understand, cannot give a detailed explanation, but 'God did it' is empty. Meaningless. I do not understand what is meant by 'God did it'. You have disqualified yourself from explaining it and also disqualified EVERYONE from explaining it, so of what use or worth is the phrase? Why try to promote it as the truth, while at the same time declaring that neither you nor anyone else can understand it?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 58 by rikuoamero]

I mean, while you may be trying to hone in on Volbrigade's method of operation, we all know where this leads. He will declare, using at best a non sequitur, and at worst an ad hoc justification, that because the incomprehensible super thing that made the universe "probably" exists, therefore you need to accept Jesus as your lord and savior.

Nevermind the clear artificiality of the Christian religion that lends to it being more likely as a fever dream than a blueprint of reality, but that would require us to listen to another rant from Volbrigade that boils down to his own personal incredulity that anyone human could possibly have knowledge or beliefs outside of his own limited headspace.

We all know where this is going, we know that the debate will not be advanced because Volbrigade tends to crack under the pressure of specificity in language, and we all know that a standard creationist ploy is to backtrack into as much nebulous language as possible to declare without justification that they are right, because they are raised and indoctrinated to believe that their dishonest tactics are an actually valid means of identifying an disseminating truth. He speaks a different language, one that is so circular as to make it clear why he can't actually convince anyone: Because if anyone ever tried to form a philosophical basis for scientific inquiry based on what Volbrigade of all people wrote, they would crash and burn due to the glaring inconsistencies.

His religion notwithstanding, this debate was doomed from the start.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 58 by rikuoamero]

So, it seems we have a semantics, AND a "comprehension" issue.

I'll pass on splitting hairs with you regarding the meaning of words that are nearly synonymous, according to thesaurus.com(comprehension, and understanding). "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". And -- have you ever seen an infinite number? Can you prove one exists? If so -- please do.

Let's get back to substance, if possible.

I maintain that whatever it is that caused this grand miracle of a universe is beyond our comprehension. If you disagree, then the onus is on you to share your comprehension of it.

I guess your point is that I claim God did it. And that I express my comprehension of God, so I am contradicting myself.

But that's not the case at all. I can comprehend -- in a limited sense; you do know that there is such a thing as "limited comprehension", don't you? -- what God has done, and what He has told us about what he has done, and what He has revealed to use through His artwork (i.e., "nature"), and the Scriptures He has inspired. But I cannot comprehend His eternal, infinite attributes, because I am temporal and finite. That is, I don't fully share His mode of existence; though I have entered the eternal life, via my justification.

Similarly: unless you can prove otherwise, you cannot comprehend whatever it is (besides God) that caused this universe; but you can comprehend -- again, in a limited sense, unless you know all there is to know about it -- many aspects of the universe we both inhabit.

I hope that's settled.

Neat -- I don't read your posts anymore. They're too unpleasant. I glance at them, until I am satisfied that it is just another anti-Christian screed, with unflattering remarks about yours truly. I am weary of them. If you want to consider changing your tone, and approach, I might consider changing my mind. Same goes for H.S.